Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 4)

[Ridgemont]

Condi said:

biggbn said:

Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to this. I had thought that Boris and co were happy with the Chinese tech and, plucky little Englanders, were standing up to the oppressive might of the Donald and ploughing their pwn furrow by using the best and most cost effective equipment available?

Has that changed now?

Yes.

Trump put sanctions on Huawei which restricts their access to US technology. While they produce their own kit, the chips (specifically the chip designs) are American in origin and without access to software which designs the brain of the stuff it means they will either have inferior kit, or chips designed by Chinese software which is much harder to be happy its secure.

There’s a good blog by Ian Levy, Technical Director at the NCSC, explaining why guidance had to change.

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/a-different-futu...

[Ridgemont]

Unknown_User said:

Tuna said:

Unknown_User said:

So who is actually in charge of the UK?

Is it Dom Cum? Or de Pfeffel? Or Donald Trump? Or some mysterious back benchers?

No, you are. With your great wit and humorous name calling, you're running the place.

I'd be interested to hear what you think the UK should do in the circumstances? Militantly buy Huawei kit against the advice of most security experts? Ditch it at great expense the moment someone raises the slightest concern? Rather than repeatedly posting the same question in an attempt to goad, what are you calling for the government to do with regards to China?

The UK should have a Gov that is voted into Number 10 on ability, not populist soundbites. A Gov that can make an informed decision that they are able to stick with. Is this too much to ask?

Other 5G suppliers were/are available but at a cost. What would you prefer our country had, a 5G rollout that costs extra or one that might compromise national security? Or one that panders to Trump?

As per the blog I’ve just linked to from the NCSC, the Huawei set up was adjudged to be manageable.
There’s an even better explanation posted last year as to the technical reasons why.
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/blog-post-securi...

That all changed when US chips could no longer be used.

Stop transforming every single news event into a hobby horse to ride on. Yes we know you don’t like the government.

[Tuna]

Unknown_User said:

The UK should have a Gov that is voted into Number 10 on ability, not populist soundbites. A Gov that can make an informed decision that they are able to stick with. Is this too much to ask?

It's a vacuous thing to ask. Given the international security situation has changed, as has the economic and political situation, demanding the government sticks with a decision that is outdated is idiotic.

Unknown_User said:

Other 5G suppliers were/are available but at a cost. What would you prefer our country had, a 5G rollout that costs extra or one that might compromise national security? Or one that panders to Trump?

We do not have state controlled communications infrastructure, so why demand that the government specifies suppliers? We know that's about the most inefficient means to provision infrastructure. Unless and until there is a credible and significant security issue, it makes no sense to interfere with private companies' decisions on infrastructure. Remember that when the initial decisions were being made on 5G, our situation with China and Huawei was rather different.

So you're asking both that the government has a magic crystal ball to predict the future, and that having made a decision it should refuse to budge when new information comes in.

I should have posted the bingo card for your response - you managed to tick about every box - completely predictable.

[markyb_lcy]

Unknown_User said:

The UK should have a Gov that is voted into Number 10 on ability, not populist soundbites. A Gov that can make an informed decision that they are able to stick with. Is this too much to ask?

Unfortunately it is too much to ask. If populist soundbites win votes more easily and in greater number than selling their abilities as ministers, then populist soundbites will win out. In a nutshell this is how/why populism actually works. If there are short-cuts to power then politicians will use them. Both "sides" have been guilty of this over the last 10 years. Corbyn's Labour party was IMO just as populist as Johnson's govt.

If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the stupidity of the electorate for sucking it up from whomever their "dear leader" is.

[JuniorD]

Unknown_User said:

The UK should have a Gov that is voted into Number 10 on ability, not populist soundbites. A Gov that can make an informed decision that they are able to stick with. Is this too much to ask?

Other 5G suppliers were/are available but at a cost. What would you prefer our country had, a 5G rollout that costs extra or one that might compromise national security? Or one that panders to Trump?

Personally I think we should give the whole 5G thing a miss and and wait it out for 6G, which will be a facelift model with 5-10% more power with no reduction in economy, plus HIDs, panoroof and on 20”s as standard. It’ll make 5G look like the Atari Jaguar of generational global wireless standards.

[don'tbesilly]

Unknown_User said:

don'tbesilly said:

s2art said:

Unknown_User said:

s2art said:

Unknown_User said:

Sadly we have now completely subjugated our domestic infrastructure policy to the Trump White House.


https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-huawei-t...

Alternatively No 10 has finally seen sense and listened to his backbenchers. It took far too long.

So who is actually in charge of the UK?

Is it Dom Cum? Or de Pfeffel? Or Donald Trump? Or some mysterious back benchers?

Given that several back benchers have been on TV to rail against risking our security, they are hardly mysterious.

Facts and imaginary reality, some see one, others use the other.

IDS has been very vocal in regards Huawei, as have many other backbenchers, it's not new, it's not important though when some have an agenda.

de Pfeffel? Only a juvenile repeatedly uses a name that is rarely, if ever used when referring to Boris Jonson.

Juvenile?

If you are going to call out people for using our PM's name, then please would you spell Johnson correctly?

Award yourself a self-adhesive star (to add to the ones Teacher rarely awards) for picking out what was clearly an error, whilst ignoring the rest of the post.

No-one in day-to-day use uses de Pfeffel as Johnson's name when referring to Johnson, can you give an example where anyone has (juveniles aside)?

"Mysterious backbenchers"

Oh.My.Days.

[IforB]

Tuna said:

Unknown_User said:

The UK should have a Gov that is voted into Number 10 on ability, not populist soundbites. A Gov that can make an informed decision that they are able to stick with. Is this too much to ask?

It's a vacuous thing to ask. Given the international security situation has changed, as has the economic and political situation, demanding the government sticks with a decision that is outdated is idiotic.

Unknown_User said:

Other 5G suppliers were/are available but at a cost. What would you prefer our country had, a 5G rollout that costs extra or one that might compromise national security? Or one that panders to Trump?

We do not have state controlled communications infrastructure, so why demand that the government specifies suppliers? We know that's about the most inefficient means to provision infrastructure. Unless and until there is a credible and significant security issue, it makes no sense to interfere with private companies' decisions on infrastructure. Remember that when the initial decisions were being made on 5G, our situation with China and Huawei was rather different.

So you're asking both that the government has a magic crystal ball to predict the future, and that having made a decision it should refuse to budge when new information comes in.

I should have posted the bingo card for your response - you managed to tick about every box - completely predictable.

The risks of using Huawei have not changed. They are still the same as they were, all that has happened is that some of those risk have turned into issues.

Integrating Chinese (or any other nation state controlled technology) tech into our infrastructure has the same problems. Though arguably, China and the way it is known to operate is more of a risk. This was known and discussed even on this board before the decision was taken

This is now just the chickens coming home to roost on that bad strategy.

They made a bad call. The risk has now become too great so they have to backtrack on the original decision and even worse, try and unpick the work that has already been done. They were warned what might happen. It has now happened.

It was a bad decision and this just proves it.

Again, this is not really defensible. They cocked up and put a strategy together that relied on people they cannot control acting in a certain way. Those people have done exactly what people warned they may do (according to the supposed update advice from GCHQ) and the whole strategy has fallen into disrepair and the recovery will take a long time and cost a significant amount of money to rectify.

They seem to specialise in this sort of thing though to be honest. Just look how much Brexit has cost and will cost. They appear to delight in making bad decisions and then looking shocked when reality turns up.

Edited by IforB on Wednesday 15th July 12:39

[markyb_lcy]

Johnson at PMQs today...

PM Boris Johnson said:

Our test-and-trace system is as good as or better than anywhere else in the world.

Is there a single person here that believes this?

[deadslow]

markyb_lcy said:

Johnson at PMQs today...

PM Boris Johnson said:

Our test-and-trace system is as good as or better than anywhere else in the world.

Is there a single person here that believes this?

when Johnson says 'world-leading' or better still 'world-beating' he generally means our version will be a bit st

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the stupidity of the electorate for sucking it up from whomever their "dear leader" is.

"Populist" is what you call a democratically elected government that is not doing what you want.

Let's be honest, if Magic Grandpa had got in after his barnstorming performance at Glastonbury, us right-wingers would be calling the Labour government populist.

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the stupidity of the electorate for sucking it up from whomever their "dear leader" is.

"Populist" is what you call a democratically elected government that is not doing what you want.

Let's be honest, if Magic Grandpa had got in after his barnstorming performance at Glastonbury, us right-wingers would be calling the Labour government populist.

No, Populism is about defining in and out groups and then setting your in group against the out group whilst painting the out group as an in group (elite).

Both main parties have been guilty of doing this recently. A party doesn't need to be in govt to be described as populist.

[biggbn]

Ridgemont said:

Condi said:

biggbn said:

Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to this. I had thought that Boris and co were happy with the Chinese tech and, plucky little Englanders, were standing up to the oppressive might of the Donald and ploughing their pwn furrow by using the best and most cost effective equipment available?

Has that changed now?

Yes.

Trump put sanctions on Huawei which restricts their access to US technology. While they produce their own kit, the chips (specifically the chip designs) are American in origin and without access to software which designs the brain of the stuff it means they will either have inferior kit, or chips designed by Chinese software which is much harder to be happy its secure.

There’s a good blog by Ian Levy, Technical Director at the NCSC, explaining why guidance had to change.

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/a-different-futu...

Thanks to those who answered. I'm still unsure how I feel about all this. We, as a country, are then jumping through hoops imposed by Trump's administration? Is this a foreshadowing of how our new found 'independence ' will work?

Edited by biggbn on Wednesday 15th July 13:20

[robemcdonald]

JuniorD said:

Unknown_User said:

The UK should have a Gov that is voted into Number 10 on ability, not populist soundbites. A Gov that can make an informed decision that they are able to stick with. Is this too much to ask?

Other 5G suppliers were/are available but at a cost. What would you prefer our country had, a 5G rollout that costs extra or one that might compromise national security? Or one that panders to Trump?

Personally I think we should give the whole 5G thing a miss and and wait it out for 6G, which will be a facelift model with 5-10% more power with no reduction in economy, plus HIDs, panoroof and on 20”s as standard. It’ll make 5G look like the Atari Jaguar of generational global wireless standards.

Based on your recent contributions, maybe you should give the humour a miss.

[Tuna]

IforB said:

Again, this is not really defensible. They cocked up and put a strategy together that relied on people they cannot control acting in a certain way. Those people have done exactly what people warned they may do (according to the supposed update advice from GCHQ) and the whole strategy has fallen into disrepair and the recovery will take a long time and cost a significant amount of money to rectify.

It's ironic that the same people who say we're a tiny nation incapable of going alone, and that we shouldn't think of running things like our own GPS system are also the experts who say we should go it alone and build our own communications infrastructure because we can't rely on others for our security.

Also amusing that you led your attack with "nothing has changed", followed by "something has changed". Which is it?

And then we have the unique situation where you're complaining it will cost money, having already stated that choosing other vendors would have... cost money.

Doublethink at work

Banning Huawei is a pretty big step and is going to have serious repercussions. I'm not going to claim to have all of the information that's driving these decisions. To me it looks messy and reactionary and potentially lead to long term consequences internationally. However, anyone saying there was an obvious and easy choice we should have made is selling snake oil.

[Tuna]

biggbn said:

Thanks to those who answered. I'm still unsure how I feel about all this. We, as a country, are then jumping through hoops imposed by Trump's administration? Is this a foreshadowing of how our new found 'independence ' will work?

No difference from our dependence on the EU. We'd still be pulled around by international political tensions.

The vast majority of the technology in our lives either comes from America or China. If either of those two "change the rules" we'll be affected - and would have been affected as members of the EU, which has been singularly ineffective when it comes to addressing the political issues with China.

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

IforB said:

Again, this is not really defensible. They cocked up and put a strategy together that relied on people they cannot control acting in a certain way. Those people have done exactly what people warned they may do (according to the supposed update advice from GCHQ) and the whole strategy has fallen into disrepair and the recovery will take a long time and cost a significant amount of money to rectify.

It's ironic that the same people who say we're a tiny nation incapable of going alone, and that we shouldn't think of running things like our own GPS system are also the experts who say we should go it alone and build our own communications infrastructure because we can't rely on others for our security.

Also amusing that you led your attack with "nothing has changed", followed by "something has changed". Which is it?

And then we have the unique situation where you're complaining it will cost money, having already stated that choosing other vendors would have... cost money.

Doublethink at work

Which people are saying this and engaging in the doublethink you're accusing? Certainly IforB's comment which you quoted in your response isn't saying either of those things.

Most sane people will realise the UK won't be building out 5G infrastructure without some outside (international) assistance. There's a big difference between using a (for example) Scandinavian supplier vs that of a known rogue state (China).

[Tuna]

markyb_lcy said:

Which people are saying this and engaging in the doublethink you're accusing? Certainly IforB's comment which you quoted in your response isn't saying either of those things.

I believe Ifor was saying we shouldn't be relying on infrastructure providers that pose a security risk?

I also believe he's on record as being strongly against Brexit as we cannot survive without the EU etc?

He can perhaps tell us if he commented on the UK government buying into the satellite network firm a week or so ago, but I'm pretty sure the same people (Piha and others) who rushed to condemn that 'ridiculous Brexiteer expense' are the ones who are now saying we shouldn't have hesitated to spend more on 5G infrastructure that we controlled ourselves.

[biggbn]

Tuna said:

No difference from our dependence on the EU. We'd still be pulled around by international political tensions.

The vast majority of the technology in our lives either comes from America or China. If either of those two "change the rules" we'll be affected - and would have been affected as members of the EU, which has been singularly ineffective when it comes to addressing the political issues with China.

I am pro Brexit, to use that dreadful hybrid word, but with regards things like this im not sure we are any better off. Im afraid i view America and China with equal disdain as potential trading partners in this sector. Both are obsessed with command and control of information for similar ends and I would much rather be beholden to neither. If it came down to a good old fashioned capitalism decision of quality/price im afraid i see no huge ethical problem with plumping for China over America , but i do admit to having little knowledge of the tech industry.

[IforB]

Tuna said:

IforB said:

Again, this is not really defensible. They cocked up and put a strategy together that relied on people they cannot control acting in a certain way. Those people have done exactly what people warned they may do (according to the supposed update advice from GCHQ) and the whole strategy has fallen into disrepair and the recovery will take a long time and cost a significant amount of money to rectify.

It's ironic that the same people who say we're a tiny nation incapable of going alone, and that we shouldn't think of running things like our own GPS system are also the experts who say we should go it alone and build our own communications infrastructure because we can't rely on others for our security.

Also amusing that you led your attack with "nothing has changed", followed by "something has changed". Which is it?

And then we have the unique situation where you're complaining it will cost money, having already stated that choosing other vendors would have... cost money.

Doublethink at work

Banning Huawei is a pretty big step and is going to have serious repercussions. I'm not going to claim to have all of the information that's driving these decisions. To me it looks messy and reactionary and potentially lead to long term consequences internationally. However, anyone saying there was an obvious and easy choice we should have made is selling snake oil.

Have you actually read what I wrote?

[markyb_lcy]

Tuna said:

markyb_lcy said:

Which people are saying this and engaging in the doublethink you're accusing? Certainly IforB's comment which you quoted in your response isn't saying either of those things.

I believe Ifor was saying we shouldn't be relying on infrastructure providers that pose a security risk?

I also believe he's on record as being strongly against Brexit as we cannot survive without the EU etc?

He can perhaps tell us if he commented on the UK government buying into the satellite network firm a week or so ago, but I'm pretty sure the same people (Piha and others) who rushed to condemn that 'ridiculous expense' are the ones who are now saying we shouldn't have hesitated to spend more on 5G infrastructure that we controlled ourselves.

You're applying some quite stark conflation and over-simplification here, Tuna. C'mon ... you're better than this.