1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Is 5G even possible in Australia?

Discussion in 'Networking, Telephony & Internet' started by blondie_hunter, Aug 19, 2019.

  1. Doc-of-FC

    Doc-of-FC Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,396
    Location:
    Canberra
    https://dd80b675424c132b90b3-e48385...kcdn.com/external/finite-state-sca1-final.pdf
    what you think, may possibly be wrong, have you considered this?
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  2. BAK

    BAK RIP

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,267
    Location:
    Ringwood VIC
    So rather than agree with the government organisation whose job it is to safeguard the country who likely base their opinion on facts/intelligence (such as the link Doc-of-FC just posted) you instead agree with a former prime minister, a contextless "Professor", and the CEO of Huawei's competitor, none of whom will have access to the same intelligence information? You see why this is a problem, yes?
     
  3. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    9,581
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    synic and JayKay777 like this.
  4. BAK

    BAK RIP

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,267
    Location:
    Ringwood VIC
    No, it's about our national security services recommending to our government that we don't use this vendor, and our government accepting and actioning that advice.

    It's also about you, and other random internet people who consider themselves experts despite not being in full possession of the facts, trying to trivialise things by pointing out irrelevant correlations with other vendors, or pointing to other uninformed pundits who also disagree with the official advice.
     
    caspian likes this.
  5. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    9,581
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    Mate, get off that high horse. :leet:

    I've simply stated my opinion and my opinion is not alone. The fact you disagree with same doesn't make you correct either.


    JSmith
     
  6. flu!d

    flu!d Motoring and Intel forum admin

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,048
    There doesn't need to be, apparently an IP address is a good enough form of identification.
     
    clonex and JSmithDTV like this.
  7. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    12,403
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I was subtle? damn, I need to work on that.

    ^^ very much agree.

    elvis - I agree that the volume of requests seems ostensibly excessive, and the categorisation could use work, but for me the solution is additional oversight and potentially tighter rules, not discarding a valuable law enforcement tool.
     
  8. Doc-of-FC

    Doc-of-FC Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,396
    Location:
    Canberra
    haha, that bloomberg rebuff is hilarious, it's a shame you didn't take the time to read the article I linked, Telnet vs ASLR and stack protections are very different comparisons.

    The article I linked was publicly published (July 2019) 2 months after the article you linked to, try again, you're already on the back foot.
     
  9. elvis

    elvis OCAU's most famous and arrogant know-it-all

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    46,808
    Location:
    Brisbane
    For me the solution is the immediate resignation of one Peter Dutton, who assured the Australian public that tight rules and oversight was in place, and that this situation we are in right now would not, and could not ever happen. Only from there can we begin to work towards an adequate mix of security and privacy.

    My frustration stems from the fact that literally every single privacy and security expert who didn't work for Peter Dutton warned that we would end up here. He laughed them off - not just denied the claims, but criticised to the point of mockery on most counts the individuals who warned of the holes in his highly rushed and poorly thought out plans. Even non-experts could see glaring holes in his words, and were publicly insulted when they dared bring it up (the immediate "you must be a terrorist if you value privacy" insults were not only childish, they were highly concerning from our highest ranked public servants).

    The biggest problem of all is that there's no going backwards with the data that has been collected in questionable methods. The harm cannot be undone for those it has already affected.

    So, while I applaud your reserved and logical candour, I feel it's somewhat remiss to merely say "yeah, well, we fucked a bunch of Australians over unfairly, but them's the breaks". This was trivially preventable, and worse, promised by our nation's leadership that it could never happen. At what point do we expect the same leadership to take accountability for their harm?

    Security is hard. Anyone who works in and around security day to day knows that. What we have now is not security, given that one of the three pillars of security insist that data only be available to those who need it, not to anyone who flippantly asks without just reason.

    Speaking of experts, Germany's (and one other EU nation I forget right now) top security boffins spent several years and many dollars pouring over Chinese equipment, and could find no evidence of back doors. I'd be curious to know if our top boffins did actually find something, or are merely playing it safe.

    I'm all for playing it safe, mind you. But as you've rightfully pointed out, all the discussion here is painfully lacking in hard evidence one way or the other.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  10. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    9,581
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    What is hilarious is that you think Huawei and China are the only corporations and Governments monitoring and spying on each other and their people. To isolate Huawei only is silly, especially considering the insane laws enacted here in the last year or so.

    The simple fact it the 5G rollout could have been done better and cheaper by Huawei, but as usual the xenophobes come in and start crapping on about national security, when we all know many systems can be compromised and brought down, regardless of government or country.


    JSmith
     
  11. BAK

    BAK RIP

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,267
    Location:
    Ringwood VIC
    Just to point out, these are different things. Just because you hold an opinion does not make you right.

    As for my opinion, I am happy to follow the advice of our security services (in this instance, blindly following is never a good idea). My reasoning is related to the potential choice:
    1) I believe the security services and don't trust the vendor, in which case I buy another vendor and have no additional risk.
    2) I disbelieve and thus ignore the advice of government and security services and buy the vendors product, in which case I have high additional risk if the advice was accurate.

    Additionally, how often have you seen security services comment on a specific vendor, to this extreme (banning the vendor from critical infrastructure)? That alone suggests to me that there is more to the story than just "power and money".

    Critically assessing situations and forming "opinions" is something that nobody bothers to do anymore. "Paul Keating/Professor/Cisco Guy/other random celebrity says" is not a solid basis on which to draw conclusions.

    I could not agree more, this would be a great solution to any number of problems.

    He didn't say that. Nobody here has said that. The fact is, Huawei is the only telecommunications vendor that has been recommended against by our (and other) security services. My (and I believe Doc-of-FC 's) points all stem from that. Yours stems from your opinion that disregards that fact in favour of "it's all about power and money".
     
  12. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    9,581
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    It is... Huawei have superior 5G equipment that is much cheaper than Nokia and Ericsson.

    Seems the Germans (already launched 5G using Huawei equipment) and much of Europe after assessing the "concerns" are likely to still go with Huawei.

    Not sure how you can't see the bs on this issue and double standards... but etto. :)


    JSmith
     
  13. flain

    flain Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,081
    Location:
    Sydney
    The problem with their testing is that it was all external (ie feed in data, look at outputs, watch what data hits the wire etc). The only way to 100% know if a backdoor or a kill switch is present is to decap the chips, and reconstruct the logic which is super expensive and time consuming. It's also not practical to do on an ongoing basis as new chipset revisions come out. If there was some kind of national security threat (and i'm not saying there is- as that's a debate i don't want to be involved in) and we went to the effort to decap and reverse engineer the logic of everything on the 5G kit - China is at the advantage in that game as releasing a new revision is much easier than doing the reverse engineering again.
     
    elvis likes this.
  14. Doc-of-FC

    Doc-of-FC Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    3,396
    Location:
    Canberra
    Nope, you're making a strawman, i never implied that and you're trying to spin it that I did, not happening.

    we're talking specifically about Huawei, get with the program, stop dribbling nonsense.


    Are you mentally unable to process logic? You're clearly stuck in your ignorant and biased viewpoint and so far demonstrated that you're unable to remain impartial on several accounts.

    Citation needed.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
  15. flu!d

    flu!d Motoring and Intel forum admin

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,048
    This needs to happen, anyone that uses blind fear to pass such Draconian Laws is a risk to our delicate balance of rights and civil liberties and needs to be shown the door.

    Problem is, it's easier to get laws passed than it is to reverse them and our current right wing Governments knows this to be the absolute truth.
     
    JSmithDTV likes this.
  16. JSmithDTV

    JSmithDTV Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    9,581
    Location:
    Algol, Perseus
    I disagree.

    Ah, playing the man and not the ball mate I see... carrying on like I'm the only person on Earth with this view, geddouttahere. :)

    Could it be that some now have an irrational fear of Huawei because big brother says so?

    Spain aren't worried;

    https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/embattled-huawei-and-zte-get-spanish-boost/2019/01/

    https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles...arns-of-5g-delay-if-huawei-is-banned/2019/01/



    https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles...initial-5g-security-risk-assessments/2019/07/




    Back OT I guess... 5G is more than possible here, in fact there are services already in some cities. It's just going to cost more here...


    JSmith
     
  17. Sunder

    Sunder Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    4,508
    Funny, like so many things about this debate, everything is so reversible. Anyone who uses blind fear to try to block such useful laws is a risk to our delicate balance of rights (to safety) and civil liberties, and needs to be shown the door.

    Can you name one person out of those 300k requests who have unjustly had their privacy breached? If not, then how egregious can the abuse have been?
     
  18. elvis

    elvis OCAU's most famous and arrogant know-it-all

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    46,808
    Location:
    Brisbane
    The circus that went on in late 2018 was embarrassing to our nation. The opposition was hardballing on another vote on the last day of parliament (something immigration or detention centre related, from memory) that was directly in front of Dutton's, and Dutton started his "you support terrorists because you're preventing my 'Assisted Access Bill" from getting through" horse shit.

    Zero concern for any other issue other than his own. Zero concern for the bill that was riddled with holes and presented REAL SECURITY PROBLEMS (you want to put a gaping backdoor hole in every Aussie mobile device and tell me that will keep Australian's safe from evil foreigners who can access that same hole???). He just wanted his universal wire tap rubber stamped.

    I eagerly await the day when Dutton goes to someone like Apple and "threatens" them to grant our government plaintext access to encrypted messages between iPhones. Because that worked so bloody well for the USA's own FBI.

    I would love nothing more than each department to justify all 300K requests on an individual basis. *Especially* the ones labelled "miscellaneous".

    300K requests in a single calendar year are huge. 821 requests per day, 7 days a week. 1153 requests per working day (understanding that some critical departments work 7 days a week, of course, however there were plenty of non-critical departments on the list).
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
    whatdoesthisdo, flu!d and JSmithDTV like this.
  19. flu!d

    flu!d Motoring and Intel forum admin

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    21,048
    Storing any metadata is by definition an invasion of privacy, metadata is the golden egg. Putting back doors in encryption, encryption that exists for a reason, is quite simply taking the piss.

    The Nazi's drummed up fear using propaganda resulting in hate and racism on a scale we've never seen before, this is absolutely no different. People wonder how such a thing could have happened? This is how it happened. In comparison, stating that more native Australian's kill and maim as a result of mental illness as opposed to any form of terrorism is quite factual and not in any way drumming up unsubstantiated blind fear.

    If you ask the bulk of the population the name of the girl stabbed in the lead up to the Sydney stabbings, someone's precious daughter, I can assure you they wouldn't know her name without doing a Google search first. But rest assured 'terrorism', the word 'Allah' and 'milk crates' would be on their minds.

    Our Police being the public servants they are, need to do their job as opposed to taking the lazy way out and simply invading one's privacy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
    whatdoesthisdo and JSmithDTV like this.
  20. Sunder

    Sunder Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    4,508
    Boom! And there goes Godwin's law. As well as a few of other logical fallacies.

    More people die in work place accidents than from violent mental health offenders. Should we stop funding those programs, and laws that allow us to section (Detain) those people before they've committed a crime? I know you're trying to "debunk" the need to have these laws, saying that these random violence attacks are more related to mental health than the stated purpose of these laws (organised terrorism and organised crime), but again it works both ways:

    Mert Ney had downloads of terrorist activities on a USB stick when he was arrested... Perhaps I should use that to argue that stricter laws are needed... Hmm, this whole reversibility argument strikes again.

    Look, both you and I are probably incorrigible on our positions, and there's truth to both of them. A lot of it is no more than our opinion of how much breach of privacy is worth one conviction. If a colleague of mine went black hat (I work with ethical hackers), do I mind that some police officer checked out my phone records and possibly internet records, because he regularly calls me? Not at all. But that's personal I am not a particularly private person. You might find that offensive. I'd prefer not to be doxxed, but I do speak very freely about a lot of aspects of my life on here - From my job and hobbies, to one post - about my sex life.

    What does get on my nerves is when people repeat falsehoods they heard as facts. The one about back doors in encryption really is the only point that keeps grating me. It's been thoroughly proven wrong, and extra lines in legislation to debunk it and rule it out, and yet those who want to believe in it, keep calling for more and more evidence that it's not permitted and not believing a line of it. Nothing we can do about that. I could repeat that opponents of the law have been irrefutably proven to be mostly criminals with something to hide, and ignore every challenge to that statement... But really all that does it make me look dumb to anyone who knows anything. So does that give you a bit of insight as to why I think people who repeat the whole encryption backdoor mantra know very little of what they are talking about? Hope so.

    Oh well, the cycle continues. Enjoy.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: