>>11547619>problem with this being weaponised is that it would have to be targeted with triangulationOne of 5G's mid- and high-band tricks is using highly directional beams that by definition target end-users, is it not? How would that even work without triangulation?
>Huawei just provides the equipmentAnd it makes sense to scrutinize both its general safety to people and wildlife, it's potential to be misused, it's vulnerabilities etc. and I'm talking about all 5G in general because obviously Huawei's 5G is out of the question now, no country or corporation that values their critical infrastructure is going to entrust that to an offshoot of the PLA/CCP.
>it would be looked in to and chances are it would be found out probably.Would it? Code can easily reach such levels of complexity that building in structural vulnerabilities that only the designers know about could easily be left open to exploit, doubly so when ignorance of the intricacies of the hardware can also be leveraged in tandem. And what about the weekly patches, do you honestly think telecoms companies would bother to reverse-engineer closed source software to inspect what it does? You do realize firmware and drivers are proprietary in these cases, they can't just rummage through the code, and even if they could they won't continue doing that for every patch? It would be infinitely less risky and more sensible to just contract trustworthy manufacturers whose code and hardware can be more readily audited.
