>Professor Sampson asks: "Do you want untrusted companies screening at airports, watching school playgrounds or on hospital wards?" He gave the example of one such company that has won awards for work monitoring children on school buses in Scotland that is now on the new ban list.

is this an actual "professor" speaking sense? what do you mean untrusted companies? either hikvision exfiltrates data from the UK to china servers and there are logs to verify that or hikvision could remotely access any device even if it was not online or was online with security but they have a bypass, both could be verified but other than these two cases, what is this pre-emptive ban that could cost the public exchequer millions or billions for what? a hunch that, as they put it, >"We are no longer asking whether certain security companies can be trusted, we now accept they can't, but we need to work out how to verify those we can trust."

so they will first ban hikvision, remove all their cameras from UK, replace that with a competitor, THEN authenticate the trustworthiness of hikvision and THEN maybe let them back in the market.

WTF thinks like that unless you have malicious intent?