Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Laurynas3000 t1_ixq4f6i wrote

Bloody hell that is a rather magnificent decision indeed!

318

Pretend-Patience9581 t1_ixtyg6c wrote

We spends billions on security services, the someone says maybe we should not be using Chinese cameras and their services. ROFL. Well fuck me.

9

ThunderKant_1 t1_ixrd5bz wrote

It’s really funny how easy it is to use „external threats“ to distract people from the internal problems that are a million times greater and more acute. Most of this „being tough on China“ mentality that we see right now is just populism.

−258

Burntzombies t1_ixrpi8o wrote

Tankie detected

95

ThunderKant_1 t1_ixrynpf wrote

lol couldn’t be further from the truth but it must be nice living in a black and white world where everything fits neatly in boxes. I’m not saying critique of China isn’t valid, but think about why politicians are starting with this right now, what the political and real world implications actually are, and if the measures are consistent. Here’s a hint: majority of the phones in the UK are made in China, and if you weren’t aware, phones have chips and cameras. Don’t see many people demanding the ban of all iPhones though. This measure is only there to sound nice and fuel the current opinions of the general population without any real-world applications.

I would urge you guys to read a history book. Over blowing external threads to distract from internal problems is a propaganda tactic as old as civilization itself.

−82

DrDroid t1_ixs3oxx wrote

But then the question becomes: what would criticism of things like this that wasn’t “distraction” look like? It sounds like under your definition we could never focus on things like this until internal problems are 100% solved.

43

ThunderKant_1 t1_ixs5rxe wrote

You make a fair point. I guess you can’t really infer this in every situation as an outside observer. Of course not all kinds of critique is just distraction. I feel like in the case of the UK right now it is obvious enough to make such a statement, if you look at for example which topics were important during the election, but in other cases where it isn’t as clear I suppose there is no way to definitely know what’s sincere and what’s not as an outside observer.

−37

archip t1_ixrzo1i wrote

With some of the comments and replies I’d be surprised if most reddit users could read past a primary school level.

3

mpu599 t1_ixrwauz wrote

How much you getting paid to write this?

85

a-flayer t1_ixs9iog wrote

Focus on China as the enemy. Replace the cameras, certainly don't question why they are there to begin with.

−38

Kaekru t1_ixtrz6d wrote

Go on genius, tell us why there are cameras on government buildings, must be something so enlightening that only the chosen few by god like you could possibly know.

4

a-flayer t1_ixtvtmu wrote

For surveillance...

−5

Kaekru t1_ixtwm1r wrote

Man that just flew right over your head didn’t it

1

a-flayer t1_ixtws4m wrote

It did not, I am mocking you.

−3

Kaekru t1_ixtwtq8 wrote

Sure little buddy, you’re mocking people, we can all see

1

Syenite t1_ixsbf60 wrote

China is a threat, they don't even really try to hide that fact. Could this be used as a distraction from domestic issues? Of course, but that doesn't mean Chinese surveillance equipment inside of sensitive areas is a good idea. Because it is a terrible idea. Would western countries do this to China if they could? Yup, but I would bet anything western tech isnt being allowed inside sensitive Chinese government areas.

51

Fitzsimoo t1_ixskj7k wrote

Why would the US care about UK internal politics? They're doing the same.

The U.S. is banning the sale of communications equipment made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE and restricting the use of some China-made video surveillance systems, citing an “unacceptable risk” to national security

9

feral_brick t1_ixtvf7e wrote

You don't understand this is deep state propaganda of course it runs deep /s

1

Syncopationforever t1_ixrn8yc wrote

Why did it take so long to recognise the potential threat lol

157

Haitchyy t1_ixs2cj5 wrote

because our government is unfit for purpose

57

art-love-social t1_ixs8sqx wrote

This is not political decision it is government aka civil service decisin. there are LOADS of companies doing this. I have just finished a project ... The replacement cameras/systems are also made in china - however they have had their code checked and verified. It is simpler, easier, quicker and cheaper just to tear out the old and bung in the new "checked" cameras.

15

androshalforc1 t1_ixtk32k wrote

> however they have had their code checked and verified.

and what about the hardware? a small wireless transmitter on a board capable of accessing/downloading a harddrive if someone with the right receiver is in range

2

art-love-social t1_ixtrw6c wrote

..anything in IT requires "code" . The checking is a literal line by line. V Sensitive stuff can [and often is] encased in a Faraday cage

1

feral_brick t1_ixtvlaq wrote

I can see your security engineers are working overtime covering for you.

There's tons of purpose built IC's without any code to review

2

art-love-social t1_ixtxhef wrote

Indeed there are, however wifi/transmitters and data acquisition would not fall into that category. Security is is excellence in box ticking, if the manufacture can't explain the purpose of a chip = device not approved .. and NEXT!

While Huawei were fighting their losing battle to show their kit was safe and OK, there is/was a facility in Leeds [UK] that went through their kit to validate claims. *Huawei kit is now being removed from the UK 5G network roll out. Large UK company I was doing work for got taken over by a US company in a worldwide shopping spree, and from this perspective - any huawei kit to be removed from network in a quick time scale, no huawei phones for business purposes ... and so on

1

feral_brick t1_ixv4mtc wrote

You can absolutely create a malicious microcontroller that does some malicious days transfer on the side, you have no idea what you're talking about

2

art-love-social t1_ixvkr8v wrote

Yup, exactly. which is why entities* exist that check the kit from the ground up. Any malicious code, unexplainable hardware, reluctance of manufactures to explain = device fails ...

eg the Huawei set up in Leeds UK

1

blaze53 t1_ixu4t40 wrote

No it isn't.

1

art-love-social t1_ixu7d58 wrote

..would love to hear of an example of hardware that carries out a useful function without any form of coding/instruction set ?

Further in the context of this a piece of hardware that carries out data acquisition and onward transmission without any code

0

blaze53 t1_ixu850j wrote

I'm talking about the Faraday cage nonsense.

1

art-love-social t1_ixuu35q wrote

F cages are used in secure environments - but granted for a CCTV camera it is a bit of a stretch

0

blaze53 t1_ixuxijf wrote

In secure environments, the sensitive shit is on a wired network, separate from wireless access points. Which movie did you watch?

1

therapeuticstir t1_ixsa678 wrote

How’s that new guy doing? Better than the last before him I hope.

2

merien_nl t1_ixq5caj wrote

The camera is not the problem, the network part is. And it is not just China. The actual and legal stance of the US is also not very good.

So you can buy Chinese (or any other supplier) dumb camera's. But if you want to make them remote accessible make sure the network equipment is secure.

77

HisAnger t1_ixq87gw wrote

actually camera can be problem, you have no idea how small chips can be and how many functions they can have inside.
You can open ability to connect directly to camera using hidden wifi.

93

PunkinBrewster t1_ixqgi2b wrote

Plus firmware updates can unlock no end of additional capabilities. Even if it isn't dangerous now, it could be with an update.

44

noplace_ioi t1_ixsx76k wrote

serious question: what is the risk of getting said cameras, blocking them from accessing internet in the firewall and using something like BlueIris to operate them?

1

[deleted] t1_ixt8xeu wrote

[deleted]

1

HisAnger t1_ixv5d8o wrote

It is not only that, you can hide wifi capability and device can wait for a signal to activate it. You can park a car next to a building and get access to all cameras ... or get a back door to someone's network

2

MaxwellCE t1_ixr2y4h wrote

Can't wait for the firmware update on my phone to add an extra camera module.

−11

PunkinBrewster t1_ixr4gct wrote

No, but the firmware update to enable the camera without notifying the operating system and secret the data out via DNS queries to Chinese name servers is in beta.

23

[deleted] t1_ixrr1l6 wrote

[deleted]

1

PunkinBrewster t1_ixruugt wrote

Data exfiltration is an art as much as a science. A company can minimize their risk, but never eliminate it. Unless your devices are completely airgapped, there is always a risk.

8

SRM_Thornfoot t1_ixryz5h wrote

Even airgapped there is a risk. See my post above.

3

PunkinBrewster t1_ixs10tt wrote

Oh, agreed. My favorite story of these types of exfiltrations is The Thing. This was done almost 80 years ago. It is insane what can be done now.

2

SRM_Thornfoot t1_ixryszk wrote

A simple way would be for the camera to have secret built in bluetooth. Even if the camera were set up hard wired to a private intra-net the image could be retrieved if an external bluetooth receiver was positioned in range of the camera.

For example a car could be parked with a receiver/recorder outside an embassy, or a tourist could have a receiver/recorder in their purse while touring inside the Capital building.

(and that is just one way to do it)

4

BumPumpyFace t1_ixrx0k7 wrote

There could be an IOT mobile sim in there for all you know.

2

[deleted] t1_ixryilx wrote

[deleted]

−1

BumPumpyFace t1_ixs61th wrote

That's not quite how IOT sims work. They're used frequently in industrial telemetry at very large scale and they work anywhere.

Plus, nation states do all sorts of wacky expensive shit.

The point is, it's possible.

3

justinlongbranch t1_ixs66z0 wrote

Sim cards are cheap, just activate the ones you want later. It probably wouldn't even be all that tough to disguise em

1

Kaeny t1_ixsc4xk wrote

I have a feeling youre kidding, but if not you gotta think a little deeper

1

mgzukowski t1_ixqaog1 wrote

Oh no the cameras are. Hikvision and Dahua have both been found with back doors and massive security holes.

That's why they have been banned in government buildings and certain buisnesses in the US. That's what NDAA compliant means. Not one of those companies.

Problem is those two companies make many of the SOC's used by other companies. Or many of the cheap cameras are just rebadged OEMs of those companies.

37

WordWord-1234 t1_ixrcdai wrote

Source for hikvision and dahua please?

0

mgzukowski t1_ixs49p5 wrote

Which part the security breaches, the NDAA law or the complete ban of new products in US. Or the FCC declaring it a national security risk?

8

tedead t1_ixq6upo wrote

The UKs hands aren't clean either. You've heard of Five Eyes?

−59

merien_nl t1_ixq7cs1 wrote

Of course the UK is not clean either. But if they are afraid of spying on themselves they have an other issue.

25

tedead t1_ixq7oiq wrote

They kind of do spy on themselves. They just do it in a different way. Part of the reason of that alliance.

−28

Killboypowerhed t1_ixrf2b1 wrote

There's a difference between a country spying on itself and a country spying on another

13

tedead t1_ixs12p5 wrote

But they do spy on themselves via the other countries in the alliance. Since they can't technically legally spy on their own people, they allow the other members to do the spying for them, and then they share the data secretly with each other.

Down vote this all you want. It doesn't change what's happening.

−11

DirtyBeastie t1_ixsc0s4 wrote

MI5's entire purpose is to spy on "their own people". It would be a bit pointless for them to exist if they weren't allowed to do it.

But, hey, you've heard of five eyes, don't really know what it does, but thought you'd shoehorn it in anyway.

6

autotldr t1_ixq8nl0 wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 57%. (I'm a bot)

> The U.K. is restricting Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites including government buildings, based on a government review of security risks.

> The British government has advised departments to disconnect Chinese surveillance equipment from departmental core networks, and remove and replace it without waiting for upgrades.

> The U.K. government is advising departments to consider whether Chinese surveillance equipment should be banned from areas "Outside the definition of sensitive sites" to further mitigate risk.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: surveillance^#1 U.K.^#2 government^#3 equipment^#4 Chinese^#5

22

plankright37 t1_ixsdg5t wrote

It’s about time. Just as in the case of Russia the UK are late to the party.

5

DofPa t1_ixqdkpz wrote

r/BoycottChina

20

igo4vols2 t1_ixqlkl2 wrote

Shouldn't iPhones be banned as well...

18

Squish_the_android t1_ixrdcfn wrote

From the angle that they're made in China or that it's an American company with a camera and mic on every person.

12

igo4vols2 t1_ixretgk wrote

either or both

9

Snugglosaurus t1_ixsa68f wrote

Not so worried about apple tech being manufactured in China (at least from a 'China stealing our data' security standpoint). Apple have everything in their products determined down to the nanometer. If there is anything in there that ain't meant to be in there, it'll be noticed.

Other manufactured products I could see how something could slip in unnoticed.

0

igo4vols2 t1_ixuu3go wrote

You probably think too highly of Apple products.

1

helzinki t1_ixrs343 wrote

Pretty much every smartphone except for Samsung, Sony and Asus should be banned.

−11

Syenite t1_ixsbvxq wrote

More like there just needs to effective legislation passed that curbs data collection and surveillance. They all do it because it is legal and very profitable. The only difference between Huawei and Samsung is who is doing the collecting. Governments and companies get too much value out of the collection though, so it will likely never be regulated.

3

igo4vols2 t1_ixuuozh wrote

I think the whole thing is pretty ridiculous. I can hear the criminal master minds now, "I'm going to hide secret transmission tech inside these cameras that say Made in China on them. No one will ever think to look there".

1

warheat1990 t1_ixsrhod wrote

Always on separate VLAN with no internet access brother, and stay away from Cloud based CCTV regardless of Brand.

4

Select_Truck3257 t1_ixszbd1 wrote

when "big brother is watching you" but this time it's China:)

3

shewy92 t1_ixr8jge wrote

So no more filming TikToks in Parliament?

1

DeMoBeats1234 t1_ixujolx wrote

I work for an electrical distributor in the US. It was maybe 2-3 months ago that the US just did this. We have a few government customers. We had to replace cameras at a few government installations, as well as ALL of our own facilities. We have training labs set up with cameras for remote viewing, showing the connectivity/setup ease, etc… no Chinese chips allowed in any of them. It was a huge ordeal.

1

gaukonigshofen t1_ixqknwu wrote

pretty sure eufy, wyze and othe brands are also eye in the sky

−1

[deleted] t1_ixs91gg wrote

Maybe they will use American equipment. We don't have have a recent history of spying on our allies. /s

−1

conduitabc t1_ixqyuk1 wrote

no more cheap Chinese sony a7 4 knockoffs allowed!

−7