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 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 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, 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.
