5G AND THE HUAWEI CONTROVERSY: WHY IS IT ABOUT MORE THAN JUST SECURITY?
“Huawei may not be able to resist pressures by the Chinese government to disrupt public transportation, industry, or energy grids in Paris, Berlin or London”
In January, the UK government announced that Chinese company Huawei would be allowed to provide equipment to help build the UK’s 5G network. In response, the US threatened to downgrade the UK’s access to its intelligence and warned of additional difficulties for trade negotiations. Cyber security expert Arthur Laudrain unpicks the issues
Between the Internet of Things and smart cities, by 2030 we expect half a trillion objects to be connected to the internet, from streetlamps to autonomous cars, factories and clothes. The overwhelming majority will rely on 5G and its successor, making wireless technology essential to our daily life, our security and economy. British internet providers are already upgrading their networks alongside existing 4G hardware. On the consumer side, the first 5G-capable smartphones hit the market last year, and the UK has allowed Huawei to help build ‘non-core’ parts of the 5G network. This has been met with concern, because China seems to be building a surveillance state that is tracking, ranking and controlling its entire population.
The fear is that the Chinese government could leverage the data flowing through the parts of the network they build to expand their propaganda and censorship regime beyond China’s shores.
A MATTER OF VALUES
Pervasive connectivity of the Internet of Things raises security and human rights concerns, as the confidentiality of citizens’ data may be at risk.
Back in 2007, local authorities in Estonia removed a Soviet-era statue; in response, Russian servers paralysed the Estonian banking system. Similarly, if there was a diplomatic or military crisis between Chinese and European powers – whether about Taiwan, Hong Kong or the Uighurs – Huawei may not be able to resist pressures by the Chinese government to disrupt public transportation, industry, or energy grids in Paris, Berlin or London.
A MATTER OF TRUST
To alleviate the UK government’s concerns, Huawei opened its source code to selected experts in 2010. So far, audits have revealed poor software engineering practice rather than malicious intent. However, manufacturers can always remotely update the software running on these platforms. Usually, this is done to improve performance, introduce new features or fix vulnerabilities. Yet they could be used to covertly introduce backdoor access to the software as well. This is particularly critical for 5G platforms, due to their dependence on software configurability.
At best, it is possible to balance these risks by diversifying providers and
segregating virtual networks depending on their sensitivity. Even then. the UK National Cyber Security Centre states they are only able to provide "limited assurance" that the risks of embracing Huawei solutions could be mitigated. It is thus a matter of trust and risk balancing. A MATTER OF FAIR COMPETITION AND STRATEGIC VISION One of the reasons why Europeans are facing difficult policy decisions is down to under-investment in research and development of 5G. Huawei has become one of the largest telecommunication companies with tremendous financial capabilities. Huawei spends a third more on 5G research and development than its European competitors, Ericsson and Nokia, combined. But the Chinese government may have helped the company. A recent investigation by US newspaper The Wall Street Journal found that Huawei had received $75bn (£58bn) worth of Chinese state aid in various forms.
In early February, France, Germany, Italy and Poland asked the EU Commission to push back against what they deemed to be unfair competition from both US and Chinese firms. But Europe’s weakness on 5G, and new technological development more widely, cannot only be attributed to skewed competition. It is as much the result of a lack of strategic vision and industrial policy.
If anything, this controversy emphasises the importance of political will. Without it, in the UK just as elsewhere, market forces are likely to take precedence over considerations of sovereignty or strategic autonomy.