The member for North Shropshire is one of a group of politicians who have tabled an amendment to the government’s telecommunications infrastructure bill which will be presented to Parliament today.
The amendment would ban high-risk providers from UK networks by December 31, 2022.
Paterson said he hopes members will support the amendment.
“It is a completely unnecessary risk,” he said. “This has angered our intelligence partners and could disrupt international trade at a time when the success of British trade policy is crucial.
“The most obvious concerns are those of national security. Huawei is not a private company. It is in fact a state-owned company intimately linked to the Chinese intelligence services. Allowing Huawei to play a role in building our 5G network actually allows China to build the.
“Even communist Vietnam has avoided Huawei for security reasons. Our Five Eyes partners – the United States, Australia and New Zealand – have already blocked it and are furious with the UK decision.”
False
Paterson said the government has limited the extent to which Huawei products can be deployed, limiting them to “advanced” rather than “primary” infrastructure.
“This strategy is based on the assumption that the nucleus cannot be compromised from the edge. But this assumption is completely false,” he added.
“An enemy could, for example, deactivate our 5G network by closing the antennas or the routers on the outskirts, which could be easily achieved by activating remotely an extremely difficult to detect kill switch integrated in the periphery components.
“The strategy of restricting Huawei to 35% of the periphery therefore offers very few security advantages compared to allowing them 100% access to the entire infrastructure. We could no longer imagine that a prison was secure if 35% of the wall was built by prisoners. ”
He said Huawei’s decision also jeopardized a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States.
“It is hard to see why the government is in such a rush to continue with 5G. The decision becomes even more difficult to justify when you consider the relatively limited benefits of 5G compared to 4G. 5G allows for rates of faster transmission and increased network capacity. But the range of specific applications for which 5G would make a hardware difference today is relatively unimpressive. ”
“We need to think about the future of our digital infrastructure and the problems that the over-reliance on Chinese manufacturing has created.”
Paterson said the problem did not stop with Huawei.
“Almost all digital equipment, regardless of brand, is manufactured in Asia and is therefore of unknown safety.”
The member for North Shropshire is one of a group of politicians who have tabled an amendment to the government’s telecommunications infrastructure bill which will be presented to Parliament today.
The amendment would ban high-risk providers from UK networks by December 31, 2022.
Paterson said he hopes members will support the amendment.
“It is a completely unnecessary risk,” he said. “This has angered our intelligence partners and could disrupt international trade at a time when the success of British trade policy is crucial.
“The most obvious concerns are those of national security. Huawei is not a private company. It is in fact a state-owned company intimately linked to the Chinese intelligence services. Allowing Huawei to play a role in building our 5G network actually allows China to build the.
“Even communist Vietnam has avoided Huawei for security reasons. Our Five Eyes partners – the United States, Australia and New Zealand – have already blocked it and are furious with the UK decision.”
False
Paterson said the government has limited the extent to which Huawei products can be deployed, limiting them to “advanced” rather than “primary” infrastructure.
“This strategy is based on the assumption that the nucleus cannot be compromised from the edge. But this assumption is completely false,” he added.
“An enemy could, for example, deactivate our 5G network by closing the antennas or the routers on the outskirts, which could be easily achieved by activating remotely an extremely difficult to detect kill switch integrated in the periphery components.
“The strategy of restricting Huawei to 35% of the periphery therefore offers very few security advantages compared to allowing them 100% access to the entire infrastructure. We could no longer imagine that a prison was secure if 35% of the wall was built by prisoners. ”
He said Huawei’s decision also jeopardized a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States.
“It is hard to see why the government is in such a rush to continue with 5G. The decision becomes even more difficult to justify when you consider the relatively limited benefits of 5G compared to 4G. 5G allows for rates of faster transmission and increased network capacity. But the range of specific applications for which 5G would make a hardware difference today is relatively unimpressive. ”
“We need to think about the future of our digital infrastructure and the problems that the over-reliance on Chinese manufacturing has created.”
Paterson said the problem did not stop with Huawei.
“Almost all digital equipment, regardless of brand, is manufactured in Asia and is therefore of unknown safety.”