Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 19, 2013, 11:55:04 am
-
Mandiant - a tech security firm - has released a detailed report tracing major cyberattacks on North American firms and critical infrastructure to the neighbourhood in Shanghai where a 'secret' Chinese army unit just happens to be based.
US Intelligence shows no surprise at this information, of course. Remains to be seen what the US government is going to have to do about it now that an issue being kept under wraps before is splashed across the public domain.
Mandiant's report: intelreport.mandiant.com/Mandiant_APT1_Report.pdf
A brief overview: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/chinese-army-tied-to-overwhelming-percentage-of-cyber-attacks-on-us-study/article8798250/
-
bit of sabre rattling and back to their respective corners is all I expect with the US being implicated in state on state cyber attacks not all that long ago
-
Kind of silly of them to use their normal IP address -- or at least the one they've acquired in Shanghai -- during attacks...
-
This has been an open secret since the '90s.
-
shamefur dispray!
-
bit of sabre rattling and back to their respective corners is all I expect with the US being implicated in state on state cyber attacks not all that long ago
Pretty much my take on it too. No one really has clean hands when it comes to this sort of thing.
-
Dislike because it will be used as justification for more anti-"cyber-terrorism" crap which will actually affect (if not target!) wikileaks/pirates/anons/occupy more than the actual "bad guys".
-
Or CISPA 2.0 (http://www.openthegovernment.org/node/3863)
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/cispa_is_back/
-
This (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-02/21/content_16242012.htm) was the first news story on one of my news feeds in China.
-
Ugh... I have mixed feelings about the article Karajorma posted.
I'm now going to post my take on it from my personal, biased point of view.
I'm going to have to state I know I might be wrong before I begin. This should be obvious in any discussion, but this time I want to state it clearly before any accusation to the contrary arises.
This will be a long post. I'm going to quote a lot on this one.
No offense intended in this post. Feel free to disregard it.
First and foremost, China Daily doesn't clearly states whether it is state-owned or not (yeah, I know, that's probably common in China and all).
This (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/static_e/2011about.html) is what they say about themselves:
About Us
About China Daily Group
From print to digital media, from China to America, Europe, Africa and the rest of Asia, the China Daily Group, with 13 print publications, is an authoritative provider of information, analysis, comment and entertainment to global readers with a special focus on China.
[...]
This (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritative) is the definition of "authoritative" by the Merriam Webster dictionary:
1
a : having or proceeding from authority : official <authoritative church doctrines>
b : clearly accurate or knowledgeable <an authoritative critique>
2
: dictatorial 2
It's not clear to me which of those China Daily claims to be.
This is an excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily#Overview), which I tend to trust more for reasons I've already stated in the past:
[...]
For the most part, the paper portrays the official policy of the PRC.[9] The editor of the paper has told foreign editors that the paper's editorial policy was to back the Party line and criticize the authorities only if there was deviation from party policy. Despite this, a number of editorials intend to give serious critical comments on both domestic and international issues.[7]
Foreign editors at the paper have been told that like most other state-owned enterprises, China Daily will no longer receive subsidies and the publication group is expected to steadily improve profit margins.
[...]
I've absolutely no concerns with state-owned media and/or media that defends a political position or an economical interest, just as long as they state it clearly and unambiguously.
Now, with that out of the way, on with the actual article. Because I haven't yet read the report from Mandiant, I'm going to give the China Daily the benefit of the doubt and assume as truth their claims that the Chinese military wasn't behind the attacks. Yet still:
First paragraph:
In the face of unfounded accusations by the United States that the Chinese government and military are behind cyberattacks on US websites, the Ministry of National Defense was quick to respond with a written statement on Tuesday and a news conference on Wednesday. This alone shows China's seriousness and sincerity in addressing cybersecurity.
Accusations are automatically assumed to be unfounded without a more detailed justification. No links to the written statement or the news conference. Their word alone isn't enough.
Second paragraph:
A report released by the US Internet security firm Mandiant on Monday claimed that cyberattacks against US websites were traced to a building in Shanghai owned by the Chinese army. But given that hackers' origins are transnational, deceptive and anonymous, the report failed to produce any convincing evidence that its occupants were behind the attacks. It is unprofessional as well as irresponsible for the US firm to base its allegations on such shaky ground.
True, but still, the Chinese government has a... let's call it "moral obligation" with the international community to work towards strengthening the security of their share of the internet network. They're a state, it's their job to prevent crime within it's borders. And while no one is perfect, they do have a share of the responsibility for the attacks nonetheless.
Third and fourth paragraphs: No disagreement on these.
Fifth and sixth paragraphs:
"This round of US accusations against China is nothing new as the country has been regularly targeted as the home of hackers in recent years. But with the so-called China cybersabotage and espionage continuing to make headlines in the US media this week, one cannot help but ask the real purpose of such a hullabaloo.
With the US economic recovery dragging its feet, it is reasonable to think that some in Washington may want to make China a scapegoat so that the public's attention is diverted away from the country's domestic woes. "
Far be it from me to deny the fierce lobbying of the western media on western governments and their vicious effects on its societies. That still doesn't excuse China from it's responsibilities in this case. This is pretty close to an ad hominem.
Rest of the paragraphs:
The Pentagon's plans to expand its Cyber Command, as revealed by the US media recently, might also shed some light on the myth. The Washington Post reported last month that the Pentagon had decided to expand Cyber Command's current staffing level of 900 to 4,900 in the coming years. Apart from protecting national computer systems, [...]
The United States, like any other nation, have a right to provide for themselves a defense force of whatever size and composition they believe necessary. It's an internal affair between the U.S. government, its population, and any other party with which they may have signed an agreement regarding these issues. As far as I know, there is nothing here to protest against.
[...] the missions of the command also include executing attacks and other offensive operations.
Interestingly, when the Cyber Command was established two years ago, the US played the same card.
Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that by whipping up cybersabotage by China time and time again the US is just using it to develop its own cyber force.
No disagreements here.
What I miss from the article:
- Links to sources in the first paragraph.
- A clear indication that this is an editorial.
What would be nice too, since there is no link to the official statements:
- Details about the Chinese State's actions so far (enacted policy, some details of the security force assigned to cybersecurity, money spent on cybersecurity, etc.)
- An statement about their projected actions from this point onwards.
That's all.
-
el_magnifico, China Daily is a state-controlled news agency, and basically the official English-language mouthpiece of the Chinese government. Nobody takes anything they say seriously when it comes to international relations or Chinese government policy (other than it usually deflects criticism from it and/or justifies it).
-
el_magnifico, China Daily is a state-controlled news agency, and basically the official English-language mouthpiece of the Chinese government.
It will not be me who rejects an article from the China Daily just because they're state-owned or officially endorsed. As I said before, my criticism towards them is not that they defend the Chinese State views, but that they don't state that clearly and openly. This is a common standard I apply to all information sources (both public and private), not a personal gripe with the China Daily or any other state-owned news agency.
Nobody takes anything they say seriously when it comes to international relations or Chinese government policy (other than it usually deflects criticism from it and/or justifies it).
Who, exactly, is this Nobody you speak of, and why is his opinion always held in such a high regard? :p Perhaps his unfortunate name has made him a little shy, but I tend to dislike it when people speak on his behalf. :lol:
Seriously though, I'm not a fan of the "you're wrong because you're wrong / because it's common knowledge or public opinion that you're wrong" approach. I like to hear to everyone and analyse things thoroughly from their very root. Just stating "it's the public consensus that they're wrong", without any statistical data to prove it and without even discussing the issue, is far too easy and usually inaccurate.
Again, my criticisms derive from a common standard I apply to all information sources, not from a personal dislike of the China Daily.
-
China Daily is a state-run newspaper in a highly authoritarian government that loves censorship and filtering of the truth to make them look better. Why would you even consider taking them seriously?
-
China Daily is a state-run newspaper in a highly authoritarian government that loves censorship and filtering of the truth to make them look better. Why would you even consider taking them seriously?
Because I presume my opinion is right, I don't need to be afraid of theirs. Denying a discussion on the base that they are "the bad guys" isn't going to take either of us anywhere.
-
China Daily is a state-run newspaper in a highly authoritarian government that loves censorship and filtering of the truth to make them look better. Why would you even consider taking them seriously?
Because I presume my opinion is right, I don't need to be afraid of theirs. Denying a discussion on the base that they are "the bad guys" isn't going to take either of us anywhere.
There's a difference between describing a source as not credible (or having a conflict of interest) and describing them as "the bad guys".
-
"Bad guys" has nothing to do with this. China Daily is run by a group of people solely interested in making China and the Chinese government look good, or if not good better than everyone else. I wouldn't trust a newspaper run by the American government either since it too would be solely interested in making the current administration look good.
-
China Daily is a state-run newspaper in a highly authoritarian government that loves censorship and filtering of the truth to make them look better. Why would you even consider taking them seriously?
Because I presume my opinion is right, I don't need to be afraid of theirs. Denying a discussion on the base that they are "the bad guys" isn't going to take either of us anywhere.
There's a difference between describing a source as not credible (or having a conflict of interest) and describing them as "the bad guys".
Then tell me, by whose standards is the China Daily not credible? The principle is the same: stigmatizing a source instead of replying to it.
I don't trust most of the western media either. Still doesn't means I'm not going to debate it.
If any of you choose not to discuss a source because you don't consider it reliable, that's fine with me. But Karajorma, who I respect very much, posted that article. And I assumed the challenge of replying to it while respecting China's presumption of innocence, without unnecessary stigmatization and prejudices. And it's still on topic. I fail to see why even discussing something can be so polemical (especially when what I actually did was to refute it thoroughly).
"Bad guys" has nothing to do with this. China Daily is run by a group of people solely interested in making China and the Chinese government look good, or if not good better than everyone else. I wouldn't trust a newspaper run by the American government either since it too would be solely interested in making the current administration look good.
Problem is, the nature of the capital doesn't necessarily relate to the trustability of the information. By the same principle, I would have to consider the BBC to be mostly unreliable, and the CNN to be mostly reliable. And I don't agree with such assessments.
-
What is this "replying to" business? When an occupying power dumps leaflets from an airplane flying over your town and you pick one up to read it, do you then attempt to engage the airplane in serious debate?
-
Who, exactly, is this Nobody you speak of, and why is his opinion always held in such a high regard? :p Perhaps his unfortunate name has made him a little shy, but I tend to dislike it when people speak on his behalf. :lol:
Nobody is actually a man named Greg. He takes the China Daily very seriously.
-
El_magnifico, you're not getting this. China has no free press. The newspapers all say what the Chinese government wants them to say, and that's including the "independent" ones. China Daily can go and say whatever it wants because nobody in China is going call them on anything, not unless that editor wants to go to a Chinese prison, or perhaps just shot if the government decides he's not worth incarcerating.
So actually yes, "bad guys" does factor into this because the Chinese government doesn't really allow dissenting viewpoints in its populace. :P
-
What is this "replying to" business? When an occupying power dumps leaflets from an airplane flying over your town and you pick one up to read it, do you then attempt to engage the airplane in serious debate?
No. I join the crowd with pitches and forks and we all throw stones at the sky for hours.
Seriously though, I believe in the inner strength and cultural enrichment that comes from free thinking, deep analysis, and reasoned debate. I don't believe in the holiness of any side here. As I said in other thread, this is a political stance. I don't expect everyone to agree with it. I DO expect people to respect it (especially in a forum, which is a place for debates).
I'll reply to SpardaSon21 in the next post.
-
I'mma let you finish but... :P
Seriously, you're asking us to engage in reasoned debate with a propaganda mouthpiece for an authoritarian government with massive information controls. Think about what you're saying for a second. Do you honestly think we'll get any cultural enrichment from a source like that?
I really, really dislike moral relativists like you. If you think everyone is a source of cultural enrichment, please, go and try to engage in reasonable debate with the Westboro Baptist Church and let me know what you come away with.
/me probably just Godwinn'd the thread. :nervous:
-
El_magnifico, you're not getting this. China has no free press. The newspapers all say what the Chinese government wants them to say, and that's including the "independent" ones. China Daily can go and say whatever it wants because nobody in China is going call them on anything, not unless that editor wants to go to a Chinese prison, or perhaps just shot if the government decides he's not worth incarcerating.
So actually yes, "bad guys" does factor into this because the Chinese government doesn't really allow dissenting viewpoints in its populace. :P
SpardaSon21, you're not getting this. The free press concept is a lie. It's a tag supposedly free countries go around imposing on others. It's the reason why I dropped out of journalism in high school, because the first thing I was told was to shove that idealism up my ass and align myself behind one of the media companies regardless of their economical interests, their political connections and their businesses.
Free press changes from country to country. Free press depends on who you ask. The "free press" can engage in practices that are every bit as repugnant as state controled press. The "free press" defends solely their interests (mostly economic), and when they eventually become a monopoly or oligopoly, you get screwed. The difference is not between "free press" and "state-controled press". The difference is in who has the power. The difference is in who censors the population. There is not much difference in the nature of the power, just in who applies it.
Finally, your last argument is very, very poor. But since you're asking, no, I wouldn't engage in debate with the Westboro Baptist Church because I've no interest to do it. But I won't try to dissuade people from doing it either. Just in the same way as I'm not going to dissuade people from debating with the US government while Guantanamo is still open. See? Works both ways if you want it to (which I don't).
This discussion has already deviated. I've no interest in participating in a discussion if I'm not allowed to discuss. I'm out of this thread.
-
Knowing how authoritarian China's government is I find it very likely that China Daily is a bunch of propaganda... but that doesn't mean analyzing it is a bad thing. Saying "nobody likes them don't listen blah blah blah" may lead to a correct conclusion in this case, but it will make you very close-minded and unwilling to listen to outside opinions.
Free thought is not bad, and I fail to see why it bothers you.
SpardaSon21, you're not getting this. The free press concept is a lie. It's a tag supposedly free countries go around imposing on others. It's the reason why I dropped out of journalism in high school, because the first thing I was told was to shove that idealism up my ass and align myself behind one of the media companies regardless of their economical interests, their political connections and their businesses.
Free press changes from country to country. Free press depends on who you ask. The "free press" can engage in practices that are every bit as repugnant as state controled press. The "free press" defends solely their interests (mostly economic), and when they eventually become a monopoly or oligopoly, you get screwed. The difference is not between "free press" and "state-controled press". The difference is in who has the power. The difference is in who censors the population. There is not much difference in the nature of the power, just in who applies it.
Exactly. Just look at Fox News and MSNBC - privately owned stations that are basically just cheerleaders for their respective political parties.
-
Before I get out, thank you Apollo.
-
I actually posted the piece mainly cause I was interested in people's opinions on the second half of it. Official mouthpiece or not, I happen to think that the Chinese are right about how the US does the same thing but complains vigorously when it's done to them.
Look up examples of ECHELON being used for industrial espionage if you don't agree.
-
our government is extremely hypocritical. especially when it comes to china I believe. iirc we complained about china manipulating its currency a year or two ago? yet we do the same thing. (I'd have to look up the specifics, and I am way to tired for that)
-
I always find it incredibly hilarious when America tells China how to run its economy. China is $2 trillion in the black and has experienced over 5% growth for the last 10-15 years. Why would they ever listen to America except if America was saying "What we did, not so good an idea"
-
There's a difference between describing a source as not credible (or having a conflict of interest) and describing them as "the bad guys".
Then tell me, by whose standards is the China Daily not credible? The principle is the same: stigmatizing a source instead of replying to it.
It's not a matter of stigmatization. If a source is not credible, then information from that source should not be taken at face-value, unless it can be corroborated by another source, without the same credibility issues.
To the question of whether or not China Daily is credible, I'm not actually taking a stand on that, at this moment. I simply feel that you were too quick to brush aside criticisms of the paper for having a potential conflict of interest. You've used the phrase "presumption of innocence" to describe how you are treating China Daily's credibility, but when the point was raised that that presumption may be unwarranted, you refused to make a skeptical examination of China Daily's credibility.
Just so that my involvement in this thread isn't entirely limited to the tangent on the necessary role of skepticism in research:
Yes, the United States' rhetoric has been pretty consistantly hypocritical, with regards to cyberwarfare. At various points, the current and previous Presidents have threatened that cyberwarfare is justification for retaliatory conventional warfare, which I think is utter madness. Not the least of my reasons for taking that position is the very issue I've defended in the last two foreign policy threads into which I've waded: the fact that the United States has been actively engaged in cyberwarfare against Iran for the express purpose of preventing or delaying another conventional war in the Middle East.
Cyberwarfare is a form of espionage, and like older forms of espionage, it has justifiable uses. Also like older forms of espionage, when caught in the act, the victim is justified in attempting to make the perpetrating entity face a consequence.
Whether or not China's digital espionage against the United States has been justified or unjustified and what consequences might be appropriate, now that their hands have been caught in the metaphorical cookie jar, I will leave unaddressed, for now, because it's 5:00am, and that's not a good hour for me to get (further) mired in foreign policy debate.
-
I actually posted the piece mainly cause I was interested in people's opinions on the second half of it. Official mouthpiece or not, I happen to think that the Chinese are right about how the US does the same thing but complains vigorously when it's done to them.
Look up examples of ECHELON being used for industrial espionage if you don't agree.
There's no question that NATO countries are up to similar shenanigans - that said, compromising critical infrastructure can be considered an act of war and US policy actually treats cyberwarfare attacks the same as conventional warfare. That's terrifying.
While I expect espionage and warfare to continue to evolve in these realms, the Chinese have been caught in the act and should cease and desist immediately lest more serious consequences follow. There is a big difference between gathering industrial espionage and compromising controls on critical infrastructure.
To put it in perspective, at least 3 countries (we can all guess who) were involved with Stuxnet and Flame attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. That's critical infrastructure, and if anyone took Iran seriously and they actually had the capacity to respond, they could legitimately treat that as hostile military action. Now, by virtue of the fact that nobody in their right mind wants a nuclear Iran it is unlikely that anyone else would actually care, but the same does not hold true of critical attacks on North American infrastructure.
Allow me to indulge in painting an ugly picture for a moment. China is not dependent on oil from the Americas. If the Chinese successfully conclude their oil negotiations with Iran and other Middle Eastern states, a cyberwarfare attack on critical pipeline infrastructure in North America (which they gained access to) couple cripple the economies of virtually all the NATO countries in one fell swoop and leave their own economy in relative bliss.
The stakes on this sort of cyberwarfare are a lot higher than mere industrial espionage.
-
between Stuxnet and this recent incident with China we are getting to the point where a high profile treaty regarding this sort of activity needs to be negotiated or at least modifications to existing espionage articles put into place
-
I always find it incredibly hilarious when America tells China how to run its economy.
Me too. I don't like China much, but the Washington Consensus is an utter failure and only made other countries worse off.