Britain, Economic, Government, Internet, Technology

5G and why we need it

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

5G

5G is the “fifth generation” upgrade to mobile telecommunications. It does not consist of a single new operating system but a “systems of systems” that will dramatically increase data speeds to such an extent you’ll be able to download a movie in just three seconds. It will also increase internet capacity a thousand-fold when it’s fully operational.

There is a big difference between 4G and 5G capabilities. 4G, like all the ‘G’s before it, is principally designed for smartphone browsing. 5G, however, is far more ambitious, linking together all kinds of devices, from household appliances such as fridges and washing machines to cars and electricity meters.

It is supposed to create what has been termed the “internet of things”, where everything we use in our day-to-day lives can be controlled remotely. For example, you could use the 5G network to control your washing machine from the other side of the world. It could also speed up the development of driverless cars by allowing vehicles to interact with each other.

5G will become increasingly relevant with a pressing need for it. In its strategy document for 5G rollout, published in 2017, the UK Government predicted that global data traffic would grow from 3.7 exabytes (3.7 billion-billion bytes of information, where one byte is equivalent to a short email) in 2015 to 30.6 exabytes in 2020. That’s the same as if the number of passengers on London’s Tube network grew by 53 per cent every year. Without an upgrade, existing systems face being overloaded.

There are also government policies which are dependent on 5G. If we are to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – the ambitious target which was unveiled by former Prime Minister Theresa May last summer – then we will need to make much smarter use of the electricity grid. The 5G network would allow household appliances like fridges and electric car charges to switch in and out of the grid when needed.

There are risks with 5G. An “internet of things”, where every appliance is interconnected, provides new opportunities for hackers to interfere with electronic systems. They could potentially seize control of vehicles and cause them to crash, or by hacking smart door locks to gain entry to households.

Hostile nations could exploit 5G to try to disrupt our utility supplies, nuclear plants or airports. There are also serious privacy issues as 5G will make it easier for governments and corporations to track our lives one click at a time. But there are also considerable advantages – 5G networks involve far more secure data encryption. So, while there will be more appliances for hackers to target, doing so won’t be easy.

 

WHOEVER builds the 5G grid, or supplies equipment for it, could potentially plant bugs to allow interference with the network or enable mass surveillance by accessing data.

Huawei has repeatedly denied that it is an arm of the Chinese state, but as a Chinese company it is vulnerable to the control of a dictatorship with an appalling human rights record.

We wouldn’t allow a Chinese company to supply fighter jets for the RAF, goes the argument, and therefore we shouldn’t allow one to supply vital communications infrastructure.

Former national security adviser Lord Ricketts has dismissed the fears, however, saying: “I personally think we can find a solution which does allow them to have some role.”

Another serious concern is what it would mean for Britain’s role within the “Five Eyes” network of security partners – the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Britain – who frequently exchange intelligence. Canada has yet to make a decision, while New Zealand initially stopped Huawei providing 5G equipment but has since said it has not imposed a complete ban.

The United States is worried. Donald Trump doesn’t trust Huawei to build even the smallest part of our 5G network and the US has warned that it might be reluctant to share intelligence with the UK if we utilise the services of the Chinese company – although MI5 chief Andrew Parker recently claimed that this is an unlikely consequence. Some analysts have argued that the US is only saying this as a protectionist ruse in its ongoing trade war with China.

Yet, that doesn’t explain why Australia, too, has banned Huawei from building its own 5G network. The chair of Australia’s intelligence and security committee, Andrew Hastie, claims it is a question of “digital sovereignty”, while his colleague James Paterson points out: “Successive Australian governments banned Huawei from our broadband and 5G networks with very little controversy.”

In any case, no US company currently makes 5G network equipment. Instead, the US is considering subsidising Swedish firm Ericsson and Finnish company Nokia in order to help develop its own 5G network. In the US, T-Mobile has already switched on a slower version of its 5G network, claiming it covers 200 million people.

Some of our other allies are also refusing to denounce the Chinese firm. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is reluctant to ban Huawei, fearing retaliation against German companies exporting to China. France, too, has said it will allow Huawei to build parts of its 5G network.

Under Theresa May’s premiership, the government announced that Huawei would be allowed to provide equipment for the periphery of the 5G network, such as masts, but not the control systems at the core of the network. The security services – MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – claim that the risk to 5G from using a Chinese supplier is manageable.

But one complication that will need to be resolved is that our existing 3G and 4G telecoms networks already contain equipment manufactured by Huawei. In 2005, for example, BT signed a contract with Huawei that allowed it to connect customer lines to the main part of the network.

The UK Government announced this week that it is to stick to its existing policy, which is to allow Huawei to build communication towers and other peripheral equipment for the 5G network but ban it from the core parts of the network (such as military intelligence). Measures were also announced to reduce future reliance on China’s involvement by imposing a 35 per cent cap on Huawei’s share of the market.

Our Government claims that Huawei has such a technological head-start in creating 5G equipment that shunning it would delay the introduction and considerably increase costs. Alternative, though significantly more expensive, suppliers are ZTE, which is owned by the Chinese government, Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung (South Korean) and Viettel (owned by the Vietnamese military). The actual cost to the Government of Huawei’s input into 5G is unknown, as is the time frame. Restricting Huawei’s involvement would have delayed the launch of 5G by up to two years and cost the economy between £4.5billion and £6.6billion, according to a 2019 report by the telecoms industry body, Mobile UK.

We could have decided to upgrade the existing 4G network which would have given extra capacity for now. But, in the long run, that would have led to Britain lagging behind in telecommunications.

The pros and cons of using Huawei

Advantages –

. Banning the Chinese would reduce the number of companies supplying 5G, decreasing competition and leading to a rise in costs for consumers.

. Whitehall officials have also said it would cost the UK economy tens of billions of pounds in the coming years, from the lost opportunity of the productive gains of using 5G.

. There would also be a cost to companies who have started to roll it out across the country.

. Officials have warned that by barring Chinese involvement could slow down the rollout of 5G by up to three years.

. Huawei’s exclusion would likely damage relations with China, where Britain is also seeking to strike a post-Brexit trade deal.

The Risks –

. The U.S. says Huawei could be used as a back door for spying by the Chinese state.

. Critics have also warned China could use its access to Britain’s data network to shut down critical national infrastructure.

. There are fears the UK could lose its intelligence sharing relationship with countries such as the US and Australia, who have warned against allowing Huawei anywhere near their networks.

. Members of the US Congress have also threatened to block a future post-Brexit trade deal if the UK pushed ahead with using Huawei.

Standard

No More Certain Route To Success

Arts, Literature

No More Certain Route To Success

Image
Arts, Books, History

Book Review: The Sisters of Auschwitz

Sisters of Auschwitz

Intro: They fearlessly hid fellow Jews in their house in the woods, until they were betrayed and sent to Auschwitz. A devastating new book reveals the selfless courage of two young women.

WHEN Dutch author and journalist Roxane van Iperen and her husband first glimpsed the High Nest, they fell instantly in love with it. A romantic, shuttered house tucked away in the woods 30 miles from Amsterdam, with friendly dormer windows and a rambling garden, it was the dream and idyllic country hideaway they’d been looking for.

As soon as they started restoring the house, they began to unearth its secrets. They found trap doors in each room, with shallow hiding places underneath, containing candle stumps and old resistance newspapers.

Roxane found herself almost at once embarking on a double-reconstruction: both of the house she had newly acquired, and of the story whose wartime secrets it concealed.

This gripping, nightmarish story delivers a stark contrast between the peacefulness by which the reader can absorb its contents at will as opposed to the terror under which Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe lived.

Roxane discovered the High Nest had been a haven of secret refuge for at least 17 Jews for a year and a half during the war – until the dreadful moment in 1944 when they were betrayed by a malicious neighbour from the village.

What makes this story especially fascinating is that the two women who led this hidden pocket of Dutch resistance were themselves Jewish: married sisters, Janny and Lien Brilleslijper – both mothers of small children.

 

THEY were a normal musical and artistic family, living in bustling Amsterdam until the Nazi nightmare came to wreck their lives. Janny was the instinctive rebel. When the Nazis invaded, she refused to get her passport stamped with a ‘J’ (for ‘Jew’), as ordered by the regime.

However some 160,820 Jews, including her more obedient sister Lien, did get their passports stamped – ‘a small administrative action that will prove most helpful for the deportation system’, writes Roxane as she tells this whole story in the present tense, forcing the reader to live every second of it with the characters. At the same time Anne Frank and her family were in hiding in their Amsterdam attic, forced to live in total silence during the daytime for fear of being discovered by the workers downstairs, this family had chanced upon the High Nest and leased it, in February 1943, from two posh sisters who had no idea they were Jews.

It’s a sublime moment of relief when the family moves to this woodland hideaway, three miles from the nearest neighbour. The children are free to run in the garden and shout, and grown-ups can play the piano and sing without being heard. Heroic Janny not only runs the household as a refuge for Jews but steals out every day to risk her life on secret resistance work, taking trains to Amsterdam with forged documents hidden in her bra.

It’s Janny and Lien’s ingenious younger brother Jaap who build the hiding places all over the house. There is an agreed drill, so everyone vanishes into their designated cubby holes as soon as danger is announced.

Jaap also comes up with a method to alert anyone outside the house not to return: if there is no Chinese vase in the front window, don’t come back. Just like the Franks, this family rejoices when they hear the news of the D-Day landings. Not long to go now, surely.

And they would probably have made it, but for the fanatical fervour of the Dutch-Nazi Jew-hunters, who rejoiced in flushing out Jews from their hiding places.

What revolting specimens of humans would take pleasure in being the ‘finders’ in a game of hide-and-seek in which the ‘found’ are sent to extermination camps?

Roxane reminds us of the statistic: in Belgium, 30 per cent of the country’s Jews were deported; in France, it was 25 per cent; but in Holland, it was 76 per cent.

In the Brilleslijpers’ case, they were betrayed by a suspicious woman in the village who scribbled their address on a crumpled bit of paper and handed it to a Dutch Nazi.

On that fateful day in July 1944, Janny had been doing her resistance work in Amsterdam, her little son Robbie with her as camouflage. They walked home through the woods together as normal. But they failed to notice the signal; the Chinese vase had gone from the window.

They walked up to the front door – and it was opened by a Jew-hunter. Reading this made me feel giddily faint. Roxane brilliantly conveys the acute terror felt by members of the household, gathered quaking in the drawing-room while the searches went round the house chivvying out the others.

Lien had a fit of hysteria, half-faked and half-genuine. ‘Not the children!’ she screamed. The Jew-hunter eventually relented, and the three children were dropped off at the local doctor’s, while the rest were taken first to prison, then to Westerbork holding camp, and then – yes – to Auschwitz.

The only glimmer of light was that, before deportation, Lien received a coded message that their children were safe.

 

SHOULD you ever have wondered – and who hasn’t – what it was like to make a three-day journey in an overcrowded cattle truck from one’s native land to Auschwitz, this book gives us an account in hour-by-hour detail.

Their train happened to be the very last to Auschwitz from Holland, an ordeal of buckets, moans, stench, of taking turns to press up against tiny cracks in the wood for oxygen. Then, the moment of arrival, the gulps of fresh air – and that increasingly familiar experience of hope being dashed.

Or not quite dashed, because those sisters had each other. Their parents were gassed on arrival, but Janny and Lien, younger and fitter, were kept alive. They were present at the final ‘selection’ in which Anne and Margot Frank’s mother was separated from her daughters and taken away to be killed.

And thence to Bergen-Belsen. At least this place wasn’t an extermination camp. Yet Belsen exterminated people through its own chaos of disease and starvation. Here, Janny and Lien did their best to nurse young Anne and Margot Frank, but the will to live drained out of the girls as they succumbed to typhus. Janny wrapped their bodies in blankets and lowered them gently and lovingly into the pit. The sisters were the ones who told Otto Frank, after the war, exactly what had befallen his daughters in their last hours.

So Janny and Lien did survive. There’s a joyous moment of reunion at the end of this book, which many readers may well have difficulty coping with – and Janny, who had managed to hold back her tears during all those black years, cried her eyes out at last.

– The Sisters of Auschwitz by Roxane Van Iperen is published by Seven Dials, 320pp

Standard