Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

China's recent cyberattacks against Google and as many as 33 other U.S. corporations open up a dangerous new industrial espionage front in Beijing's war on American business

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z0cnMSXUO1


Chinese cyberattacks are hardly new. China's military regularly hacks into America's defense networks to acquire military technologies. A glaring case in point: the highly sophisticated penetration last April of the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project.

On Jan. 12, Google announced, in an entry on its official blog, that in mid-December it had detected "a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google." At least 20 other large companies had been attacked, according to the announcement. The Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists may have been the target.

Due to tight Internet controls, no person could have continued coordinated attacks without Beijing's knowledge and, therefore, its implied consent. Moreover, no organization outside the government, the Communist Party or the military has the resources to initiate such a large-scale and concerted effort. So the inescapable conclusion is that Beijing was maliciously trying to penetrate Google ( GOOG - news - people ). In fact, an American security firm, Verisign's iDefense Labs, issued a report pointing to "a single foreign entity consisting either of agents of the Chinese state or proxies thereof."

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/14/china- ... chang.html

nothing to see here. China needs American biz as much as we need them to keep buying our debt. If either one of us fails, the whole world can bend over, grease their puckers up and be prepared to get anally raped.

catamount man wrote:nothing to see here. China needs American biz as much as we need them to keep buying our debt. If either one of us fails, the whole world can bend over, grease their puckers up and be prepared to get anally raped.

We just send them a bill for stolen technology that is equal to the Chinese debt. Problem solved

dbackjon wrote:

catamount man wrote:nothing to see here. China needs American biz as much as we need them to keep buying our debt. If either one of us fails, the whole world can bend over, grease their puckers up and be prepared to get anally raped.

We just send them a bill for stolen technology that is equal to the Chinese debt. Problem solved

yep. as far as human rights violations, we need to keep the squeeze on them.

Apparently the Obama Administration doesn't think it's much of a threat...they cut millions from the Defense budget that were going to be allocated to Cyber defense...

They added people, but took away money for things like: Cybersecurity for control networks research -$1,700,000.00 ; End-user software safeguard research - $2,000,000.00; Informatics research - $1,000,000.00 ; and Information security research - $1,500,000.00

http://information-security-resources.c ... -spending/

There's also $7B missing that was suppose to go to the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative.

Huge mistake if they did that.

Good point Hogan. Another bad Obama move.

Wasn't Clinton cozy with the Chinese as well?

SeattleGriz wrote:Wasn't Clinton cozy with the Chinese as well?

GHW Bush was quite cozy with them while he was head of the CIA.

Col Hogan wrote:Apparently the Obama Administration doesn't think it's much of a threat...they cut millions from the Defense budget that were going to be allocated to Cyber defense...

They added people, but took away money for things like: Cybersecurity for control networks research -$1,700,000.00 ; End-user software safeguard research - $2,000,000.00; Informatics research - $1,000,000.00 ; and Information security research - $1,500,000.00

http://information-security-resources.c ... -spending/

There's also $7B missing that was suppose to go to the Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative.

Guy tries to cut wasteful spending and he gets nut punched?

Allow me to recommend an outstanding novel by Neal Stephenson called Cryptonomicon. Along with Japanese war gold, two of the stories are about code breaking in WW2 and the difficulty of convincing your enemy that you haven't broken his codes when you have, and cyber-security today in the form of a data haven and what things would be like if there actually were a place that your information couldn't be reached by the government.

SeattleGriz wrote:Wasn't Clinton cozy with the Chinese as well?

To the extreme. China's nuclear "Great Leap Forward" was during the Clinton years. We were like the WalMart of nuclear technology to them during that time.

houndawg wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:Wasn't Clinton cozy with the Chinese as well?

GHW Bush was quite cozy with them while he was head of the CIA.

That's like saying Lincoln was cozy with Russia during the 1860s. China was a whole different animal during the Cold War. Their move towards economic hegemony was not even embryonic in those days.

Don't remember any "uncoziness" by Bush either. So are leaders (Big Business) is selling us out to the Chinese. Big suprise there.

dbackjon wrote:Don't remember any "uncoziness" by Bush either. So are leaders (Big Business) is selling us out to the Chinese. Big suprise there.

Our government in total is selling us out to the Chinese. Don't just point to big business. They are too, but they aren't the only ones.

When this monstrosity of a health care bill gets passed, where do you think we will be borrowing the money from to pay for it? The left knows that they can defer on higher taxes on this, because the startup costs are going to be paid for on borrowed money, and the only lender is China.

It is some future President that is going to have to raise taxes or try to roll back entitlements to pay down the interest. I think the laughter from Congress at that will be reminiscent of how they reacted when GWB said that we need to overhaul Social Security.

dbackjon wrote:Don't remember any "uncoziness" by Bush either. So are leaders (Big Business) is selling us out to the Chinese. Big suprise there.

Yup, big government has nothing to do with it. The problem with big business in this country is how cozy the big government types (ahem...liberals) are with big business. It's the same as small government Republicans voting for bailouts and telling banks who to lend to.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
GHW Bush was quite cozy with them while he was head of the CIA.

That's like saying Lincoln was cozy with Russia during the 1860s. China was a whole different animal during the Cold War. Their move towards economic hegemony was not even embryonic in those days.

You better watch your mouth boy.

Not even embryonic my azz. They've been planning towards this day for 50 years.


(GHW kowtowed to the Chinese for his whole term, they turned him when he was head of CIA).

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Don't remember any "uncoziness" by Bush either. So are leaders (Big Business) is selling us out to the Chinese. Big suprise there.

Yup, big government has nothing to do with it. The problem with big business in this country is how cozy the big government types (ahem...liberals) are with big business. It's the same as small government Republicans voting for bailouts and telling banks who to lend to.

Bullshit - the true liberals distrust Big Business, and don't cozy up to them - that is the job of the Big Government Republicans

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Yup, big government has nothing to do with it. The problem with big business in this country is how cozy the big government types (ahem...liberals) are with big business. It's the same as small government Republicans voting for bailouts and telling banks who to lend to.

Bullshit - the true liberals distrust Big Business, and don't cozy up to them - that is the job of the Big Government Republicans

LBJ, Clinton, and Obama=big government Democrats. Had Goldwater won the 1964 election, this country would be TEN TIMES better off. Remeber Jon, he fought for gay rights!

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Yup, big government has nothing to do with it. The problem with big business in this country is how cozy the big government types (ahem...liberals) are with big business. It's the same as small government Republicans voting for bailouts and telling banks who to lend to.

Bullshit - the true liberals distrust Big Business, and don't cozy up to them - that is the job of the Big Government Republicans

The real shame is that you actually believe that load of bullshit. I'm sure Kennedy (RIP), Pelosi, Dodd, Frank, et al hate big business. Give me a fokkin break, that's the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. You're so blinded by party loyalty you can't see the forest for the trees, or the hypocrisy that resides on both sides in Washington.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
That's like saying Lincoln was cozy with Russia during the 1860s. China was a whole different animal during the Cold War. Their move towards economic hegemony was not even embryonic in those days.

You better watch your mouth boy.

Not even embryonic my azz. They've been planning towards this day for 50 years.


(GHW kowtowed to the Chinese for his whole term, they turned him when he was head of CIA).

Really? You're sure about that?

Do you know when the Chinese policy of financial liberalization came about? Do you know who its architects were?

The Chinese plan MUCH further ahead than 50 years, but during the years prior to Deng even talk of free market investment in the CHICOM Party would get you denounced. They are opportunists as much as they are diviners, and only WE provided them with the opportunity to purchase our debt. Are you aware of when this began in earnest?

Google away, Grasshopper. (If you want a suggested reading list I can provide you with one and save you from having to troll the tinfoil hat websites.)

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

You better watch your mouth boy.

Not even embryonic my azz. They've been planning towards this day for 50 years.


(GHW kowtowed to the Chinese for his whole term, they turned him when he was head of CIA).

Really? You're sure about that?

Do you know when the Chinese policy of financial liberalization came about? Do you know who its architects were?

The Chinese plan MUCH further ahead than 50 years, but during the years prior to Deng even talk of free market investment in the CHICOM Party would get you denounced. They are opportunists as much as they are diviners, and only WE provided them with the opportunity to purchase our debt. Are you aware of when this began in earnest?

Google away, Grasshopper. (If you want a suggested reading list I can provide you with one and save you from having to troll the tinfoil hat websites.)

They've been steadily widening the gap between their glorious proletariat rhetoric and their economic policys for decades, amigo.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Really? You're sure about that?

Do you know when the Chinese policy of financial liberalization came about? Do you know who its architects were?

The Chinese plan MUCH further ahead than 50 years, but during the years prior to Deng even talk of free market investment in the CHICOM Party would get you denounced. They are opportunists as much as they are diviners, and only WE provided them with the opportunity to purchase our debt. Are you aware of when this began in earnest?

Google away, Grasshopper. (If you want a suggested reading list I can provide you with one and save you from having to troll the tinfoil hat websites.)

They've been steadily widening the gap between their glorious proletariat rhetoric and their economic policys for decades, amigo.

Hey! Another blanket statement without any detail.

Exactly when did the Chinese government begin to do this? Decades?

In China, when you talk about decades you are talking about early Cold War era, i.e: Mao, Deng. There were no free market reforms during that time, nor was there significant external trade except for those items required by the State to supply the People's Army.

When we say decades, are we talking about the Nixon area? China was closed prior to and up to Nixon's presidency. The Great Leap Forward took place from the late 1950s until the 1960s. It was an attempt to modernize China's economy INTERNALLY. At that point in Chinese history, the idea of foreign investment was heresy. Mao's intention was to make use of the sheer size of the population and cheap labor to industrialize. The attempt ended in a large scale famine.

Nixon's opening of China was in fact just an establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC, and a sea change on Taiwan. It had no economic bent, and China was still closed to the world economically. That was 1971 and 1972.

In the early 1980s, Deng formed the Free Economic Zones (that title might not be accurate, I am working from memory here) that allowed foreign investment in China for the first time in the history of the PRC. These came after Deng made his "seven parts good, three parts bad" denunciation of Mao. One of those "bad parts" he referred to was China's economic isolation under Mao.

Now, we have already reached the 1980s, and the PRC is only beginning to open itself to foreign capital. As I recall, GHW Bush was not the head of the CIA at that time. He was the Vice President. The earlier assertion was that he was 'cozy' with China. As the director of the CIA, he was anything but. He was certainly not somehow contributing to what would become an attempt at economic hegemony by the PRC.

I guess if we want to stand on semantics, then yes, the 1980s is decades ago. That is when the PRC's external economic plan had its genesis. To suggest that the current state of affairs has been on the PRC's drawing board over the large part of its history (THAT is decades) is just not accurate.

I forgot to mention that the so-called "Widening of the gap" between the rhetoric and reality began precisely in 1982.

Since Cap'n Cat isn't here, I figured someone ought to post this for him.

http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-chinese