back to article EE and Three mobe mast surveyors might 'upload some virus' to London Tube control centre, TfL told judge

Transport for London tried to block engineers and surveyors from EE and Three carrying out a survey for a new mobile phone mast by telling a judge they “might insert a USB stick into a computer” or “upload some virus”. The comments were made by a barrister acting on London Underground’s behalf when a dispute over rooftop …

  1. Jay 2

    Great now we have someone "official" (from TFL) mentioning the word virus in conjunction with a mobile mast. That will be picked up by the usual nutjobs I'm sure.

    I wonder why everyone is "too busy" in TFL to have a person or two to chaperone said telco types (and ensure they don't make a beeline for the nearest USB socket).

    1. Lon24

      I read it as TfL's case was - it's a secure building but we have no security. Presumably when the bog springs a leak they can't admit a plumber 'cos he could deploy a wrench that could possibly harm a touchscreen. Or even - Mr Kevin Clack (network security and policing manager)

      1. Mr Humbug

        More like: we don't want you shoving a mast on our roof because that means there will be people we don't know demanding access to the roof, possibly at short notice and possibly out of hours. Therefore you can't look at our roof because, erm, terrorism and national security.

        1. keithpeter Silver badge

          Yes, that had occurred to me as well. Perhaps there should be a regulation for buildings like this? Carefully written to make sure its not open season for jobsworths &c.

        2. TechnicalVault

          Does that building even have an "out of hours"?

          There is likely to pretty much no time when that building doesn't have at least a skeleton crew running the place. Tube runs 24 hours on 5 underground lines on Friday and Saturday and even when the tube is shut down there will be a team in coordinating engineering work out of there. It's not like they're going to leave the place unguarded either, there's always going to be security bods hanging around.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Mark 85

      Add to this... the article doesn't mention who owns the building. Apparently it's not TfL which probably could be in a better position to say "no".

      1. Kane
        Trollface

        "Add to this... the article doesn't mention who owns the building. Apparently it's not TfL which probably could be in a better position to say "no"."

        Paragraph 3, 1st sentence:The two mobile network operators wanted to send surveyors onto the roof of a TfL-owned office block in Southwark...

        You're welcome.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          What I don't get, (probably just me) is that the mobile companies feel that they can go round and survey people's building just like that. Nice tall building you got there, let's put a big mast on it....

          Unless it's a case of a TfL bigwig saying go ahead to the mobile phone companies, but not told the people in the building to give permission or give them warning?

        2. juice

          I have to admit, I am mildly bemused by this one, not least because the full sentence reads:

          > The two mobile network operators wanted to send surveyors onto the roof of a TfL-owned office block in Southwark, as the first step to putting a mobile mast on the roof

          So TfL have agreed to have a mast on the roof of this building (presumably for some suitable financial recompense), but have then turned around and decreed that the mobile network engineers can't actually survey the site to see if it's suitable?

          Sounds like a classic case of left hand not meeting the right hand...

          And if I was a betting man, I'd maybe flutter a fiver on the same happening again when it comes time to install said mast ;)

          1. the spectacularly refined chap

            The telcos have legal rights to site masts atop third party buildings whether the owners want them or not, subject to statutory compensation. The article does indicate this but is not as explicit as it could be. No agreement from TfL is needed first as a consequence.

            1. juice

              > No agreement from TfL is needed first as a consequence

              Fair - I wasn't aware of this. Even so, I'd assume that if a telco is exercising it's legal rights to install a mast on a third party's building, it still needs to notify the third party in advance and get agreement on the compensation and anything else (e.g. access rights, making sure the mast is not a visual eyesore, etc).

              Someone at TfL must have known that this was all going ahead!

  2. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Open door policy?

    > someone coming into the building might insert a USB stick into a computer and either download some critical information or upload some virus

    You'd kind of hope that if this building really did contain some nationally (or just London?) important infrastructure, that the security surrounding that sensitive bit of floorspace would reflect its importance - and its vulnerability.

    So that nobody could just "insert a USB stick" into something that was vital to keep power supplied to the Underground.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: Open door policy?

      And that the computers in there didn't have enabled, exposed USB sockets...

      What kind of secure building doesn't have the capacity to escort someone to the roof. I'm sure Three would happily pay for the overtime of a security guard for the day.

      1. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Open door policy?

        If I were the mobile engineer, I'd volunteer to abseil onto the roof from a helicopter.

        Not because it's a remotely sensible way to do it, mostly because it would be fun.

        1. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

          Re: Open door policy?

          If I were the mobile engineer, I'd volunteer to abseil onto the roof from a helicopter.

          Indeed. If a job isn't worth doing while accompanied by the "Mission: Impossible" theme music, then it simply isn't worth doing at all.

          1. BenDwire Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: Open door policy?

            I concur. I once found myself humming that tune while fixing the bogs at work. I was the MD at the time too ...

          2. Kane
            Black Helicopters

            Re: Open door policy?

            "Indeed. If a job isn't worth doing while accompanied by the "Mission: Impossible" theme music, then it simply isn't worth doing at all."

            I find PropellerHeads On Her Majesty's Secret Service to be perfect for my telecoms network infiltration playlist, but YMMV.

            Must dash, I can hear my ride home coming.

        2. steviebuk Silver badge

          Re: Open door policy?

          But you have to make sure you don't touch the roof floor, not even a bead of sweat or the alarms will go off.

      2. CountCadaver Silver badge

        Re: Open door policy?

        I wouldn't bet on that given that they can't sort out a mast with worse data rates on 4G than 3G on one particular beam (walk to other side of mast things work as expected, back to side a and speeds < 0.05mbps) They claimed congestion, said they had fixed it, lasted about an hour and went back to the way it was, asked them to get someone in the UK to speak to me so I could explain the issue and instead got random gibberish from Indian alledgedly second line support, so asked for PAC, tried a few different sims, Vodafone and O2 best signal, went with O2, online deal £12 a month for 12 months and 60GB data a month. works at around 10mbps up and down (better still next town over oddly)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Pirate

      Re: Open door policy?

      Don't you know that terrorists can throw USB sticks with the precision of knives throwers in movies, and hit the USB ports from several metres, even across gates and grids?

      1. Pete 2 Silver badge

        Re: Open door policy?

        > terrorists can throw USB sticks with the precision of knives throwers in movies

        Yes. Even around corners, up flights of stairs and through locked doors.

        There are even USB sticks made of ice, so that once they have delivered their evil, world-conquering payloads, they melt and leave no evidence.

      2. Cynic_999

        Re: Open door policy?

        But only on the third try.

    3. Warm Braw

      Re: Open door policy?

      You'd kind of hope that if this building really did contain some nationally (or just London?) important infrastructure, that the security surrounding that sensitive bit of floorspace would reflect its importance

      As I recall, when TfL chose to relocate to the Palestra building it was felt that the availability of lights-out hosting facilities made it unnecessary to provide a computer room. I did hear a tale that this resulted in the equipment operating London's traffic lights becoming homeless as it required access and attention. One plan at the time was, I gather, to acquire nondescript private premises to accommodate it. I'm assuming that wasn't the full extent of the security measures.

      Although if it were, you wouldn't want a surveyor stumbling on it by accident...

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Open door policy?

        " you wouldn't want a surveyor stumbling on it by accident..."

        More likely tripping OVER it in the stairwell....

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Open door policy?

        "I did hear a tale that this resulted in the equipment operating London's traffic lights becoming homeless as it required access and attention. One plan at the time was, I gather, to acquire nondescript private premises to accommodate it. I'm assuming that wasn't the full extent of the security measures."

        Oh yes. The last thing you want is for some gang of cheeky criminals driving Mini Coopers to have access to the traffic light control systems.

  3. Adrian 4

    It 's not just once though, is it ?

    If they decide they want to put one there, there'll be disruption whilst it's installed and doubtless access required from time to time. And haven't compulsory site rental rates just been reduced, making a lot of people not want the hassle ?

    The excuses are, I agree, a bit thin. But it's their roof. Why should they let someone build on it ?

    1. ARGO

      Because under the digital economy act they have to. That law was introduced in 2017, and the legal test cases relating to it haven't played out yet. This appears to be another one.

      1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
        Alert

        Here in the USofA, mobile providers PAY the owners of the buildings a substantial sum every month for the space used (antennas on the roof or sides of the building, closet square footage for the radio and computer equipment, etc).

        Does this not happen in the UK? Building owners aren't compensated at all?

        My neighbor has a 200' tower on his property. It went up in the 90s for one mobile provider and he told me then that he was getting $1k/mo from them. There are now two more providers, plus some police and fire radios on the tower. I suspect he's getting upwards of $3k/mo from them.

        Side benefit: we get excellent mobile signal strength :-)

        Side disadvantage: For a while, we had interference problems with our garage door openers. Problems went away when they upgraded the equipment, which seems to happen every few years

        1. Return To Sender

          Re: Does this not happen in the UK? Building owners aren't compensated at all?

          Most likely it'd be a wayleave. This is probably the relevant bit of info:

          https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-access-agreements

        2. Cynic_999

          Absolutely the same is true in the UK. Also telephone and power companies must pay the owner to string cables over or under their land.

          1. NXM Silver badge

            We have a wayleave payment for overhead power lines across our field, but not the underground BT phone cable.

            I'll just put the plough on the tractor.....

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              BT used to have statuary powers to install cables across anyone's land, from the days that they were the GPO.

              1. batfink

                ...and presumably to erect statues?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Yeah, 10 minutes to edit wasn't long enough by the time I spotted that :-)

            2. xyz Silver badge

              >>I'll just put the plough on the tractor.....

              And in the case of burglars, just slap on the backhoe!

              For clarity... My tractor doesn't have a USB port, (enabled or otherwise) so I'm safe from terrorists.

              What other "secure" systems organisation DOESN'T have a USB lockdown policy? Twats.

    2. Richard Jones 1

      A better excuse would have been that there was some aspect of the roof, e.g. constructional weakness, that would preclude any load increasing work to be carried out, or that running a transmitter close to the TFL equipment might be hazardous. Both are suspect suggestions.

      Does TFL, (does it stand for Tragically Failing London?) even own the building?

      No doubt the QC was paid good appeared money for their dubious comedy show.

      1. Steve Evans

        I suspect structural suitability would be exactly the kind of thing the survey was intended to check.

      2. Richard Crossley
        Pint

        Update for TFL TLA

        You earned it ------------------------------>

        Tragically Failing London. Thanks, that cheered me up.

  4. lglethal Silver badge
    Go

    I get it, people really dont want another bloody telco mast on their office's roof. Fine. But ffs, come up with some better excuses!

    I mean this really could have been easy for TfL. 1) Let them have access, but charge them for requiring 1 security guard per person per day of the survey. 2) Impress upon them that they need to prove that there is ZERO chance of the transmissions of a mast on the roof affecting the network control computers or any other computers on site. With a detailed explanation of the costs involved should a single computer fail and take down part of the TfL network. As well as a detailed breakdown of how this would be communicated to the public and the media during the course of such an event (with, naturally, blame being apportioned as TfL deemed appropriate).

    With such explanations made, even if the Roof proved to be the best mast site within 20km, I could almost guarantee that the Network operators wouldnt touch it with a 100 foot pole (or a telecoms mast for that matter!) for fear of the publicity involved in being blamed for any problems on the London transport network...

    1. Santa from Exeter

      So, you are encouraging TFL to lie yet again about the cause of problems then?

    2. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
      Alert

      The transmit power is fairly low and highly directional. We had antennas on our office building and zero interference.

      Additionally, the flat roofs of most commercial buildings are corrugated galvanised steel, grounded (earthed) for lightning protection, so they act as an excellent RF shield.

      I would not be worried about interference to equipment. The same for human exposure. The RF field strength decreases as the inverse square, and the health & safety folks will do a field strength survey, I'm sure. Most of the energy is directed out away from the building anyhow, as that's where the mobiles are.

      1. tojb

        Can't have directed energy and inverse-square falloff: pick one! If it is mostly in-plane (sensible for a mast) then expect 1/r.

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          It'll probably be 1:r^1.2 ish, because there will be some out of plane dispersion making it not a pure 1/r, but you are right that it also isn't 1/r^2.

          That actually makes the situation better though - since the power at the transmitter doesn't need to be as high to provide useful signal at the target locations.

          And that of course is *why* they use non omnidirectional kit - lower power needed, lower cost.

          1. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
            Boffin

            >And that of course is *why* they use non omnidirectional kit - lower power needed, lower cost.

            Actually, it's down to RF spectrum costs and user density. If you have an omni, all users in the vicinity need unique channels; with a 3-sector setup, you can reuse the bandwidth twice. Increase the sector count (decrease the angle) to increase available capacity.

            But that's also why they use low power, but for a different reason - limit the range of a cell, and have another cell nearby, then you have more bandwidth in the same spectrum.

            Just look at the spectrum auction costs to see their motivation!

            1. John Robson Silver badge

              Very true, I had forgotten about the possibilities of splitting local space by lobing whilst focusing on stacked dipole dispersion.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm guessing you don't live in London...

      "being blamed for any problems on the London transport network..."

      Given that TfL seem intent on driving (no pun intended) all vehicles out of London, I often wonder if the "f" might not actually stand for "Free" - as in, Transport-free London. I don't think anyone - not even the most ardent hole-excavating utility companies - do as much to disrupt travel in the city as TfL.

      They don't need to blame anyone. It's just business-as-usual to them.

    4. iron Silver badge

      If my mobile phone provider caused complete gridlock in London including roads, rail and that thing you call an Underground but mostly runs overground then sitting here in Glasgow I would give exactly zero shits. I suspect most of the rest of the UK would feel the same.

      Btw our Underground actually runs 100% under the ground here.

    5. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Come up with some better excuses!"

      The best one I can think of is wind blowing through the ironwork setting up an aoelian harp and vibrating the entire fricking building

      Might sound a bit far fetched but I've actually encountered something like this on building roofs transmitting vibrations into the floors below - In some cases only when the wind is blowing from a specific direction

      1. TechTomato

        Farting roofs?

        "Wasn't me, it woz the 5G mast above us"

    6. Spanners Silver badge
      Happy

      @lglethal

      I get it, people really don't want another bloody telco mast on their office's roof.

      My office is on the 3rd floor of a 4 floor building. I do not care that there are phone masts and microwave relay things on it. I do not care when I go up to the 4th floor. It does nothing to me so it doesn't matter. I assume my employers get some rental but, as it doesn't even affect our WiFi, IDGAF.

  5. Not an Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    External Access

    Probably the most appropriate compromise might be to suggest that external access to the roof is most appropriate, and that EE/Three can start assembling the scaffolding in the street.

  6. Victor Ludorum
    WTF?

    Must be secure...

    Just look at the vehicle access security...

    GMaps link

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Roof space

    Cover the roof in solar panels to provide green energy.

    1. katrinab Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Roof space

      Looking at the Google maps link provided in the previous post, they already have.

  8. Pen-y-gors

    Sits Vac

    That evidence is provided by Mr Kevin Clack, who is the soon-to-be former network security and policing manager for Transport for London

    FTFY

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sits Vac

      If your running a secure site, it's much easier to keep it secure by telling people who want to visit "no" than trying to escort them.

      I recall one account of a pen test where somebody visiting in guise of a pest control person managed to get access to a secure area escorted by a staff member who allowed them access to a server room, who asked them to keep away from the servers, only for the tester to produce a repro of a dead rat from "behind the server" (or up his sleeve...), at which point the escort stopped observing to the point that the tester was able to plug in their own device to the server to enable remote access to it.

      So yes, left to my own devices i'd prefer to tell people that no access is permitted and I don't think that's even slightly unreasonable for a secure site.

  9. safetysam

    I mean...

    The tight security concern is not unreasonable. It might sound foolish as a headline, but this is basic stuff.

    The real headline should be that there was no workable procedure for escorting someone where they wanted to go.

  10. xyz123 Silver badge

    Can Three etc sue TFL?

    They've publicly stated they believe Three and other networks are a terrorist organization intent on doing damage to critical UK Infrastructure.

    They should be made to apologize publicly, I'd say take down 50% of their billboards for the apology for 6months should be sufficient.

    1. John Savard

      I consider this a non sequitur. After all, it would be libelous to claim that Apple is an organization intent on uploading private nude snaps and sex videos from people's iPhones to Facebook.

      None the less, something of the sort happened recently - not because Apple wanted it to happen, but because some people repairing an iPhone on its behalf happened to engage in malfeasance on their own.

      So they're only claiming that Three might not be 100% perfect at vetting their employees - and, since we haven't yet developed the technology to read people's minds, that is inevitably true.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Just wait until they find out who *owns* Three!

  11. Nifty Silver badge

    I think the article didn't go into the required detail. The building freeholder would grant access and welcome mast rent. The leaseholder TFL won't allow physical. access. I'm pretty sure also that the lease terms if read carefully would establish that the leaseholder can be obliged to allow access for building-related issues.

    1. John Savard

      Now that would put a bit of a different light on it.

      However, perhaps not by much. After all, while normal lease terms might indeed preclude a leaseholder from denying physical access under such circumstances, I'm sure that if one were leasing a building to the GCHQ, they would be able to obtain special terms.

    2. IGotOut Silver badge

      Tfl is the building owner.

    3. Londonbus

      Depends. If the roof is demised to TfL then under landlord and tenant rules it can block access.

      Under Code Powers however...

  12. John Savard

    Puzzled

    Why on earth would a law be enacted giving people the right to access someone else's building to build a cell phone mast?

    If they want to put a cell phone mast on a building, they can always offer money to its owners. If they're not interested, that should be that.

    Why would anyone think that compromising private property rights is a good idea?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Puzzled

      That 2017 law effectively re-classified cellular networks as utilities. Gas, Water, Electric and (fixed line) Phone have had rights to put their kit on other people's property for years.

  13. $till$kint
    Facepalm

    Memorable name

    It is perhaps fortunate for the rest of us that Mr Clack has such a memorable name, so we can seek to avoid having any professional engagement with this obvious nuckfugget.

  14. Ian Mason

    I wonder whether "TfL’s barrister Mischa Balen" is related ....

    ... to one General Sir Anthony Hogmanay Melchett? They certainly say things that sound like the kind of things Melchett would say, cf:

    "Security" isn't a dirty word Blackadder.

    "Crevice" is a dirty word, but "security" isn't.

    It's terrible what hundreds of years of inbreeding can do to the human mind.

    Now, no doubt, they will be fretting over the tribunal judge pooh-poohing their claims about the risks of letting those horrible engineer and surveyor oiks into the building..

  15. yetanotheraoc Silver badge

    Unstated reason

    The only suitable place for a mast on the roof is currently occupied by an inflatable pool and some beach chairs. So no matter how inane the reasons offered in court, at least they are smart enough not to give the real reason.

    1. TechTomato
      Pirate

      Re: Unstated reason

      At least they could fly a pirate flag from the mast.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unstated reason

      But then they could stick a pirate flag on the mast and drink flagons of rum & coke underneath it.

  16. Lee D Silver badge

    If someone can just put a USB stick in your system and do bad things, it's already insecure and you need to fix that.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tickets please

    Mind the gap.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I understand TfL had a deal with Vodafone/O2 for deployment of networks. Suprising bearing in mind all the comments about connectivity from Sadiq Khan that they are blocking this...

    1. awavey

      Why is it surprising if TfL have a deal with O2 & Vodafone, that Three & EE are being forced to go to court to get access to a roof ?

  19. JohnGrantNineTiles

    Whose cross?

    "next to the Thameslink tracks running between King’s Cross and London Bridge stations"

    Actually it's next to the line to Charing Cross, which would be SouthEastern. There's a Thameslink line the other side of Gambia Street, but it doesn't go to London Bridge.

    [removes anorak]

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like