Thank you, Chair.
I want to come back to the concept of—it feels like a big word but it's been brought up—warfare and the term “hybrid warfare”, which I believe you used as well. I want to come back to the supply chain a bit, because, without getting into specifics of individual companies and such, there is this question of...especially because I think that a lot of us, including those of us around this table, don't really understand the implications of 5G and it's been talked about a lot.
One of the issues is the ubiquity of things like smart homes and all kinds of things like that. You used the example of fridges. There's this issue that is coming up. You said you wouldn't attack the bank but you'd go after the individual. In that respect, is there a concern that because, for example, there are things being made in China, you might remove them from developing 5G by a company from there, but then the next thing you know, they're still involved in making the cellphone, for example, even if it's an iPhone or something like that?
What concern is there about the actual items themselves connecting to the network? The network might be secure, but for the individual items—household items that we'll now be using, the self-driving cars, and all of these things that are being talked about as the reasons that 5G would be helpful—we do not actually have any security protocols in place. I'll put the question to both of you, if I may.