不甩美國 華為轉投英國懷抱
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/12/27
2013-12-19 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/cobaltfish/ |
英國國會的情報及安全委員會於6月發佈了嚴苛的報告。這份報告與華為在牛津郡設立的網路安全評估中心有關；該中心負責測試華為的電信網路設備，以緩和客戶（和政府）可能產生的疑慮，其總監曾在國安單位政府通訊總部（GCHQ）工作40年。雖然華為的設備在英國受歡迎的程度遠超出美國（完全不受歡迎），委員會的語調還是冷若冰霜；委員會建議，中心的職員應由GCHQ而非華為支薪，並提議政府最少也該強化監管。
這份報告促使國安顧問達洛奇爵士（Kim
Darroch ）決定要檢視該中心運作，英國政府亦於12月17日公佈了達洛奇爵士檢視報告的摘要（檢視報告本文列為機密）。達洛奇爵士給予中心相當正面的評價；他認為，華為與政府的合作「似乎相當具示範意義」，稱該中心為「政府與私人部門合作之模範」。縱有明顯的利益衝突，他認為中心的職員應該繼續由華為雇用，以確保他們可以在不受限制的情況下接觸華為的產品、程式碼和工程師。
然而，達洛奇爵士同意政府應當加強監督。他建議增強GCHQ在資深人員選任上的決定權，讓GCHQ主導並擔任選任小組主席；目前GCHQ僅能否決華為的選擇。其他建議包括：創建監督委員會，並由GCHQ資深人員擔任主席；每年檢視中心的表現；將目前華為向中心職員提供程式碼和設備的非正式約定正式化。
換句話說，委員會似乎指出了部分需要強化的草率程序。更讓人擔心的或許是，達洛奇爵士認為「英國就業市場顯然缺乏擁有相關技術的人員，無法完全填補（該中心）、GCHQ和英國政府內的相關職缺」。在這個變動快速、安全威脅隨時會浮現的產業，英國得加緊跟上腳步才行。
這一切應該不致造成華為的煩惱。華為在英國找到了舒適的第二個家；它在英國擁有890名員工，並於今年成立了新的總部。首相卡麥隆和財政大臣奧斯本（George Osborne）希望能增加對中貿易，當然也對華為沒有壞處。相反地，「華為」一詞在美國有如「國安威脅」的同意詞，就連華為可能會替美國的重要盟友南韓建造高速網路，都讓美國參議員緊張無比。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
The Economist
Huawei
Proceed with
caution
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 19, 2013
Dec 17th 2013, 18:50 by P.L.
IN JUNE the Intelligence and Security Committee, a group of British
parliamentarians, published a stern report. It concerned the Huawei Cyber
Security Evaluation Centre, at Banbury in Oxfordshire, where telecoms-network
equipment supplied by the Chinese company is tested to alleviate any worries that
its customers (or the state) may have. Its director spent 40 years working at
the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), part of the security
services. Though Huawei's gear has been far more welcome in Britain than
America (where it is not welcome at all), the committee's report struck a
frostier tone. It recommended that the centre's staff should be on GCHQ's
payroll rather than Huawei's. At a minimum, it proposed closer oversight.
On December 17th the government published a summary of a review by Sir
Kim Darroch, the national security adviser, which had been prompted by the
committee's report. (The full review is classified.) Sir Kim gives the centre a
pretty clean bill of health. He says that Huawei's co-operation with it has
"appeared exemplary" and calls the centre "a model for
government collaboration with the private sector". Despite the apparent
conflict of interest, he says that the centre's staff should remain Huawei
employees, to ensure unrestrained access to the company's products, code and
engineers.
Sir Kim does, however, agree that closer supervision is required. He
recommends that GCHQ should have more say in the appointment of the centre's
senior staff. It should take the lead and should chair the selection panel;
hitherto, it has only been able to veto Huawei's choices. His other
recommendations include: the creation of an oversight board with a senior GCHQ
staffer in the chair; an annual review of the centre's performance; and the
formalisation of informal arrangements for the provision of code and equipment
by Huawei to the centre's staff.
In other words, it seems the committee fingered some sloppy procedures
that need tightening up. More worrying, perhaps, is that Sir Kim notes "an
apparent shortage of individuals in the UK employment market with the necessary
technical expertise and skills to fill all the available posts in [the centre],
GCHQ and the relevant parts of Whitehall." In a fast-moving industry, with
security threats emerging all the time, Britain has to do more to keep pace.
None of this looks likely to vex Huawei. It has found a cosy second
home in Britain, where it has 890 employees and opened a new headquarters this
year. The eagerness of David Cameron, the prime minister, and George Osborne,
the chancellor, to court trade with China will do it no harm either. Contrast
that with its position in America, where the word "Huawei" translates
roughly as "security threat". Even reports that the Chinese firm
might build high-speed networks in South Korea, an important ally of the United
States, give senators the jitters.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
沒有留言:
張貼留言