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
Britain, Government, History, Israel, Society

Holocaust Commemoration: The horrors that still echo

75TH COMMEMORATION

SEVENTY-FIVE years on, the sheer evil and depravity against mankind defies comprehension.

Generations may have passed, but we still share the appalling horror felt by Red Army troops as they walked into Auschwitz.

Dispassionate history books describe the site as a “concentration camp”. It would be more accurately portrayed as hell on earth: a grotesque symbol of the horrifying consequences of man’s atrocious barbarism to his fellow man.

In total, more than six million people – overwhelmingly Jews – were exterminated in Nazi gas chambers and crematorium ovens. Victims, by accident of birth, of Hitler’s depraved ideology of Aryan supremacy.

As the last frail survivors pass into history, it is imperative the world never forgets the Holocaust. Never forget how, even in our professedly civilised modern world, far removed from the slaughter of those death camps, disagreement can mutate terrifyingly quickly into hostility and dehumanisation.

That was the premise of Prince Charles’s powerful warning in a speech at a solemn event in Israel marking 75 years since Auschwitz was liberated in January 1945.

Standing alongside world leaders, the heir to the throne said: “Hatred and intolerance still lurk in the human heart, still tell lies, adopt new disguises and still seek new victims.”

Seventy-five years on, he asked, is our strife-torn society in danger of losing sight of the lessons from the atrocity? “All too often,” he said, “words are used as badges of shame to mark others as enemies.”

Prince Charles’ wise remarks as a chastisement to those who, even today, cultivate the wickedness of anti-Semitism and other disgraceful bigotry.

Listen to Jewish Labour ex-minister Dame Margaret Hodge. In the Commons she has lamented how hard-Left cranks in her party hurl execrable Jew-baiting bile.

Dozens of her family were murdered by the Nazis. Yet, on social media, she’s regularly taunted with photographs of the Auschwitz dead, swastikas and SS guards. Are these depraved morons, hiding behind their keyboards, proud of their nauseating provocations?

The internet drowns with Holocaust denial and repulsive anti-Israel propaganda. It is beyond belief the tech giants allow this foul content – a residue of the Nazi atrocities.

 

MEANWHILE, if the BBC had set out with deliberate cause to offend the Jewish community, they could hardly have achieved it more effectively. One of its senior correspondents has sparked fury by linking the Holocaust to the Palestinian crisis on prime-time TV.

This is why it is so important that influential public dignitaries such as Prince Charles counter such detestable and hate-driven disinformation.

His visit to Yad Vashem, site of the World Holocaust Remembrance Centre, was also deeply personal – his grandmother is honoured there for taking immense risks to shelter and save Jewish lives in Nazi-occupied Greece.

Tomorrow, his wife Camilla will represent Britain at a World Holocaust Day ceremony at Auschwitz. Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge will join sombre commemorations here.

All this helps ensure the evil exposed 75 years ago never slips from our memories. A Royal Family serving dutifully as the nation’s moral lodestar.

Standard
Books, Britain, History, Immigration

Book Reviews: The Windrush Betrayal & Homecoming

WINDRUSH

FROM a ship to a scandal, from Commonwealth immigrants full of hope to elderly people shamefully traduced by the system, the name Windrush resonates through decades of history.

Both these valuable books give great voice to the families of those who travelled to Great Britain from the West Indies in search of a better life in the chilly place they had always been told was the “mother country” and which actually needed them.

Drawing on scores of first-hand accounts, Colin Grant (born in Britain of Jamaican parents) offers historical testimony at its finest, while Amelia Gentleman’s very different book is a chronicle to the dogged energy of one of Britain’s best investigative journalists whose anger at injustice spills on to the page.

We should all be familiar with those iconic pictures of serious, well-dressed black men in trilby hats, suits and ties, disembarking from the Empire Windrush at Tilbury Dock in 1948. But Colin Grant also remind us that “the popular image . . . has also reduced the story – not least because it excludes over 200 women who were also passengers.”

Significantly, he points out that it can get in the way of “the bigger picture of the impact of mass migration”, as “some 300,000 adventurers made their way to Britain” from all the West Indian islands over the next 15 years. Grant was spurred to record people “before their stories disappeared”.

His interviews reveal natural courage and style enough to face down even the vile racism encountered on the streets of Notting Hill in the 1950s and afterwards.

Soon after he began recording, “the British government gave a new twist to the story ensuring that the name ‘Windrush’ will now also forever be associated with scandal.”

Coincidentally, at the same time, prize-winning British journalist Amelia Gentleman was revealing the scandal of how the government’s “hostile environment” policy for illegal immigrants led to thousands of Windrush descendants being wrongly classified as living here illegally.

Many lost their jobs, some were deported, all were hurt and enraged by their appalling treatment at “the mother country”. One quotation encapsulates a bewilderment that can never be assuaged. “How do you pack for a one-way journey to a country you left when you were 11 and have not visited for 50 years?”

Whose fault was it? Gentleman paints a searing picture of a Home Office not fit for purpose and politicians who exist with a self-centred Westminster bubble of partisan party politics. It’s impossible to read her account of the step-by-step betrayal without feeling ashamed that it was done in your name.

But despite real admiration for this literary work, she and some readers are likely to part company on some of the broad strokes of her postscript. For example, she seems determined to see the scandal as symptomatic of widespread endemic racism rather than shocking bureaucratic bungling and negligence.

She does assert, however, that it suits the government to present what took place as “a small predicament affecting a niche-group of retirement-age Caribbean people who had no papers.”

Gentleman quotes a fellow journalist colleague: “It has yet to fully sink in that what was wrong for the Windrush generation is wrong for all immigrants.” Is it? All? Should peoples be lumped together in this way?

There were and are very real public concerns about the true extent of immigration to these shores – the latest projections suggest the population will hit 70 million by 2031 – and its effect on infrastructure.

These cannot be dismissed as “xenophobic, anti-immigrant conviction” and “a gradual withering of empathy.” Yes, the Home office was wrong, very wrong.

But what the Windrush generation should have taught us is that they shouldn’t be shoehorned into any wider debate on immigration that would arguably chip away at their very special status.

– The Windrush Betrayal by Amelia Gentleman is published by Faber, 336pp

– Homecoming by Colin Grant is published by Cape, 320pp

Standard