"Nevermind" - Emily Littela
Printable View
"Nevermind" - Emily Littela
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21307212Quote:
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt uses a new book to call China an Internet menace that backs cyber-crime for economic and political gain, reports say. The New Digital Age - due for release in April - reportedly brands China "the world's most active and enthusiastic filterer of information".
A detective story, not Sherlock Holmes or CSI, that finally talks to the suspect, who works for the, read on:http://mobile.businessweek.com/artic...ntity-unmasked
One of the investigators in the article David linked to hopes that if enough investigations that lead back to the Red Chinese government are made public, they will 'fess up and admit what they have been doing. He doesn't know if they will stop but figures it might make it harder.
Naivete like that isn't going to stop this. Hoods don't care if everybody knows what they do as long as nobody stops them. Public knowledge is taken care of by a sincere outraged denial. Hoods have that down pat.
I think there is a ruthlessness gap here.
I don't know, why don't you ask him and tell us what he says?
If they're doing something illegal, you call the cops and have them stopped. I'm not sure how applicable that is to China's internet activities. Who you gonna call?
If the hoods are doing something immediately threatening and there are no cops, you could try to stop them yourself, which brings you right back to the original question... how do you propose to stop them?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/96unclass/farewell.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/op...l-dossier.html
Quote:
The technology topping the Soviets' wish list was for computer control systems to automate the operation of the new trans-Siberian gas pipeline. When we turned down their overt purchase order, the K.G.B. sent a covert agent into a Canadian company to steal the software; tipped off by Farewell, we added what geeks call a ''Trojan Horse'' to the pirated product.
''The pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed to go haywire,'' writes Reed, ''to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds. The result was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space.''
Bourbon:
The CIA doc you linked to was very interesting and contained this passage.
That strategy seems as if it would be a very appropriate one to apply toward Red China today. Hell, reducing the power of the ruling elite would be downright humanitarian.Quote:
On 17 January 1983, to define his policy for political, military, and economic relations with the USSR, Reagan approved National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 75, U. S. Relations with the USSR, a document spelling out purposes, themes, and strategy for competing in the Cold War. It specified three policy elements: containment and reversal of Soviet expansionism, promotion of change in the internal system to reduce the power of the ruling elite, and engagement in negotiations and agreements that would enhance US interests.
That's the question I asked you. It seemed relevant, since you were the one discussing stopping them.
For me it would depend entirely on what you want them to stop doing, how badly you want them to stop doing it, and how willing you are to deal with the probable consequences of whatever means are proposed to get them to stop doing it.
Again these are very generic prescriptions, and the question would be what exactly could or should be done to advance these prescriptions. It might also be pointed out that some of what was done to contain and reverse Soviet expansionism didn't exactly work out for us, notably sustaining various dictators who claimed to be anti-communist and supporting various insurgents who turned out to be not so much anti-communist as anti-everybody. Any such set of broad goals stands or falls on the specific steps chosen to advance the goals.
Of course the Chinese cyber-espionage project is well known, and we can assume that all of the standard responses are in progress, from analyzing their espionage priorities to determine their perceived weaknesses to trying to set them up to steal things that will backfire on hem. Of course the Chinese also know these moves are in progress and will be taking their own steps to counter them. That's the nature of the game.
As for the aforementioned "water army", described this way:
it would appear to indicate, in simple terms, an unlimited capacity for generating spam. How large a threat this entails remains unclear.Quote:
paid posters are known as the Internet Water Army because they are ready and willing to 'flood' the internet for whoever is willing to pay. The flood can consist of comments, gossip and information (or disinformation)
As suggested on another thread, it is useful to determine what specifically we fear.
I'm sure that's assumed, and has been from the start.
Depends on what he's doing, to whom he's doing it, how badly I want him to stop, etc.
Obviously.
There's an enormous range of possible response, from "none necessary" up to "maximum violence", and a whole lot in between. Different circumstances call for different responses.
Obviously.
Again, I'm not the one who brought up "hoods", nor am I the one who proposed stopping anyone from doing anything, so I'm not sure why the question's being asked.
The question is too generic to have a relevant answer. You obviously want to elicit something and I don't have a clue what it is, so why don't you just tell us and proceed from there.
The discussion is of China, not of generic "hoods" (I'm not even sure how you define that), so why not bypass the digression and tell us how, if at all, you propose to persuade or compel the Chinese to stop doing the things you would like to see them stop doing. I'm not personally convinced that we can stop them, or that we need to.
PS [edit]: this:
was not particularly clear, and was meant to apply to the status quo, the existing level of objectionable behavior.Quote:
I'm not personally convinced that we can stop them, or that we need to.
Dayuhan:
You don't want to answer. Fine. Hard to discuss things that way though.
I can't answer. The question as asked is unanswerable. It also has no visible relevance to the matter under discussion, so why bother?
http://www.npr.org/2013/02/19/172373...hinas-militaryQuote:
Cyber attacks on dozens of American companies appear to have originated in an area of Shanghai that houses a Chinese military unit. That's according to a report out Tuesday from a U.S. cybersecurity company which says the group behind the attacks is the most prolific it's ever followed.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b057948-7...#axzz2LLq8he7AQuote:
A US company has accused a Chinese military intelligence unit in Shanghai of conducting a huge cyber espionage campaign against western companies, in the most specific allegations that the People’s Liberation Army sponsors hacking.
Mandiant, a Washington-based cyber security group, said APT1 – a group of hackers it observed attacking at least 141 companies in the US and 15 other countries over the past seven years – was in fact a PLA group called Unit 61398.
Actual report
http://intelreport.mandiant.com/Mand...PT1_Report.pdf