US minister invokes Maggie Thatcher, says she would have halted Huawei 5G rollout Margaret Thatcher would not let Huawei build Britain's 5G networks, US foreign secretary Mike Pompeo claimed yesterday as British ministers suggested the rollout may be delayed for security reasons. Pompeo was visiting Britain to deliver a bollocking over the UK government's decision to continue allowing Huawei to build the …
his ravings are becoming ever more the stuff of fantasies. Maybe he is smoking something really good, or perhaps spending too much time close to Trump has gotten him infected with some nasty brain worm.
He talks about Chinese law ... I hope that someone reminded him of USA law, in particular the Patriot Act.
James Comey has a strong opinion about what working for Trump means.
(spoiler alert, it ends with "And then you are lost. He has eaten your soul.")
Remarkably, Bolton is probably the only one who HASN'T lost his soul to Trump. He was a classic neocon warmonger before, and is a classic neocon warmonger today. Trump wasn't talking about possibly starting new wars until Bolton came along, so if anything the effect has been the opposite since during the campaign Trump kept talking about how he wanted to keep the US out of stupid wars. I don't know any other way to describe the possibility of the US getting militarily involved in Venezuela...
The law in China REQUIRES common citizens and companies to spy on the west, at every opportunity. This means if they sell hardware that can spy on you, they are required to write in code that does so.
Since bleeding heart liberals will demand source, and won't bother to lookup stuff on their own thanks to their steady diet of CNN and other media, here is a direct quote from a law professor that has analyzed this law:
"The Intelligence Law… repeatedly obliges individuals, organizations, and institutions to assist Public Security and State Security officials in carrying out a wide array of “intelligence” work. Article Seven stipulates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.”"
(SOURCE: Dr. Murray Scot Tanner, Lawfare)
The Patriot Act, as abhorrent as it is, does not require citizens and companies to spy on others. In short: get your facts right please.
The law in China REQUIRES common citizens and companies to spy on the west, at every opportunity.
Beijing’s New National Intelligence Law: From Defense to Offense
Summary: it's bad, but no, it doesn't require spying from ordinary citizens. It's almost as though you provided no link in the hopes that no one would bother to search for your reference.
From your own link:
The Intelligence Law, by contrast, repeatedly obliges individuals, organizations, and institutions to assist Public Security and State Security officials in carrying out a wide array of “intelligence” work. Article Seven stipulates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.”
You'll note the word CITIZEN in that sentence.
"You'll note the word CITIZEN in that sentence."
You'll note the word "assist" in that sentence. You'll also note that further in the article it discuss what that assistance is, and no, it doesn't involve active spying, although opening up databases and revealing user lists (among other things) to authorities is still very bad.
Please, please fuck off.
It might work in your small circle, invoking Chinese people as something to be feared.
In this country, we still have a little bit more class, so please fuck off.
The danger to the world is not China. It's not China that has over 800 Military bases around the world
[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321]
The law of every country requires you to assist the security services, so what?
If your telco network is so insecure that it matters who makes the kit, you are hosed already,
Oh and all the kit is made in China, regardless of the vendor badge. So again, please fuck off.
Apologies if I was inadvertently polite.
I take it you've never worked for a secret or above rated organization in the US before. Had you done so, you would have been briefed on specific laws, specific documentation, and specific reasons why this is a concern.
Show me what other country has a law REQUIRING you to spy on another entity. Please, do so. Then I'll gladly, to quote you, f-ck off.
Sure you work for the super secret services, but you're willing to blow your cover to win arguments on the internet.
I totally believe you, you are totally credible. Numpty.
We have laws that require us to help the services on demand, in Blighty, the land of the (rented) flea (pit), and the home of the (skoda) brava.
RIPA UK https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ripa-decryption_keys_power/
https://www.revk.uk/2014/05/is-ripa-fit-for-purpose.html
Hint plenty of people on here have actually served, (not me), so be careful with your rubbish, otherwise you'll get another spanking, now fuck off back under your bridge.
"Sure you work for the super secret services, but you're willing to blow your cover to win arguments on the internet."
Yes, more evidence that you're blowing smoke out your bum, or in other words have no clue what you're talking about. Companies that fall under this category are not government departments in some shady part of town. They develop tools and equipment for a government entity such as the DOD with an S category; such as Tyco, Raytheon, Cobham, hell even munitions companies can fall under this to a degree. I repeat, IF you had worked for companies working in the secret or higher spectrum of projects, you'd know precisely WHY this is a problem and WHAT the impact is if you f-ck it up.
Oh dear, here's a lawsuit over a company that according to you doesn't exist, blimey what will they claim next?!? I look forward to your scathing letter to the editor about their made up organizations!
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/19/tyco_lunchtime_pay_settlement/
The lease that we had on HK expired and we had to give it back. Simple as that really. We were never really in a position to argue with the chinese once Mao had taken over.
PM's up to Major were more concerned about an orderly transition to post Colonial Rule than anything else.
Technically this is not completely accurate. The 99 year lease was for the New Territories - Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded in perpetuity (in two separate treaties). However, the New Territories formed the bulk of the area generally referred to as Hong Kong and were essential to the economy of the colony. Returning the whole colony was pragmatically the only sensible thing to do.
Why do people not read things properly? Honestly I expected more on here, the key word to look at is "Unavoidable" and if you look into the details of it she did concede quite a bit of what we asked for, again not that we had any options anyway. So tell me oh wise sage where in my post do I say it was not unavoidable?
'KING' TURNIP:: Go and tell your master that we have been charged by God with a sacred quest. If he will give us food and shelter for the night, he can buy our Holy Wall.
CHINESE-TYPE GUARD PERSON: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. Uh, he's already got one, you see.
'KING' TURNIP: What?
NOTLOB: He says they've already got one!
'KING' TURNIP Are you sure he's got one?
CHINESE-TYPE GUARD PERSON: Oh, yes. It's vely nice-a.
Has he not noticed that Maggie was probably the most hated Prime Minister of (at least) the 20th century* so most of us don't really give a monkeys what she may or may not of thought?
"Why would anyone grant such power to a regime that has already grossly violated cyberspace?"
So he doesn't want us to buy US made equipment either then?
(*) not sure whether May is trying to steal her crown in the 21st century ...
Maggie was probably the most hated Prime Minister of (at least) the 20th century
She wasn't, actually. There was a YouGov poll a few years back which gave that crown to Tony Blair (37%), compared to Maggie's 30%. 48% thought she was good, versus Blair's 34%
The current lot have turned their back on Thatcher's proudest achievement, the Single Market.
I think she'd have been very happy if it had stayed as a free single market.
The current centrally-controlled and regulated protectionist apology for a "market" would not have been to her taste.
And he didn't think it through, either.
Would the Iron Lady be silent when China violates the sovereignty of nations through corruption and coercion?
Given how much she sucked up to Saudi Arabia regardless of all their corruption and subsequent coercion (anyone remember the Al-Yamamah arms deals?), I think she might well have remained silent.
In general, if Thatcher would have been for it, most people* should be against it, and vice versa. The woman was the single worst thing to happen to this country post WW2, and her legacy led directly to Blair.
*I.e. People with a social conscience, i.e. not Tories.
This is what worries the USA, not the threat to security (at least not electronic security of 5G networks). I don't understand the concern for 5G security - this is going to be the public communications network, isn't it? That hasn't been properly secure since listening in on telegraph wires was a thing. Every time it gets a bit more so, the intelligence services whine about not being able to crack it easily.
Intelligence shared between the UK and the USA shouldn't ever be anywhere near the public network, and of course we wouldn't build secure networks with dubious hardware. Thus I conclude that Mr Pompeo's invoking of Iron Ladies [1] is more about damaging Chinese commercial opportunities than it is about protecting his secrets.
[1] Was drawing of pentangles on the floor involved?
Indeed. The chinese are accomplishing through ttade and cooperation, what the US has been trying (and ultimately failing) to do by force and coercion.
If China gets its way, all countries, except for the US and possibly its most rabid sycophants will be trading amongst one another, spreading wealth and increasing living standards.
Not only that, if it happens it will leave the US$ worthless and the US isolated.
If the chinese givernment is smart, and from what I've seen they appear to be a LOT smarter than the politicians who are supposedly serving us, they've recognised that that sort of attempt at hegemony does not last.
China has been a more or less cohesive empire for some 5000 years in one form or another.
"China has been a more or less cohesive empire for some 5000 years in one form or another."
Not by a long shot. Until a couple centuries ago, it has always been a hodgepodge of many different kingdoms of various sizes, with the largest (usually) being referred to the the empire. Anything but cohesive...
I'd be happy to sign up to the Chinese paradise on earth of "all countries trading amongst one another, spreading wealth and increasing living standards". However, there's this minor issue when this or that empire, at the peak of its power, if not earlier, tends to spread not only "wealth and increasing living standards" on those less fortunate provinces and colonies, but certain... ideas too. "Democracy" might be such an idea peddled by the US, and I'm not at all happy to accept Chinese variant of "democracy" they're currently testing on their home turf. In short, the US model is a lesser evil, never mind how twisted and detached from the past ideals it has become.
Tsaid, to mention Maggie is just ridiculous, given the context of the current 5G debacle). What would king Æthelstan have said, more like... And who the f.. .cares.
Yes, let's talk about sensitive things. Let's talk about how the USA uses the NSA to grossly violate the privacy of every communication they can get their their grubby mitts on. Let's talk about how the US judiciary sees no problem in claiming it has the right to view emails stored on servers outside of US soil. Let's talk about how Cisco is subject to National Security Letters that can force it to root any of its equipment in the world and divert data to the NSA. Let's talk about NSA wiretaps on international communication lines, where the NSA has no authority.
Let's talk about "sensitive" matters. Let's indeed.
Let's not forget GCHQ here. Britain has some "legal" advantages the US lacks for this kind of thing. The GCHQ is allowed behaviour the NSA wishes it had. The problem with such agencies as NSA and GCHQ is that they exist to spy. Their size and budgets show that someone WANTS them to spy. So, who might those someones be?
You may not be necessarily incorrect, but just because the US does that to their technology companies and therefore assumes that everyone does the same is called projection.
The best way to distract from your own wrong doings is to accuse someone else of the exact same thing you're doing yourself. This is something we see the US govt do time and time again.
The Blair government actively encouraged BT to go with Huawei for 21CN; infrastructure now considered very strategic. This killed Marconi, who had their own digital infrastructure, and who were subsequently sold off to Ericsson for a nice spot of asset stripping. Blair was worse than Thatcher when it came to Britain's strategic interests.
"Ask yourself this. Would the Iron Lady be silent when China violates the sovereignty of nations through corruption and coercion? Would she have welcomed the Belt and Road initiative without demanding absolute transparency and the highest standards? Would she allow China to control the internet of the future?" Pompeo was reported as saying by political journalists.
Look, Mike Pompous. You talk about violating sovereignty through corruption and coercion. What do you think your ravings about the consequences of another sovereign nation choosing to use Huawei kit is?
Is what she was. I always wanted to throw something at the TV screen when she appeared. Strangely enough, Trump has the same effect, She had a thing about nationalised industries. Post Office Telephones (as was, and who I used to work for as an engineer) was actually originally a government department and was running quite happily until Maggie got her sticky hands on it, got it changed to British Telecom, sold it off to all and sundry and it went down the pan from thereon in. Likewise other industries. Gas comes to mind. She was a disaster.
"Look, I know it's a sensitive topic," Pompeo continued, "but we have to talk about sensitive things as friends. As a matter of ChineseAmerican law, the ChineseAmerican government can rightfully demand access to data flowing through Huawei and ZTE American communications systems. Why would anyone grant such power to a regime that has already grossly violated cyberspace?"
She would have assessed the evidence on its merits, and when she'd done with that she'd have gone and told the US to go fuck itself if she wanted to do so - as she did when the US was equally wrong about The Falklands.
May has been pissing me right off lately, well, for a long time - but on this she's bang on right, if anything she's being far too cautious.
Any time the US wants to move their intelligence gathering out of sovereign British territory they're free to do so. No? Didn't think so.
I have no special fondness for Huawei. Or indeed Xi’s government. But at some point the US needs to put up or shut up some hard data about these allegations, otherwise they’re going to run out of credibility. Which would be doubly unfortunate if these allegations turned out to be true.
These are also times when having a POTUS who is perceived as basically shittng on everyone not in his 48% of US voters is a liability.
Hacker: Who else is in this department?
Sir Humphrey: Well briefly, sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary. I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, 87 Under Secretaries and 219 Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretaries are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Hacker: Can they all type?
Sir Humphrey: None of us can type. Mrs Mackay types: she's the secretary.
Minister: Pity, we could have opened an agency.
Sir Humphrey: Very droll, Minister.
Hacker: I suppose they all say that, do they?
Sir Humphrey: Certainly not, Minister. Not quite all...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
