Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
Combine that with your reflexive apologizing for China, and I’m not sure your opinion alone on this matter is worth a damn.
Since when did failure to panic constitute an apology? Given the nature of the subject, I doubt that any of us is in a position to accurately assess the threat level, and if we were we would not be allowed to post on the subject.

What I said was that threats don't have to be real or hyped, they can also be real and hyped. Virtually all real threats we face are over-hyped, often by people in some way invested in trying to sell us their particular "solution" to whatever threat is in question. That "solution" may be an ideology, a policy, a product, or any number of other things, but if someone needs to invoke fear in order to sell it, there's a good chance that they think the suspension of rational thought is a necessary element of making the sale. Fear is right up there with greed as a marketing strategy.

As a general rule, whenever you read something written by someone who wants you to be afraid, it's time to start taking out grains of salt. That doesn't mean there are no threats, it means that the threats are almost invariably less than what they are hyped up to be.

Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
So what? China hardly has significantly s&t worth stealing for commercial or military industrial purposes; they invent nothing, they innovate nothing – all they do is copy and steal.
Strange how people so incapable of innovation seem, at least according to some, to be so remarkably capable of inventing ways to steal information. How did a bunch of bonehead copycats morph into the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent masters of the information universe before whom we must tremble in fear?

Our espionage efforts, cyber or otherwise, don't have to be aimed at stealing their innovations. We'd have our own set of goals, like getting a handle on what they've got, where they got it, what they've done with it, and to what extent what they've done with it actually works. Obviously whatever information is gained from these efforts is not being made public.

We know that they spy on us. We also know that we spy on them. We also know that they will be trying to fool us by leaking wrong information to confuse our spying efforts, and that we are doing the same. It's actually a bit reassuring that we don't hear much, if anything, about the efforts on our side. If they were in the headlines, that would be evidence of failure.

Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
The operations uncovered so-far are pretty damned impressive and were pretty effective.
It would be more impressive if they hadn't been uncovered. Is it not an axiom in the intel world that failure is public and success remains unknown?