Name: Huawei 5Gは国家の安全保障上のリスク？英国、ネットワークの役割を限定的に承認 (Is Huawei 5G a national security risk? UK approves limited role for network)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T09:55:21.000Z
Duration: 13 min 50 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

程度の副詞

so the Chinese telecoms giant is safe enough to be given a role in the new five G network.

基礎受動態

But not safe enough to be allowed near sensitive locations such as nuclear sites and military base is the announcement of who always continued role in five G was made after a meeting with Cabinet ministers and security chiefs.

So will there be a diplomatic clash with the United States on could Tory MPs rebel over the matter?

Our political editor, Gary Gibbon, is in Westminster now.

Gary, you'll remember one of the slogans that Boris Johnson repeated a lot in that election in December was full fibre broadband.

He wanted faster connectivity, which he thought would contribute to economic growth, which would allow him the money he wanted to spend on certain goodies.

Well, if he pulled away completely out of the equation on five G there so embedded in there, it would have quite serious implications for that entire program costs delays, the restrictions has decided to go with on their involvement.

That probably brings as some significant cost and a little bit of delay, but nothing like what a complete ban would bring.

So that leaves him dealing with the United States.

We heard bloodcurdling language from some supporters of Donald Trump today who, along with the president himself, have been saying that there should be no involvement of whywe whatsoever in five G in this country.

We haven't actually heard from Donald Trump himself yet, but bated breath, we might yet, and, as you said, Tory MPs, some of them not all of them, but some of them political bed foes from the Brexit crisis with alongside Boris Johnson back then have been raising their voices with their concerns about while way having anything to do with five g.

Or at the very least, they want to see a past way for it to be removed completely.

They're not confident they've seen that he has a massive majority, of course, but he needs to pass a law to get this restriction on the market into statute.

And right now you have to say amazingly with that whopping majority, a few of his parliamentary number crunches or a bit edgy, the United States said Britain shouldn't let Weiwei anywhere near its five g network.

We've gone too deep to turn back one white all source said.

The National Security Council agreed to let go away be part of the U.

K's five G development, reined it in at 35% market share.

Do you think why we should allowed to build our five g network, Mr.

Wallace, at a meeting of the National Security Council this morning, critics like the defense secretary signed up to the policy.

Do you think it's dangerous to let while we build our five G network?

Decision collectively in the Commons for the first time since the election, the people who used to cause trouble alongside Boris Johnson were causing trouble for him and say, Yes, I do think what we should be banned from our networks.

Even if even if we're not, you know, off Chinese government.

2017 Law requires a construction from the Chinese intelligence Agency.

Does he now believe that China is a threat to us in cyber security?

And Willie Guarantee that as he takes on those threats to us, does he think that he will now Dr Weil, way out of our future systems progressively as quickly as he can.

I think my right on the friend in Duncan, Smith heckled his old Brexit ally, the foreign secretary.

Critics of the decision worry that a company that can take orders from the Chinese government could construct back doors into five G technology it could disrupt or crash systems.

Five G means faster downloads on equipment like phones or computers.

It speeds up response time and reliability.

You can get more storage capacity and access it quicker.

But five G also gives the scope for much more real time data exchanges between, say, driverless cars, fridges, monitoring their contents and smart factories that could start running themselves.

The government's decided to restrict y away from sensitive parts of the five g network and from sensitive areas like nuclear weapons or energy sites.

Restricting market share means some companies already exceeding that with their faraway equipment will have to strip it out if they want to buy new a kit.

Having to rip out wall way entirely would cost them hundreds of millions of pounds, so any change will involve some kind of financial impact For them.

Way did some research, which looked a 50% restriction of far away across Britain, and we found that probably would result in something like an 18 months delay to the launch of five G and as much as £4.5 billion hit thio economic development.

As a result, it will work with other vendors in the UK Thio.

Make sure there's diversity in the market.

We're happy with the business that we've been given.

Are you happy about the value of a company makes the Bridges State said nervous well with IV's today because the UK government has accepted us into with the UK network on, ahem, do in and limited you banned you from core networks, banned you from sensitive areas, continuing the need to examine all your equipment for security reasons.

So there are a number of mitigations in place on dhe it.

We've been working with the U K government for 15 years now.

Allies of President Trump attacked the decision.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, said by allowing her way into the u.

K five g network, Boris Johnson has chosen the surveillance state over the special relationship.

Senator Mitt Romney, former Republican presidential candidate, said.

K is sacrificing national security and inviting the Chinese Communist Party surveillance state in spoon.

S is suffering a Sputnik moment, an echo of 1957 when United States discovered the communist Soviet Union beating it in the space race.

Any mail, our out echoes of that fear today, as United States falls behind China's lead in cyberspace, something white all think it's that worry, not hard evidence of China's dark intent that is driving the U.

They doubt United States threats to restrict intelligence sharing of the UK I don't think that the voices that we've heard in the British debate from Washington represent the American intelligence community.

I think they are mostly political people around the administration, the White House.

But that relationship between the two intelligence communities is so deep on dhe so trusting, so important to both sides, I don't think that that is going to be threatened.

G C H q of categorically confirmed that how we construct our five G in full fiber public telecoms network has nothing to do with how we share classified data and the U K's technical security experts have agreed that the new controls on hiring vendors are completely consistent with the UK security needs.

The government here says the answer is to build up Western rival's toe.

Boris Johnson told President Trump my phone this afternoon, catching up China on five G.

Joining me now from the House of Commons is the Labour MP Kevin Jones, who has served on the Intelligence and Security Committee and is hoping to be reappointed to that and Tom to get heart, who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on, is also hoping to be re elected to that Tom Chicken heart.

When the security Service's and former national security advisers are sure that this is all fine, why are you so sure that it's a mistake?

Well, I think that's a real problem with well, way that is nothing to do with the United States or nothing to do with Australia, but is everything to do with the way this Chinese company is structured on.

Indeed, the government itself recognizes that after all, that's why the government described it as a high risk vendor there's no reason to describe it is a high risk vendor if you don't think it is one.

But it fails all eight tests that the government set out.

And so the government clearly is concerned.

And that's why I support very much the government's efforts that it's made in order to identify high risk vendors in recent months.

But I'm very, very keen that the plan outlined today is not a target of 35% but merely a way point of 35% on the way to a target of zero.

If there is a high risk from who are way limiting it to 35% is not really going to eliminate that risk, is it?

Because if you look at the evidence, which produced by G.

C H Q and was provided to the Internal Security Committee, what risk there is can be mitigated.

The nonsense has been toting about, for example, that it will be able to get involved in the five hours skewer networks just rubbish.

What we need to do here is actually look at the facts.

The facts are is that scoots service's have done a very detailed, intensive investigation into this, and I think the assurance that, given our robust Tom Signal, well, I'm sure Kevin is absolutely right that the ability to get into our secure communications systems is zero.

But that isn't the point for this system.

This system is based on the five G system.

Figure me is based on the idea that many different items will communicate together, creating much more data than is available now from, you know, autonomous vehicles to crack any any number of different items that sort of communicate together through the five G network.

And so the key is here to look at the reality that the court on edge distinction are being eroded.

And that's why I'm absolutely adamant that the government, as it has announced it so far, is welcome progress on the existing situation.

But I'm very keen to see this going to zero, not just a 35% but what you afraid that China would do well.

If you look at, for example, the African Union Ethiopia, that has been sending packets of data system Shenzhen between midnight and two in the morning from faraway systems, the same in Uganda.

We've got reports off hick vision using quite way technology, sending information from Tanzania.

And we know that hick vision and hallway are both integral to the police state that is seeing Zhang, where some 1,000,000 also week of Muslims are already in detention.

So it's we know that while WAY is part of the security state in China on dhe, we know that this is causing concern even for example, to the Communist Vietnamese.

So although I am absolutely confident that G c h Q r right that they can mitigate their, the challenge is immediately.

I think it's very interesting that it was the M I five chief and not six or G C H Q.

Who came out to argue that all this was fine?

Kevin Jones isn't that you believe that the opposition to our way is really more to do with on American trade war, of which Britain is not part.