Can somebody TLDR; why 5G is so much more dangerous (security wise) vs 4G?
Plus I do like the two-facedness - nobody should spy unless it's us.
Plus I do like the two-facedness - nobody should spy unless it's us.
It should be self evident that turning over domestic communications infrastructure to a global rival with the largest military on the planet, nuclear first strike capability, a history of violence, newly minted dictator, and global ambitions is a terrible idea.
Also, the US government isn't stealing US IP and giving it to Chinese businesses. The PLA is, and their ties to Huawei run deep.
No, it's stealing "allies" IP and giving it to US businesses [0] while subsidizing Intel to the tune of billions [1].
Still, nobody writes headlines along the lines of "State-sponsored Intel processors come with ME backdoor for government spying." instead we get, super trustworthy, articles how the NSA totally helped with disabling the backdoor [2], because a sucker is born every minute.
The absurdity of it all is immense, yet still seems to elude most US Americans.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...
[1] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/intel
[2] https://www.csoonline.com/article/3220476/researchers-say-no...
According to your source the US government is subsidizing Intel to the tune of $228,154,638, $141mm of which are loans. The lions share of those billions are incentives from Oregon and New Mexico to keep Intel manufacturing in their states.
>The absurdity of it all is immense, yet still seems to elude most US Americans.
What seems absurd in my opinion, is the idea it's a bad idea to prevent an unfriendly foreign power from gaining more access to your communication infrastructure. That's not hypocritical, it's pragmatic national security policy...
When you say it like that it's not quite clear whether you are referring to China or the US.
I don't know if there's a name for this but I'd call it "top dog syndrome", this is possibly the first time the US witnesses another player rising up to status and they don't seem to take it well.
This is all still very speculative, but there isn't a telecom out there I'd trust to run my servers.
I agree we could use nice ways to serve content more locally, and there's already some solutions here, but I'm struggling to see how it works as part of a cell network protocol without redefining a lot of how we expect the internet to work.
- Almost any existent device will likely be connected to the Internet through 5G almost as fast as it became available
- Access probably will be a LOT cheaper than 4G, will get there a lot faster (months not years), so everybody will be onboard ASAP
- 5G network could easily replace many fiber optic deployments currently used by telecommunication companies big clients (so if you breach the 5G infrastructure, you're reaching internal networks in banks, trust funds, government sensitive information offices, whatever fancy dangerous stuff not suitable for public access)
- 5G is REALLY FAST and RELIABLE, (very hight bandwith plus very, very low latency), so if you hack into something, or if you deploy malware, it will spread faster than the Thanos snap. The data exfiltration - taking your stolen data out to your infrastructure - could take a LOT less than now, this probably means the bad guys could hack out a lot more data than now, also probably using a "raw" approach: if you get in, just transfer everything you can access, right now
- The massive (freaking massive) traffic you're going to see into the network monitoring infrastructure will probably be very similar to what Five Eyes currently sees for entire countries, but in city per city base (NY, Boston, DC, Berlin, Barcelona, etc.), so initially very few players will be able to get out something meaningful from the monitoring stuff, but what devices failed: more bad guys oportunities.
Finally.
- Whoever makes the hardware has the upper hand, you - whoever you are - go behind them, in almost any security scenario.
So yeah, we need to have this stuff under some serious control.
Trump is almost certainly right in his attemp to make what he's doing.
Also I want to say that wireless communication will never be technically superior to something shielded in some way, and if you can afford it, and you don't need to move around, it will always be a better choice. The fact some ISPs can compete with cable using wireless modems is more a statement about wire ownership laws than anything else.
In the past, faster almost always mean a denser network of costly towers. Is that different for 5G?
1) In order to stimulate (or meet, depending on which side of the supply-demand equation you represent) demand for 5G, wireless operators will most likely need to increase data caps (e.g. Canada) and keep the same prices, because 5G speeds are much faster than 4G. This means that "wireless access" denominated in "$/MB" will likely drop.
2) 5G equipment is not necessarily cheaper than 4G. Depending on the spectrum bands used, 5G may in fact be more expensive. A recent April 2019 Wapo article[1] kind of speaks to some of the issues with the US settling on 24-300Ghz vs. rest of the world settling on sub-6Ghz bands. But the answer from a wireless operator point of view is that 5G is probably much more expensive than 4G, not less.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/on-5...