^ Not obsessed....just making the occasional comment. And disgusted at what is happening to this forum, and how Piss appears to be protected.
^ Not obsessed....just making the occasional comment. And disgusted at what is happening to this forum, and how Piss appears to be protected.
It doesn't occur to you that making repeated off-topic posts attacking someone in a thread they hadn't even posted in is 'what's happening to this forum' and that it's not about me being protected and it's more just that you keep pulling this whiny, pathetic, shite.Originally Posted by Latindancer
Fortunately it is the mobile service providers and not the UK government who decide which mfgr (apart from Huawei) they contract to to build their 5G nets.
The Jap's are still way behind the Scandie's, they know it and are now putting all their effort in to catch up and be competitive in 6G.
"Despite much excitement about a new technology called open RAN, and new 5G vendors like South Korea's Samsung and Japan's NEC, the safest bets are probably Ericsson and Nokia, two Nordic firms that already cater to UK network demands. Ericsson, with its better 5G reputation, is at the front of the queue. Not since a few straggly haired Scandinavians decided to go and harass some English monks has there been this much danger of a Viking takeover. "
Huawei ban risks turning UK into Nordic duopoly | Light Reading
Last edited by lom; 21-07-2020 at 01:50 PM.
It doesn't work quite like that. Have you never heard the phrase "Critical National Infrastructure"?
Communications Act 2003"...Paragraph 70 of Schedule 17 of the Communications Act 2003
amended Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act and this remains one of
the few sections of the former Act still in force. Section 94 allows the
Secretary of State to give directions to providers of public electronic
communications networks, or Ofcom, in the interests of national security, or of
relations with a foreign country."
The operators in Britain are already using a mix of Huawei, Ericson, and Nokia so I don't think that the latter two suddenly would be rejected.
Your link says "without citing sources" which means that it is likely to be bollox alternatively the British government is fishing for a new trading partner.
The only problem is that neither NEC nor Fujitsu has the technology or the capacity needed, the only other mfgr I can see as a possible partner is Chinese ZTE.
No-one said anything about rejecting them - except Huawei.
British digital minister Oliver Dowden last week said Britain was working with its allies to foster stronger rivals to Huawei, naming firms from Finland, Sweden, South Korea and Japan.ZTE FFS that's worse than Huawei.Your link says "without citing sources" which means that it is likely to be bollox alternatively the British government is fishing for a new trading partner. The only problem is that neither NEC nor Fujitsu has the technology or the capacity needed, the only other mfgr I can see as a possible partner is Chinese ZTE.
Lying is a usual state of mind when one is defending the indefensible. Neither Finland, Sweden, Japan nor Korea must furnish their respective government with confidential data. China does.
Neither Finland, Sweden, Japan nor Korea have a whole minority of over one million imprisoned for religious and social re-education - and no, OhOh and K-dyke, as horrific the US system of incarceration is, the judiciary is still generally separate of the government. In China it is not. Not one tiny bit, so spare us the 'whataboutism'
Finland, Sweden, Japan and Korea are considered allies with similarly functioning systems of democratic values.
So yes, stop lying and bing sweeping apologists for regimes and systems you wouldn't live under yet are happy and willing to defend . . . as long as their horrific and medieval machinations don't affect you
Any Link, or reference to this? Huawei is not a State owned corporation, rather privately owned.Neither Finland, Sweden, Japan nor Korea must furnish their respective government with confidential data. China does.
But either way, the US does have these laws in place.
Last edited by harrybarracuda; 22-07-2020 at 11:52 AM.
Everything to do with "legal niceties":
Huawei and the ambiguity of China’s intelligence and counter-espionage laws | The StrategistArticle 7 of the National Intelligence Law (国家情报法) declares:
Any organisation and citizen shall, in accordance with the law, support, provide assistance, and cooperate in national intelligence work, and guard the secrecy of any national intelligence work that they are aware of [emphasis added]. The state shall protect individuals and organisations that support, cooperate with, and collaborate in national intelligence work.
And more, the chinky police are allowed by law to go into any foreign company - with five or more computers - and snoop around their networks, giving them the opportunity to steal anything interesting in the process.
- On November 1, 2018, China issued new provisions to the law titled “Regulations on Internet Security Supervision and Inspection by Public Security Organs” (公安机关互联网安全监督检查规定). The regulations, likely evolved to clarify portions of China’s 2017 Cybersecurity Law, give the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) broad powers over the computer networks of companies in China. These ostensibly include the authority to remotely conduct penetration testing on almost any business operating in China and copy any information related to user data or security measures found during the inspection.
These new provisions specify no limits on the scope of vulnerability or security inspections and require extremely minimal reporting to be provided back to the corporation. Further, the regulations continue to use vague terminology and do not limit the scope of in-person or remote inspections for network security testing. We assess that the combination of existing MSS regulations with these new Cybersecurity Law provisions for the MPS will support Chinese government attempts to both censor and surveil foreign companies.
Let's not forget the founder of Huawei is a (calls himself former hahahaha) chinky spook.
And no, the US does not have "these laws" in place.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)