- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Britain faces a “silent vulnerability” from Chinese microchips embedded in growing numbers of everyday appliances and cars, a Labour MP has warned.
The reliance on Chinese components for remote-controlled appliances created the risk that vital household technology could be disabled by China, according to Graeme Downie, who chairs the Coalition on Secure Technology campaign group.
Downie argued it was not a theoretical risk but a “real vulnerability in the systems that power our homes, hospitals and national infrastructure” and said ministers must act to reduce the country’s reliance on Chinese microchips by investing in alternatives manufactured in the UK or in allied countries.
…
The microchips transmit and receive information through computer networks, known as Chinese-made cellular IoT modules (CIMs). They enable real-time data transmission as well as remote control and predictive analytics. They have been described as “gateways to computers” and can be accessed by their manufacturer at any time.
Research by the Coalition on Secure Technology found that two thirds of all CIMs were supplied by a handful of Chinese firms: the Shanghai-based Quectel and, in Shenzhen, a city in southeast China often referred to as the country’s Silicon Valley, Kaifa Technology and Fibocom.
…
Chinese companies are subject to strict regulatory requirements that compel them to act on instructions from the ruling Chinese Communist Party and state authorities. This is particularly the case for issues deemed important to national security, prompting concerns that embedding Chinese-manufactured devices in so much of Britain’s technology could hand Beijing the capacity to cause widespread disruption by disabling devices or entire networks. While the devices cannot be used to hack into systems remotely, they can be disabled and used to collect data.
…
Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, and Charles Parton, a veteran diplomat, have warned that the dominance of Chinese companies in the IoT industry could allow Beijing to switch off Britain’s traffic lights and “immobilise London”.
…
You must log in or # to comment.
Also British MPs: “Lets mandate a backdoor into all smartphones”
So … the reality of this is that these vulnerabilities exist for all microchips, since the purchaser and the user have absolutely no insight into the innards of any of this.
Microchips are made all over the globe and rarely … if ever … in a country where the political system matches your own, unless you happen to live in the country where the chips you’re using are actually manufactured there and even then you don’t know who is watching what.
In other words, this is not a new issue, nor is it limited to one country, it affects all of us.
While we’re at it, software has exactly the same issues.
Why do you think that ICT professionals keep advocating for open source solutions?
I hate IoT. Why does a toothbrush need a bluetooth connection? Why does a washing machine need to be connected to the internet? Literally no reason
Accessibility for disabled people is a big one, but like everything it’ll be bastardized by capitalism for money, so those that would need it most must pay the most for it and they cant afford that.
I don’t think either of my examples enhances accessibility for disabled people. Sure, some IoT can be useful for accessibility but I don’t think that is plays a part in what gets implemented in 99%+ of the real life cases.
Having a washing machine notify you it’s done can be super helpful for memory loss related disabilities, for example. While there are exceptions, almost all tech that most people find makes their lives more convienent have at least one disability accommodation benefit.
My washing machine beeps after finishing until somebody opens it?
Glad you don’t experience this disability or hearing loss or sound sensitivity, but there are those that do and their lives are made better for it.
A big chunk of those with hearing loss are older people who cannot use any of this confusing technology, and are worse off it.
This is besides the point though. Of course there will always be a subset of people who benefit from the accidentally improved accessibility of conveince features.
But if its not actually made for that purpose, there is no guarantee that it is covers a lot of disabled people, provides a good user experience for them, or indeed doesn’t render it useless to other, larger subsets of people.
And those that arent in said elderly group? I was replying to your “literally no reason,” which is why I only brought up a single example. IoT has already helped with accessiblity in peoples lives.
That goes for all “smart” stuff connected to the internet. If it’s not China it will be whatever company for not paying their new monthly fee or they decide that service is no longer profitable.
I mean yes, but also no, firewalls exist for a reason, and it’s not just for stopping connections coming in but also connections going out. The only way I can see this been a serious problem is if they have some kind of radio receiver/transmitter or an esim that’s active on a UK phone network.
If they have indeed built communication systems into mundane devices that don’t need it, they’ve done it for a reason.
