Slashdot Mirror


CIA Warns China Might Be Planning Cyber Attack

malibucreek writes "The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the CIA is warning of possible cyber-terrorism against U.S. and Taiwanese computer systems by the Chinese Army. Or, China could just launch a massive denial-of-service attack by sending billions of "GET HERBAL VIAGRA" e-mails from the .cn TLD." The article has a reasonable amount of information and is probably worth a read if you're curious about what could be a real big deal in the future.

446 of 671 comments (clear)

  1. Not the first by roachmotel3 · · Score: 1

    China has one of the most active intelligence operations of any country in the world -- check http://www.afio.com/sections/book_reviews/reviews/ chinese_intel_ops.html -- it's a great book with lots of good info

    1. Re:Not the first by JimmyRay · · Score: 1

      "All your server are belong to us!"

      Had to say it.

    2. Re:Not the first by zootread · · Score: 1

      I'm not afraid of China.. What are they going to do? DoS us? Send viruses? Send their best hackers after us? oh i'm so scared. They can't do anything that hasn't been done before as far as the internet and computers are concerned.

      --
      Zoot!
  2. National Firewall by ktambascio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How do you think people in the US would respond to a national firewall to protect from outside attacks? Would people view it has a means to control the internet content? Or a valid and necessary element in our nation?

    My personal choice would be to have a national firewall, even though it could be used against us, or limit our privacy. But at least we could completely shut off our internet access if another country decided to attach us.

    1. Re:National Firewall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There actually might be something to this. Saudi Arabia has never had any problems with SPAM or internet intrusion, and they have a very good national firewall to keep malicious traffic out of the country. Since at least 99% of the Internet traffic is internal to the US, I don't see how a system of Internet border checkpoints couldn't be done with great ease. It wouldn't even cost that much.

    2. Re:National Firewall by ktambascio · · Score: 1

      errrr....attack us.

    3. Re:National Firewall by mnordstr · · Score: 2

      As long as you only shut out that specific country... However, the Internet is so not controlled by the government already, I think it might be really difficult, if not impossible to have such a firewall. It's not like as if all the traffic would pass one single point...

    4. Re:National Firewall by dark_panda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By establishing such a system, you're practically inviting the government to abuse it. While initially, the purpose of the system might be to keep bad people out, it will undoubtedly be twisted to keep people in.

      Do you really want to give any more control over the Internet to the government?

      J

    5. Re:National Firewall by ChaseTec · · Score: 1

      I doubt US ISP's would be happy. Or non-US ISP's operating in the US for that matter. The only possible thing I could see implemented would be a Government run blacklist that ISP could subscribe to if they wanted.

      --
      My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
    6. Re:National Firewall by JordanH · · Score: 5, Funny
      Hmmmm... So, dark_panda thinks we should not erect a defense to Blackhat hackers from China, eh?

      They've already infultrated Slashdot! Oh, these Red Army types are much more sophisticated that I could have imagined! Using social engineering to keep US Geeks from countering their plot.

      Good thing I saw through the disguise!

    7. Re:National Firewall by MongooseCN · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How do you think people in the US would respond to a national firewall to protect from outside attacks? Would people view it has a means to control the internet content? Or a valid and necessary element in our nation?

      Depends if we are attacked. After Sep. 11 people found surveillance cameras, wire tapping, packet sniffing, etc to be much more acceptable. I bet if China really did "cyber-attack" us, the government (along with the media) would hype it up as much as possible. Resulting in more funding for our national security agencies and more control over our information.

    8. Re:National Firewall by UTPinky · · Score: 1

      You idiot. Thats Benjamin Franklin! Communist my ass...

      --
      I'm only paranoid because everyone is against me...
    9. Re:National Firewall by rgarcia · · Score: 1

      That could be exactly what this is.
      As a former US resident now living in another country and not exposed to so much propaganda I see that, for example, China is not as bad as I was brought up to believe. Not that I agree with any of their oppressive policies, but they're certainly not the 'devil' they're made out to be. In fact, their tech programs have some good points.
      Then again, I just might be more exposed to China's propaganda now ;o)
      Hmm...
      Guess the only thing to do is wait 'til something happens, I guess. Hard to know who to believe sometimes.

      --

      I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.

    10. Re:National Firewall by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2
      Um. Jackass. That's Benjamin Franklin. Also, remember: Christ was poor (in material wealth) as, well, a church mouse. If getting to heaven means being Christ-like as possible, you better start shedding that 401-K and stock options.


      Marx: "The first social institution that fails under capitalism is the family." -- Kapital I (I think)

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    11. Re:National Firewall by yintercept · · Score: 2

      Although the assessment concludes that China has not yet acquired the technical sophistication to do broad damage to U.S. and Taiwanese systems, it maintains that this is the "intended goal" of the People's Liberation Army in China.

      The fact that China keeps attacking before they have perfected the attacks means that we will gradually "evolve" the weaknesses and security risks out of the sytem. The first poster made a good point in commending China for helping reduce the number of insecure NT servers.

      The best national firewall will be to develop internal mechanisms for countering the attacks. Even if we wrapped a condom around China, they would still be able to attack us by launching attacks on US soil, satellies and other methods.

    12. Re:National Firewall by vipw · · Score: 1

      at least 99%, is that a figure you're citing from somewhere, or is pulled from your nether regions?

    13. Re:National Firewall by dark_panda · · Score: 1

      As it happens, I was once in a little branch of the military for a few years. I even thought about joining the ROTC for a time in my final year at high school, but it didn't pan out.

      And don't confuse my remarks with being unamerican or not thankful to the government, it's just that I believe that the government should have less control over us, not more. Setting up a system like the one proposed is just begging for censorship, which is never a good thing. (Well, maybe if they could block out goatse.cx, that would be cool -- then I won't have to muddle with the hosts file on every single system I've ever put together.)

      J

    14. Re:National Firewall by Master+Bait · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Patriots, here at the Homeland Defense Agency, we're protecting your Freedom and Innovation with new internet blocks on foreign infiltrators. Thanks to new powers given in the 2003 American Patriot and Copyright Protection Act, we're now protecting our citizens from foreign terrorists and other enemies of the state.

      All GPL and so-called 'Open' source transfers will be blocked to protect Microsoft's interoperability patents. Although GPL and so called 'Open' source was eliminated under the 2003 American Patriot and Copyright Protection Act, reports have shown that this scourge continues to proliferate in foreign lands. We will block all foreign ftp transfers to ensure that American jobs will remain secure. American jobs mean security for American citizens.

      All enemy political propaganda websites, such as in the People's Republic of China, Muslim terrorists in the Middle East, Communist, Socialist, British Labor Party, all French and Dutch, and the (formerly) American Democratic Party will be blocked to ensure that Patriots do not become polluted with unsound ideals.

      All unauthorized downloads from pirate, copyright-violating music sites and international file-sharing networks will be blocked as per the procedures in the American Patriot and Copyright Protection Act of 2003.

      In addition, for our citizen's protection, all email received in the United States from foreign internet addresses will be checked for malicious, terrorist, or other prohibited activity to identify and aprehend enemies of the state that may be within our own borders.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
    15. Re:National Firewall by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Yup, just listen to him spew that socialist dogma at us! Cover your precious virgin ears (eyes?) people! He'll brainwash you with his communist mind control ray!!! >:)

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    16. Re:National Firewall by digitalunity · · Score: 2

      No, and seeing as that most of the internet backbone is not controlled by the government, I think its a good idea. Most of the backbone is controlled by telecom's. I trust telecom's more than the government because pissed off customers will find the alternative.

      With the government, there is no alternative.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    17. Re:National Firewall by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Not only are you doing that, there is now a SINGLE, or atleast fewer multiple choke points for hackers to hit.

      here's a tip.

      patch.

      patch.

      patch.

      And pray to god they won't try to brute force it.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    18. Re:National Firewall by tux-sucks · · Score: 1
      Do you really want to give any more control over the Internet to the government?

      Maybe it's just me, but if I recall, it was the government who created the internet in the first place. It was us who took control of the internet away from the government.

    19. Re:National Firewall by siemce · · Score: 1
      Sure they don't have a problem with hacking etc. but have you ever wondered what happens to the hacker if they get him? China doesn't have problem with hacking either, you know why? because they execute hackers.

      Would you propose to do the same in the states?

      I don't think so

  3. How is this any different than usual by shaldannon · · Score: 2

    Are they somehow going to stop all the other southeast Asian, African, and South American countries from spamming while they do this? If so, it might actually lighten our load. If not...I fail to see anything unusual here

    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
    1. Re:How is this any different than usual by dmarien · · Score: 1

      u stole my stolen sig!

      --
      dmarien
    2. Re:How is this any different than usual by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1

      using pack is cheating!

      im!ho, my way is more fun:
      perl -e "print unless s aa\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\na&&y i&b-z&i&a-y&i&&y eE &e J ed&&0"

      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
    3. Re:How is this any different than usual by shaldannon · · Score: 2

      how the heck does that work !?

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    4. Re:How is this any different than usual by kilgore_47 · · Score: 1
      perl -e "print unless s aa\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\na&&y i&b-z&i&a-y&i&&y eE &e J ed&&0"

      how the heck does that work !?
      Glad you asked! =)

      First off, this part:
      s aa\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\na&&y i&b-z&i&a-y&i&&y eE &e J ed

      is the same as this:
      s //\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\n/ && y/&b-z&/&a-y&/ && y/E &/ J /d


      which is the same as this:
      s //\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\n/;
      tr/&b-z&/&a-y&/;
      t r/E &/ J /d;


      A few things to note so far, the usual delimiters (//) have been replaced with letters (a, i, and e) in those three expressions just to make things difficult to read. And y/// is just an alias for tr/// (I'm assuming your familiar with tr/// and s///, if not read the "Quote and Quote-like Operators" section in "perldoc perlop"). Also, the expressions are strung together without semicolons by using && (logical AND; as long as each expression is true it continues on to the next). Since the s/// and tr/// operators in perl operate on $_ by default, no variables need to be specified. The first part, s //\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\n/; looks in $_ for the search string (an empty string) and replaces it with the string "\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\n". Then the first tr/// statement moves every character one-up, as well as replacing '&' with '&' (does nothing, but hopefully draws the reader's attention from the &&'s elsewhere that function as logical ANDs). The next tr/// replaces occurances of 'E' or '&' in $_ with spaces, and replaces the one space with an uppercase 'J'.

      At this point, the s/// and the two tr/// statements have built the output string and stored it in the $_ variable, and they've all returned true values. Since the code starts off with "print unless ...", print will execute if everything after the unless evaluates to false. So far it's all evaluated true, so thats what the &&0 on the end is for. Since the whole thing is now finnaly false, print is called (and, for lack of another argument, prints the default variable, $_).

      Heres the whole thing one more time:

      print unless (
      s //\n&E vtuEAopuifs&PfsmEHbdlfs\n\n/ #builds most of the string, evaluates true
      &&
      tr/&b-z&/&a-y&/ # shifts letters one-up, evaluates true
      &&
      tr/E &/ J /d # replaces a few characters, evaluates true
      &&
      0 # false
      );


      To be honest, I'm not really a very advanced perl programmer at all. I just enjoy fooling around with it, and after sifting through a bunch of perldoc one day I decided to make this obfu japh to try out some of the weird syntax tricks I'd just read about.
      --
      ___
      The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
  4. We all know (from the movies)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That American Hackers = #1! Go America! If Americans can hack alien spaceships with Mac laptops, then China should be no threat at all!

    1. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by Ironfist_ironmined · · Score: 1

      mac laptops running windows as i remember. ;)

      --
      0xC3
    2. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

      computers in movies NEVER have real OSs running......infact , the computer is off most of the time and they super impose a display latter.

      in the movie assasind, when they typed on the computer you could tell that they were not typing what came up on the screen. the key depression rate was WAY off from what was showing up on the screen.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by Spencerian · · Score: 2
      Ummm, no. :) Can't resist playing with trivia...

      The graphics were Mac OS lookalikes, although, like many Hollywood "computer" interfaces, it was running some nonexistent variant of the operating system. The windows, widgets and such are obviously Mac OS-derivative.

      Funny that while 85% of the personal computer desktops are running Windows, that nearly 85% of the advertising about computer products or services show a Mac OS desktop or browser. (Well, I know why, but I'll let some other geniuses in on the subject.)

      --
      Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
    4. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by baywulf · · Score: 1

      And the text is always outputed at the rate of a 300 baud teletype no matter how fast the computer.

    5. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      the key depression rate was WAY off from what was showing up on the screen

      No, they were just running MS windows and MS office. That caused the key backlog!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    6. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by discstickers · · Score: 1

      My favorite mac movie moment was office space. When the actor shuts down his computer (that has a Mac-like interface), it goes to a DOS prompt!

      --
      I have a shitty sig!
    7. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by jrp2 · · Score: 1

      My favorite mac movie moment was office space.

      OTOH, they pulled off a great one on the DVD. At the very beginning (right after you hit play) they run this "DVD virus scanner" that is very believable for about 10 seconds. Very creative and funny.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    8. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by andrewski · · Score: 1

      My favorite movie hacking moment is when the spunky young hacker girl in the movie Jurassic Park steps up to the computer in the operations center and triumphantly exclaims, "This is a UNIX system! I know this!"

      One funny thing about that shot was that the 3D fly-by style filesystem navigator is actually real.

      Oh, and she was using a Mac at the time.

    9. Re:We all know (from the movies)... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, Jurassic Park. The "live video feed" dialog box was just a quicktime movie playing.

      Indeed, it was an SGI machine that Lex used. (All the computers in Jurassic Park were SGIs or 68k Macintoshes) While it might have seemed that the interface she used on the SGI machine was Hollywoodware, it actually does exist. It was an IRIX-only program produced by SGI called fsn (pronounced 'fusion', short for 3D File System Navigator). If you have an IRIX system, you can actually download and run this program right on your box. Grab it from this URL:

      http://www.sgi.com/fun/freeware/3d_navigator.htm l

      But wait, you want to try this on i386 Linux or BSD system? All you need is X11, MesaGL, and GTK, and you can run an fsn clone called fsv, which you can download from the following site:

      http://fsv.sourceforge.net/

      This has the same functionality as the doodad used in Jurassic Park, as well as a pretty nice GTK-style file system browser. Good for showing off the l33tness of your Unix system and graphics when your friends are checking out your computer.

  5. Massive DDoS? Against who? by damien_kane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China could just launch a massive denial-of-service attack by sending billions of "GET HERBAL VIAGRA" e-mails from the .cn TLD."

    Since many mail administrators have simply blocked anything coming from the .cn TLD (as well as pretty much any other domain known to originate from China), who is the massive DDoS going to affect?

    I think for this to be effective, not only would Chinese administrators have to smarten up and close off their mail servers, but they would have to prove it to the rest of the world... that could take years.

    1. Re:Massive DDoS? Against who? by anno1a · · Score: 1

      Even if the administrators were blocking the mails, they would still be transported to the server, for it to block them, and thereby using the servers bandwidth... Although I don't see why emails should be the most effective means of a ddos attack...

      --
      ------- I fumbled my registration and I now must suffer
    2. Re:Massive DDoS? Against who? by nettdata · · Score: 2

      Since many mail administrators have simply blocked anything coming from the .cn TLD (as well as pretty much any other domain known to originate from China), who is the massive DDoS going to affect?

      Ahhh, that just means that you don't see them showing up in your inbox. That email STILL goes through your ISP, into your bandwidth, into your mail system, and has to be processed and dealt with (/dev/nulled) by the mail servers themselves. That can still very effectively shut you down if you get enough of them, even though you don't get the annoying "offer of a lifetime" showing up in your inbox. For that matter, it also translates into a very real cost to you even though you don't see them.

      Personally, I'd like to see the network traffic dropped as far upstream as possible so that it DOESN'T get far enough that it even has to be processed, but that's probably going too far or asking too much.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    3. Re:Massive DDoS? Against who? by wytcld · · Score: 2

      I block mail originating from all .cn|kr|tw registered IP addresses.

      Since I'm too lazy to remember how to look that up, where's the master list of IP assignment by country? Certainly would make sense to be ready to just shut down mail and other connections from a certain country's IP in time of crisis - although bad policy at other times. Of course, that does nothing about compromised systems that haven't been firewalled against, say, Chinese IPs, but as a first approximation of crisis defense it would be useful if we all had the IP ranges at hand to plug into firewalls and smtp.
      ____

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    4. Re:Massive DDoS? Against who? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Since many mail administrators have simply blocked anything coming from the .cn TLD (as well as pretty much any other domain known to originate from China), who is the massive DDoS going to affect?

      uce@ftc.gov, when all you lamers forward the spam to the government thinking you're doing the world a favor.

  6. To heck w/ cyberwar by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If China invaded Tiawan, where would we get our VIA SIS etc AMD mobo's from???? That would be a huge disruption in PC supplies, and, to the vendors delight, higher prices, thicker margins.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by dunkerz · · Score: 1

      If China invaded Tiawan, where would we get our VIA SIS etc AMD mobo's from????

      Well, at least Intel would be pleased :)

      --

      You were expecting a sig?
    2. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by sheetsda · · Score: 1
      IIRC the Chinese tried to claim Taiwan was Chinese property a few years ago, even going so far as to strut around like tough shit and gave a target practice show just off the Taiwanese coast, but the US sent a couple navy boats over and they backed off.

      IMO this whole thing is bogus, it supposedly comes from a classified CIA document - how'd the LA Times get ahold of that? Do the Chinese really want to pick a fight with a country that is fairly internet-dependent and risk starting World War 3 and in the process getting nuked into oblivion? Unlikely. I doubt the Chinese are naive enough to believe that an attack that comes over the internet is any less than just that, an attack.

    3. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      China invades a country, and the only think you are concerned about is motherboard prices?

      Computers are just things. What about the humans?

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    4. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Grax · · Score: 1

      What if, instead of disrupting the supply, they corrupt it by building back doors into the network cards giving themselves fairly complete remote control over the machine?

      (A network card with a computer on it would have access to the whole system via the PCI bus.)

    5. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Well, they took Tibet and have never got any significant heat over it. Hong Kong was peacefully surrendered in '97 per the contract w/ the UK. They've been making big strides in development (recent space program success fer instance) - a thriving capitalist hotspot like Taiwan would make a great 'merger' for the mainland, whether friendly or hostile.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    6. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by flewp · · Score: 2

      Too bad for some, computers are their lives... Take them away, and you'll have a lot of empty shells of men.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    7. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      China invades a country, and the only think you are concerned about is motherboard prices?

      Hang on a second, China has not invaded anywhere I am aware of, at least not recently and it certainly has not invaded Taiwan.

      There are a lot of folk who would like to reignite the cold war and are looking for an enemy to pick a fight with. Great way to justify more increases in the 'defense' budget, the US is defenseless! yesss really, the US gets absolutely nothing in return for spending more on the military than the entire rest of the world (including allies) put together.

      During the cold war we in Europe were told repeatedly that if the red army invaded (and they were itching to do so) that NATO could only last 3 days before resorting to nukes. Ignore the fact that the USSR were having their ass handed to them in Afghanistan. The military simulations started from the assumption that the USSR tanks were equal to the NATO tanks, ignore the fact that 60% of the Russian tanks were relics from WWII and they only had enough fuel to train for a few days a year and their troops were unwilling conscripts etc.

      If we are not careful we will be driven to the same sort of destructive and pointless standoff with China.

      The China/Taiwan situation is much more complex than the US media make it appear. First Taiwan agrees that it is part of China, in fact it still lays claims to the rest of China. More importantly however the Chineese politicians are not the Maoist revolutionaries the US media would have us believe. In fact the horrors of the cultural revolution are the principal fear, that and another round of foreign domination such as the one that practically reduced China to collonial status in the late 19th century.

      The Chinese leadership show every sign of understanding that the one thing they can do that would absolutely make reuinification with Taiwan impossible is to invade.

      What we have to do is to make sure that China continues on its present path which is definitely heading towards a more open, more democratic society. The US is certainly not in a position to extol the virtues of democracy after the administrations recent meddling in Venezuela. Presidents who go to the supreme court to stop the votes being counted do not have much credibility with me on that score, and GOP clones aside don't have much credibility in the rest of the world either.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    8. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Computers are just things. What about the humans?

      Humans are the things that make computers. ;-)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Excellent points. And don't forgot the bomber gap.

    10. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by nanojath · · Score: 2

      ANother serious issue is whether China has anything to gain by fucking with us. Without us China has no food security. It's just like espionage and nuke bombs. The nature of the military is to prepare these scenarios. You can be sure we've got cyberattack scenarios in the works for every major government we consider a possible (if distant) threat.

      On the other hand I think you're dreaming if you really believe China has no serious designs on invading Taiwan. It's far from a certain thing but they certainly think about it.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    11. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by jnana · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hang on a second, China has not invaded anywhere I am aware of, at least not recently and it certainly has not invaded Taiwan.

      Have you never heard of Tibet? Don't tell me you believe the Chinese propaganda that Tibet has always been part of China and that the Tibetans welcomed them in 1949 with open arms.

    12. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by thirty-seven · · Score: 1

      And don't forget Korea. When North Korea invaded the South and UN troops from the US, Canada, etc, went in and turned the tide, Chinese troops became involved and fought (and killed) American, Canadian, etc troops for the sake of spreading communism.

      --

      Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    13. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Have you never heard of Tibet?

      Yes, last I heard China invaded fifty years ago, as I said China has not invaded anywhere recently. Not since Mao died and the gang of four were put on trial.

      Don't tell me you believe the Chinese propaganda that Tibet has always been part of China

      The 'propaganda' has considerably more truth than the US media admit. But the issue of what country has been part of another is irrelevant. The relevant question is what the people who live in Tibet want. You don't have to go back very far to find Texas and California used to be part of Mexico and were acquired through conquest. That does not mean that Mexico has rights to have the land back.

      The nearest equivalent to the Tibet situation is in Turkey which is the remnants of the Ottoman empire which was formed through conquest. We don't know for sure whether the Kurds really want to be independent or not, all we do know is that the Turkish government ruthlessly supresses their language and culture, oh and they are one of our glorious NATO allies.

      Call me a cynic, but I for one don't think it a good idea to blindly accept the administration telling us who the enemy is. I think the enemy of democracy are the folk who were busy organizing a coup in Venezuela. If we accept the administration line we have to consider that the governments who did not oppose deposing a democratically elected President, closure of the legislature, supreme court, etc. etc. were in favor of it.

      I am quite willing to support organizations like Amnesty who report the attrocities committed against both the Tibetans and the Kurds. I am less willing to listen to the administration crying crocodile tears while selecting causes by the extent to which they meet their own ends.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    14. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by propheci · · Score: 1

      Tibet would not survive without China. have you seen the conditions there? they have no practically no farmland. no economy at all. they rely on the eastern side of China for food, money, etc.

      sure everyone reads about how we should free Tibet and all these religious implications but has anyone really thought about what would happen if it did split off?

    15. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      On the other hand I think you're dreaming if you really believe China has no serious designs on invading Taiwan. It's far from a certain thing but they certainly think about it.

      I have no doubt that their military leadership is as reactionary, xenophobic, short sighted, politically naive and imperialist as our own.

      The question is how best to avoid that outcome. I do not believe that President Bubblehead has much of a clue as far as that is concerned.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    16. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      China invades a country, and the only think you are concerned about is motherboard prices?

      Hang on a second, China has not invaded anywhere I am aware of, at least not recently and it certainly has not invaded Taiwan.


      I wasn't implying that China *did* invade anyone, but we've all heard the threats.

      I was speaking hypothetically, just like the poster before me. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

      IF China invaded Taiwan, I couldn't give a damn about motherboard production or supply chain bullshit... it's all just business and capital, and it can be replaced.

      Looking at the treatment of people in Tibet, I'd be very concerned about the rights and wellbeing those being invaded.

      Perhaps we'll be lucky, and the Chinese threats to get Taiwan back will simply remain threats, and the American threats to defent Taiwan will also remain threats.

      Hey, if the US and China want to duke it out in a Cyberwar instead of Real War, I'd rather have the former.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    17. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      Tibet would not survive without China. have you seen the conditions there? they have no practically no farmland. no economy at all. they rely on the eastern side of China for food, money, etc.

      While it may be true that they have 'nothing' by Western standards that is pretty much true of the whole area. Nepal is equaly impoverished.

      The farming land is certainly adequate to support the population with access to modern methods. There is ample scope for economic development through tourism etc.

      While China is certainly bringing resources into the region in an attempt to buy off the local population the ability of China to do so is not the point. The point is whether the locals want their current situation or independence.

      Of course this situation is considerably more complex 50 years later. A large portion of the population is now ethnic Chinese settlers. While they were imported by the communist government to create 'facts on the ground' to make it harder for Tibet to succeed, many were sent against their will and most are by now second generation descendants.

      I do not believe that the GOP and those attempting to start a cold war with China have the interests of the Tibetan people at heart. They want no more than an excuse to justify more spending on any type of armament that will enrich their core supporters.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    18. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Guppy06 · · Score: 2
      Ehh... I know this'll never get moderated up, but it's still worth it for the potential "I told you so!" statements in the future. :)

      "China has not invaded anywhere I am aware of,"

      I'm sure the Dalai Lama would be glad to correct this omission from your knowledge of history.

      Not that Tibet is the only example of a country the People's Republic of China sent "peacekeepers" to. There was a farce of a Chinese invastion into Vietnam in 1979 (Beijing didn't like having a friend of the Soviets on their southern border), but that didn't last very long.

      Judging from the continuous saber-rattling coming out of Beijing ever since Chairman Mao first came to power, the only thing keeping the People's Republic from going on many more expansionist military campaigns is a complete lack of a decent military (closely related to their complete lack of trust in the military).

      "at least not recently and it certainly has not invaded Taiwan."

      Mao Tse-tung's communist forces overthrew Chiang Kai-shek's regime in the 1940's. Guess where Chiang's government and supporters fled to and essentially took over? To Beijing, Taiwan is their property and the fact that Communist troops have yet to land there and enforce Beijing's rule is a mere formality. Doing so would also finish the job they set out to do in the 1940's.

      "Great way to justify more increases in the 'defense' budget, the US is defenseless!"

      Attacking the US is like attacking a bear cub. Sure, you might hurt the poor thing a little, but you shouldn't expect to live much longer...

      We recently launched a combined-arms retaliatory attack on a landlocked country literally on the other side of the world. And we had victory in about a month. We helped to establish a friendly government in Afghanistan. The last foreign invader to pull that one off was Alexander the Great. Neither the British nor the Soviet empires, during the respective heights of their histories, could say that after the course of years, and we did it in about a month.

      Now, are you sure we're defenseless? It is extremely difficult to stop an attacker who is willing to exchange their life for yours (the biggest example is how difficult it was for the USN to prevent kamikaze attacks). The only way to stop that kind of attack is to convince the attacker that the trade isn't worth it. And that can't happen if the attacker is too dumb to listen ("Look at that defenseless little bear cub...").

      9/11 didn't happen because we were defenseless, 9/11 happened because Arab zealots were too blinded by their own idealism to realize that not even Afghanistan provided a haven for their ilk. If bin Laden hadn't been lulled into a sense of security by our lackluster performance in Somalia, he wouldn't have ordered the attacks.

      "spending more on the military than the entire rest of the world (including allies) put together."

      Even if that were true (which I doubt), keep in mind that the US GDP is 1/3 of everybody else's combined. I have a feeling that the percentage-of-national-budget figures are much more balanced, and I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't the leaders in that figure.

      "the red army invaded (and they were itching to do so)"

      So when Kruschev was talking about how they will "bury" us, do you think he was really talking about burying us in love and affection?

      "Ignore the fact that the USSR were having their ass handed to them in Afghanistan."

      Ignoring the particulars of the invastion of Afghanistan for the moment...

      End of WWII and beginnings of "iron curtain": 1945 or so.

      Soviet invastion of Afghanistan: 1979 or so.

      That leaves a 34 year gap for the Soviets to look at Western Europe and lick their lips.

      Now, if we look at the particulars of the invastion of Afghanistan, we can see that this wasn't exactly an all-out effort on the part of Moscow. There are many similarities between Afghanistan and the US campaign in Vietnam. The big one is that they were both executed in a very half-assed manner, with only nominal troop commitments and confused/conflicting goals in an effort to keep the appearance of being a justifiable and low-intensity conflict. If the Kremlin had taken the choke leash off of the Red Army, that campaign would have turned out very differently.

      So even at the height of the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan, the vast majority of Soviet military assets were still along their borders with Western Europe and China.

      "The military simulations started from the assumption that the USSR tanks were equal to the NATO tanks,"

      That's biased in NATO's favor. Ever since the T-38 in WWII the Soviets have had the best tanks in the world hands down. NATO tanks were (and still are) out-massed and out-gunned by Soviet tanks. The only thing we had to rely on was superior technology. And the advantages of Western military technology versus Soviet were (and are) slim to none.

      "ignore the fact that 60% of the Russian tanks were relics from WWII"

      Those weren't "just relics" from WWII, those were T-38s. There are many reports out of Korea of bazooka slugs and rounds from UN tanks simply bouncing off the armor on those beasts.

      And even if it is "just 60%" of the Soviet tank force, I'm willing to bet that that 60% still outnumbered NATO's 100%

      "and they only had enough fuel to train for a few days a year"

      Um, say what? Where did you get this info? I mean, we're only talking about the most oil-rich country in the world...

      "and their troops were unwilling conscripts etc."

      Another figure I'd like to see substantiated. But even if you're right, you'd be surprised how far "unwilling conscripts" will go when they have political officers threatening to shoot them in the back if need be. See Stalingrad.

      And again, troop quality can be corrected for with troop quantity.

      "If we are not careful we will be driven to the same sort of destructive and pointless standoff with China."

      If the US tries to start an arms race, China couldn't if they wanted to. They have neither the capital, the technology nor the culture to do anywhere near as well as the Soviets.

      Besides, we have something like a 50 year head start in that one. China's only hope is to try to convince the rest of the world that they're really nice folks being oppressed by the big mean US (take a look at their international political manuvers, especially in the UN0. In your case it looks like they've been successful.

      "First Taiwan agrees that it is part of China"

      Nope. Most Taiwanese aren't fond of the idea of being a part of China (Communist or otherwise). In fact, Taiwan has never truly been an integral part of China.

      "in fact it still lays claims to the rest of China"

      No, that ended decades ago.

      "More importantly however the Chineese politicians are not the Maoist revolutionaries the US media would have us believe."

      Fact: the #2 man in the government that used tanks to stop a student protest in Tianenmen Square is the #1 man in today's Chinese government.

      "In fact the horrors of the cultural revolution are the principal fear,"

      Chinese unemployment is going up as quickly as their GDP. If this keeps up, is there any reason to believe that there won't be a second cultural revolution?

      "The Chinese leadership show every sign of understanding that the one thing they can do that would absolutely make reuinification with Taiwan impossible is to invade."

      The continued missile drills along the Communist side of the Straights of Taiwan seem to suggest otherwise. To me it suggests that the pathetic state of the People's Army is what is preventing that invasion. An invastion of Taiwan would make reunification impossible because a Chinese invastion of Taiwan is impossible.

      "What we have to do is to make sure that China continues on its present path which is definitely heading towards a more open, more democratic society."

      That's something Beijing has been telling the Chinese peoople for decades. "Once the economy takes off and the people begin to prosper, then we'll talk about being a more open society." Hasn't happened yet. China's Communist regime, much like Pyongyang's, has two goals and they are in this order:
      • Perpetuate itself
      • Improve the lives of its people

      The Chinese economy wouldn't be turning towards capitalism if Beijing wasn't sure that it could remain in complete control. Heck, they're only allowing as much as they are because they fear ending up like the Soviets.

      "The US is certainly not in a position to extol the virtues of democracy after the administrations recent meddling in Venezuela."

      The staunchly anti-American (pro-Castro, even) and pro-Socialist Hugo Chavez seems to be doing a fine job of screwing up his country all by himself. I'm sorry, but any national government that fears its own military (including China) has some major problems.

      We border Mexico, so we've always had a big interest in what goes on down there. They should be the best example of American "meddling" in Latin America. Let's see... their economy is booming and they recently had their first truly democratic election in ages (voting in a former Coke executive, even). Oh, the horrors!

      "Presidents who go to the supreme court to stop the votes being counted do not have much credibility with me on that score,"

      I wonder if you realize you just ruled out Gore as well...

      The two candidates were calling into question issues concerning state and federal election laws. The Florida and US Supreme Courts had the task of interpreting those election laws. Both courts made rulings that they felt best agreed with those election laws. If you want somebody to blame, why not blame the people responsible for those election laws: the legislatures in Tallahassee and Washington.
    19. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by jnana · · Score: 1
      Yes, last I heard China invaded fifty years ago, as I said China has not invaded anywhere recently.

      50 years is nothing -- certainly it is recent, historically speaking. And the mass population transfer that the government has recently escalated amounts to genocide, since Tibetans will soon be a minority in their own country. And this is ongoing.

      The 'propaganda' has considerably more truth than the US media admit

      Where are you getting your information? I have lived among Tibetans (in exile in India), have interviewed former political prisoners and had plenty of Tibetan friends, and I am quite certain that the Tibetans did not want to be liberated from the imperialists (as is the Chinese official line). You are correct that the situation is far more complex than the media presents it to be, but that is the nature of the media and what the average person is capable of knowing and wants to understand. Just because the issue is not totally black and white, it doesn't mean that the grey truth isn't much, much closer to the Tibetan version of history than the Chinese. See here for some disturbing information.

      And I totally agree with you about the media and the administration. I believe nothing they say, and long ago recognized that everything this country does is purely for its own self-interest (which explains why we don't care enough about the Tibet situation to really make it an issue with the Chinese). Bush and his administration just make that fact perfectly transparent.

    20. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about the United States is that we have the uncanny ability to do whatever we decide we want to do. Our campaign in Vietnam fell apart because of a lack of public support (partly because of poor management of the campaign), in essence we didn't really have our hearts in it. But even then our military achieved every goal they were given by their superious. They just had the wrong goals...

    21. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by mpe · · Score: 2

      Tibet would not survive without China. have you seen the conditions there? they have no practically no farmland. no economy at all. they rely on the eastern side of China for food, money, etc.

      That is not the same issue as being under Chinese rule. Why should the Tibetans not be entitled to exactly the same principles of freedom and self government which lead to the US existing in the first place?

    22. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by mpe · · Score: 2

      Of course this situation is considerably more complex 50 years later. A large portion of the population is now ethnic Chinese settlers. While they were imported by the communist government to create 'facts on the ground' to make it harder for Tibet to succeed, many were sent against their will and most are by now second generation descendants.

      Hardly a policy unique to Tibet, one only has to look at the news to see another part of the world where the same policy of "settlers" is ongoing.

    23. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by mpe · · Score: 2

      Attacking the US is like attacking a bear cub. Sure, you might hurt the poor thing a little, but you shouldn't expect to live much longer...

      Except that bear cubs are not unkillable. Effectivly you are saying that anyone wanting to attack the US should enguage in a "decapitation strike".

      We recently launched a combined-arms retaliatory attack on a landlocked country literally on the other side of the world. And we had victory in about a month. We helped to establish a friendly government in Afghanistan.

      The US does not have a good history of installing good governments however...
      More often they end up backing awful ones.

    24. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by thaths · · Score: 1

      Where would you get your VIS, SIS etc. mother boards? Why, you would get it from China. Just like you get your Levis jeans, Gap t-shirt, Nike shoes and hundreds of other things you come across day to day.

      Thaths

    25. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by jafac · · Score: 2

      "good government" is an oxymoron.

      It just so happens, that when the the government is particularly bad, and if the US was anywhere nearby, the US gets blamed wholesale for the outcome.
      Hm. The US, in a sense, installed the French Government after the German Occupation. So - um, wow, that French government is BAD. They're evil. Let's go bomb the Americans for putting them back in power, because the world would have been SOOO much better if we'd just left Hitler in charge.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    26. Re:To heck w/ cyberwar by dunkerz · · Score: 1

      Hey, shouldn't you be, like, not posting on slashdot this week?


      Oops.

      --

      You were expecting a sig?
  7. Anyone see this coming? by 1WingedAngel · · Score: 1

    Suddenly, Bill Gates announces that he can patch all Microsoft products the government is using against viruses and security holes as a gesture of good faith?

    Tim

  8. "might"? "planning"? by timothy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great! Now we can be prepared!

    sheesh :)

    Also, there is evidence that certain Germans may covet Krakow. Be on the alert.

    One if by land, two if by sea!

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:"might"? "planning"? by JordanH · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Heh. Can you imagine a headline "CIA Warns China Might NOT Be Planning Cyber Attack"? It says the same thing, but the spin is completely different.

    2. Re:"might"? "planning"? by RunzWithScissors · · Score: 1

      Or so the Germans would have us believe!

      -Runz

    3. Re:"might"? "planning"? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Darn it, you beat me to it!

      Norm Macdonald sucks, but that's one of his better lines.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  9. ok, i'm starting a pool... by edrugtrader · · Score: 3, Funny

    months accross the top, days on the side...

    $10 a square, the bet - when will china simply be cut off the internet and all chinese traffic blocked by all of the major routers?

    my guess is sooner than later. china already blocks the internet from itself, maybe its time for us to do if for them... although that herbal viagra really did work!!

    --
    MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    1. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by JonWan · · Score: 5, Funny

      although that herbal viagra really did work!!

      Sure it does... Why do you think that there are so many Chinese?

    2. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 2

      In response to two sibling posts, you wouldn't have to know China's IP addresses... You just need to unplug the land/sea line and/or sat link that China is attached to at each major router on the Internet that China is directly connected to.

    3. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Chinese are sexual supermen.

      They've got small dicks, for sure, but that's absolutely not a handicap: they have extremely hard hard-ons, can have multiple orgasms, and they produce at least three times more sperm per ejaculation than whites, hence the high number of chinese.

    4. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by GunFodder · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      If China ever does implement the Great Firewall their days as a superpower are over. They would fall behind technologically. I think they are too smart to make that mistake. China has used isolationist policies in the past and they haven't done much good.

      And how can China afford to piss off the US? Who do you think buys most of the crap they make? China will need a much richer population before they have enough consumers to support their own industries.

    5. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Herbal Viagra? I thought rice was the reason.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    6. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by r00tarded · · Score: 1

      china has an IP address? damn everything is connected to the net nowadays. does this mean i can break in, install back orifice and remote control china?

    7. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by zCyl · · Score: 2

      And how can China afford to piss off the US? Who do you think buys most of the crap they make? China will need a much richer population before they have enough consumers to support their own industries.

      Give them a few decades, there's nothing standing in the way of their growth to that level.

    8. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by SHiFTY1000 · · Score: 1

      But don't most of teh spams originate from the US, and are only routed through dodgy chinese mailservers? Shouldn't you be trying to find who they are first, and then suing the crap outa them?

    9. Re:ok, i'm starting a pool... by banking_intern · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are TWO REALLY good reason why china won't be able to reach the leval of cconsumption that the us has.
      The first is their goverment eats to much money, their goverment consumes 26% of GDP according to The Economist, the us goverment is someplace at 2%. Some of that is capital investment and good for the economy, but a HUGE chunk is salary and hence money taken away rom investments.
      Second, their own economists inflate their growth numbers and some people have sugested that their economy is barely growing if at all once their outer regions (who have "funny" numbers) are considred. They don't even know how fast their growing but their "stated" numbers are wrong and I read recently about how even newspapers INSIDE cina have been saying this.
      People have been saying for 200 years, wouldn't be great if you could sell everyone in china one X. Well it hasn't happened yet, and it might take a much longer time before it happens. China dosn't have a healthy economy, and that might hopefully produce major changes within their country.

  10. Quoth the article by DoomHaven · · Score: 3, Funny

    [BLOCKQUOTE]"The People's Liberation Army does not yet have the capability to carry out its intended goal of disrupting Taiwanese military and civilian infrastructures or U.S. military logistics using computer virus attacks," said the CIA's report, which was included in a broader national security assessment that authorities distributed to intelligence officials. [/BLOCKQUOTE] What, they don't have a text editor and a book Visual Basic? Could it be that Microsoft's monopolistic pricing schemes has saved democracy?

    --
    "Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
  11. Despair? by Telastyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lately I've been having thoughts regarding the internet as a whole. General nostalgia about times when the internet was free, and good, and exciting.

    I worry that the Internet is doomed to irrevicably loose what made it so good (for me). Popup ads, spam, trolls, lamers in the doom-like of the season, and the concept of 'cyberwar' fill me with despair over how misguided most of humanity is. I fear that what is probably the best invention of my lifetime will be tarnished by greed, selfishness, and stupidity.

    Guess this is how Environmentalists feel... :[

    1. Re:Despair? by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      Change always sucks, and if China were to suddendly unleash it's blocks on the internet the world would have to deal with a billion people all trying to get out there. Slashdot effect be dammed, if Chinese people suddendly thought that some web site was interisting, then it could go down in a microsecond.
      Cisco would love for china to be unleashed on the world, as it would probably mean more equipment for them.

    2. Re:Despair? by digitalsushi · · Score: 5, Funny

      You just gotta accept that layer 7 of the OSI is a write-off at this point and hang out with all the cool kids on layer 2 and 3.. dont go near 4, though, that's still on the other side of the tracks.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    3. Re:Despair? by grytpype · · Score: 1, Funny

      A billion Chinese with PCs and internet access? Uh-uh. Most Chinese can barely afford their daily bowl of rice. A little rat meat is a luxury.

      --

      - Have a picture

    4. Re:Despair? by dzym · · Score: 2

      But don't let it be said that the Chinese government is blocking off most of the Net to its citizens for altruistic reasons. Not to mention a good 85-90% of the population live out of reach of internet cafes, can't afford computers, can't afford internet access, can barely afford to feed themselves from day to day.

    5. Re:Despair? by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 1

      Agreed -- I'd even go back to 128k ISDN if it meant the Internet felt free again. It's all too corporatized and commercialized and polluted now. I long for the days when spam was a lunch meat, popup was only used in reference to books, and the extent of IM was IRC.

    6. Re:Despair? by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

      How many chinese people in China actually have access then? Does anyone know these numbers?

    7. Re:Despair? by miracle69 · · Score: 5, Funny

      We're always on the brink of destruction because it sells.

      When was the last time you read an article with the title:

      "Congratulations! We're still not glowing!"

      hell, this could be a great Onion Piece.

      By. R. Jason Valentine.

      Today, the world rejoiced. It's been 45 years since nuclear weaponry had reached numbers and yield to destroy all life on earth at least one time over, and we haven't done it yet. Senior level officials at Norad and the Pentagon were seen slapping each other on the back and smoking large cigars. Said one high-ranking official, "Man, I've never done my job - which basically involves blowing up the wholeworld - and I'm glad! I hear I'm even getting a bonus this year!"

      Meanwhile, in Moscow, an unprecedented run on vodka was reported. One senior staff member noted, "Well, the Americans are getting hammered about not blowing up the world, so why shouldn't we?" Grumblings about no bonuses were quickly silenced, for fear of being "party-poopers".

      Meanwhile, Tree-hugger doomsdayers were a bit more glum. Not only have they proven to be as reliable as Clinton's testimony, but if news of this celebration gets out, they could lose a significant portion of their funding. Some of the better amongst them have come up with a great new spin, proving that American ingenuity is still alive and well. The spin? "Doomsday nears as weapons controllers man stations with horrid hangover."

      --
      Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
    8. Re:Despair? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No, didn't you know? The 'internet' is just a pay-per-play don't-you-dare-record-it content delivery system for Disney, the MPAA and RIAA. Any other use amounts to 'circumvention technology.'

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Despair? by GunFodder · · Score: 1

      I think I just read that China moved up to #2 in total connected households, but is still lagging in percentage of total populating. I think the number of connected households was something like 100 million.

    10. Re:Despair? by chuck · · Score: 2

      There are always new frontiers.

  12. So what? by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 1

    There is no "cyber-attack" that doesn't currently plauge us already. Unless the chinese are going to bomb our routers (with explosives), I think we can deal with it.

    1. Re:So what? by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      There is no "cyber-attack" that doesn't currently plauge us already. Unless the chinese are going to bomb our routers (with explosives), I think we can deal with it.

      "The mission of Chinese special forces includes physical sabotage" of vulnerable systems, the report says

      So.. I believe that would in fact be their plan.

      I remember a past article here on /. regarding the security of the root name server... the issue stressed was not the physical safety of the server (which can be dropped out of the system with minimal damage), but the loss of life that would be involved in blowing through all the surrounding security.

      It's time to design death-traps with our central equipment in the center... sure you can blow up that name server... you just have to be willing to have your legs blown off. No you won't die till you starve to death.

      Brutality, especially so the sickening sort, is an old specialty of ours. War with the US is such a distrubing concept not only because of our sheer might, but also an individual citizens ability to become a killing machine. We are a nation of psychotics. Dosen't that make you feel safe? ;)

      -GiH

    2. Re:So what? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      How do you invade a country where (most) everyone owns a gun, right?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:So what? by vrmlknight · · Score: 1

      "It's time to design death-traps with our central equipment in the center"

      Actually the TLD servers are very tightly secured under armed guards (large auto shotguns) and several dead man doors to go thru not to mention not too many people know where the TLD servers are actually located. The building can withstand bombing maybe not nuclear attack or repeatedly but enough to give us time to retaliate. Yea maybe the Chinese special forces could kill off a few guards but at least one would be able to sounds an alarm to let other s know what's going on and before they could get anywhere NOC it would be locked up tighter than your girls pussy.

      --
      This must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
    4. Re:So what? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      a few of them, yes....

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  13. Confidential? by ip_vjl · · Score: 5, Funny

    The confidential alert, which was reviewed by The Times ...


    Confidential?

    We are in trouble if the best way we know to keep things confidential is to give them to a major newspaper.

    1. Re:Confidential? by lkaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, IMHO, this is all bullshit.

      Are chinese citizens planning on attacking the US? Sure, so are American citizens.

      Has the chinese government considered the possibility of cyber-attacking the US? Sure, just like we considered the possibility of dropping nukes on half the world recently.

      Is the chinese government actively planning to attack the US? Not if they have even the remotest bit of sense in the world.

      The chinese economy is _heavily_ dependent on the American economy. An attack on America would effectively be an attack on their own economy. The codependence of our economies is probably the only reason all-out-war hasn't broken out between us.

      Remember though, money is absolutely the most powerful influence in diplomacy and there isn't much that could come in the way of the massive amounts of money being exchanged between China and the US.

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));
    2. Re:Confidential? by virtual_mps · · Score: 1
      The chinese economy is _heavily_ dependent on the American economy. An attack on America would effectively be an attack on their own economy. The codependence of our economies is probably the only reason all-out-war hasn't broken out between us.
      Ever looked into who Germany's major trade partners were just prior to WWI?
    3. Re:Confidential? by lkaos · · Score: 2

      Ever looked into who Germany's major trade partners were just prior to WWI?

      Good point, but I think there is a much greater codependency between the US and China than say the US and pre-WWI Germany.

      In fact, look how long it took for the US to enter WWI. Why? Because we were making a killing from it. It took a direct economic threat (the sinking of US trading ships) to get us involved.

      The US and China have a "most-favored nation" agreement and there is almost no tariff on trade between the two countries. China is the US's primary source of very cheap labor.

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));
    4. Re:Confidential? by ryanvm · · Score: 2

      The chinese economy is _heavily_ dependent on the American economy. [...] The codependence of our economies is probably the only reason all-out-war hasn't broken out between us.

      You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia.

    5. Re:Confidential? by Zelet · · Score: 1

      That is generally true except in cases of desperation. If you study WWII history, the Japanese were just as dependent on the U.S.'s economy but they bombed Pearl anyway because they thought they could gain more from doing it then not.

      As in all threats, the U.S. should take it to heart... the threats and hints that were dropped before Pearl Harbor should have taught us a lesson.

      --
      ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
    6. Re:Confidential? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2


      The chinese economy is _heavily_ dependent on the American economy.


      As is the American economy heavily dependent on China. Perhaps even more so.

      Sorry, but it's true.

      Theoretically, China could get raw cash from anyplace that has it. Where else can the US and Japan get all their electronics manufactured (at the volume and prices that we need) besides China?

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    7. Re:Confidential? by Goonie · · Score: 2
      Hmmm. The reasons why people manufacture in China are
      • Ready supply of cheap, compliant labor.
      • Lack of environmental regulation.
      • Decent transport links (shipping).
      • Network effects.

      The first two are replicated in India, Russia, much of south-east Asia, Mexico, etc. etc. (though perhaps not quite as cheap and not quite as unregulated). If the supply of them dried up in China, I don't think it would take long for the shipping links and critical mass necessary to happen elsewhere.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    8. Re:Confidential? by lkaos · · Score: 2

      As is the American economy heavily dependent on China. Perhaps even more so.

      Yeah, that is why I said they were codependent :)

      If the Chinese economy was only dependent on America, then there would be _alot_ of change in China since America would have a lot of leverage in things like human rights issues and such. Remember, China is the largest communist country and we are the country that fought so hard to rid the world of communism.

      Of course, economics is the greatest political factor (the situation in China almost seems to prove Marx's theory at least).

      Theoretically, China could get raw cash from anyplace that has it.

      Something like 26% of the World Domestic Product comes from the US. There isn't another country in the world that could supply China with the kind of business that the US does.

      Where else can the US and Japan get all their electronics manufactured (at the volume and prices that we need) besides China?

      China isn't the largest producer of electronics IIRC. Instead, China is known for producing more retail oriented items (clothing, and especially little plastic thingies).

      Taiwan and Singapore produce an aweful lot of electronic components...

      --
      int func(int a);
      func((b += 3, b));
  14. ridiculous by GutBomb · · Score: 1

    this is the dumbest thing i have heard all day. if it is china's plan to invade taiwan and hack the us to keep thier military response time weakened, the us would simply find another method of deploying troops to taiwan that does not involve the internet. the whole thing stinks of media evil hacker (or communist) hype to me.

    1. Re:ridiculous by wilgamesh · · Score: 1

      If you read the LA Times article, there's no reference to saying that the cyber-attacks are supposed to reduce military response time. The cyber-attacks are only what they sound like, attacks on the civilian and military infrastructures which depend on networked systems.

      And as such, this has nothing to do with troop deployment, but rather just inflicting damage on your enemy without using missiles or bombs.

    2. Re:ridiculous by GutBomb · · Score: 1

      from the article:

      Under one scenario, if China were to make good on its long-standing threat to invade Taiwan, the Chinese military could then seek to deploy widespread computer disruptions against American and Taiwanese military systems to slow any effort by U.S. forces to intervene in Taiwan's defense, he said.

    3. Re:ridiculous by GutBomb · · Score: 1

      that is what i was trying to say. the article goes into that being a possible reason why they would attack the goverments machines. it is totally preposterous.

  15. My take on this? by WildBeast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the CIA want to keep there jobs and they want more funds so they come up with warning after warning after warning. How come the US has so many enemies all of a sudden?

    1. Re:My take on this? by chowbok · · Score: 1
      the CIA want to keep there jobs and they want more funds so they come up with warning after warning after warning. How come the US has so many enemies all of a sudden?

      Uh, China's been our enemy for a long time. If you think the CIA's making this up, then you don't read the news enough.

    2. Re:My take on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If China is our enemy then why do we buy so much of their stuff? Wouldn't having a trade deficit with China then be contributing to the enemy? Germany, Japan and Italy in WWII, you didn't see the US buying tons of their goods.

      There are tons of Chinese exchange students. We have had presidents visit China. Why would a US president visit our enemy?

      Yah, China my not be a US puppet, but that does not make them our enemy. Didn't you read 1984?

    3. Re:My take on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are the envy of the world

      Sorry to burst your bubble - but you are not.

      However, that attitude might explain why your nation is held in the regard that it is...

    4. Re:My take on this? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Hell, I'm an educated, straight, white, christian, american male, aged 18-35... I might as well be satan himself as far as the rest of the world is concerned...

      You lose. Replace "christian" with "jewish".

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    5. Re:My take on this? by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      Bingo.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    6. Re:My take on this? by Mr_Perl · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      YOU lose, replace Jewish with Athiest.

      Gee, do I win the pity party prize?

      --

      My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
    7. Re:My take on this? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We are the envy of the world, so by extension, we are disliked by the majority of people out there...

      Do you really think this is why America is hated? Because they envy us? Don't you suppose the fact that most of the bombs dropped in the world have "Made in the USA" on it might have a LITTLE something to do with the hatred thing?

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    8. Re:My take on this? by 1029 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      We are the envy of the world

      Sorry to burst your bubble - but you are not.

      However, that attitude might explain why your nation is held in the regard that it is...


      Oh? Then explain to me why I saw this on NBC the other night. Tom interviewed some graduates at a University in Bhagdad, Iraq, with most of them saying they would be suicide bombers and wanted to fight the United States because we are seen by them as being a bully and a threat to their country. You know what they asked Tom after the interview, even though they supposedly hate America? They wanted to know if he had any new movies or other goods from the US, because they just can't get enough of Hollywood and all our glamerous stuffs. If that isn't envy of the US I suppose I don't know what is.

      --
      - I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
    9. Re:My take on this? by blair1q · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Simple litmust test:

      How many people from the US want to immigrate to your country?

      How many people from your country want to emigrate to the US?

      Take your brainwash somewhere else.

    10. Re:My take on this? by Xader+Vartec · · Score: 1, Troll

      FUCK YEA THAT IS WHY THEY HATE US!!!

      Despite your claim, we have NOT bombed most of the nations that hate us. Let's see. The biggest bomb ever detonated on a population is history was on Japan by the US. Their our friends. We bombed the shit out of Germany; allies. So, by that reasoning the small pot shots we have taken aren't why they hate us. Us not BOMBING THEM MORE is why they hate us.

      Do I really think we need to bomb these guys more. No. DON'T BE A DOLT AND THINK I WANT TO BOMB THEM MORE!!!

      Wake up and smell the propaganda. The U.S. is the most successful nation in the UNIVERSE. And a free, capitolistic society is what made it that way. The oppressed societies are poor. And when the people ask the ones in charge "Why can't I feed my family" do you REALLY think they tell them "because I want to oppress this country for my friends and I personal gain"? NO. They blame it on the country that their people see has success (and money and FOOD).

      They (the governments in charge) are upset by the fact that the Freedom of the U.S. is spoiling their little power trip by showing their people that it doesn't have to be that way. You see they have their money and power from the suppresiono of their people. If they were to allow freedom of their people then they would loose their money and power. So, they tell their people how EVIL the United States is. How the United States steels money from their mouths. How the United States gets its money and power from them and that is why they can't feed their family.

      Get a clue. This is propaganda pure and simple. Someone doesn't get rich by steeling from the poor. They are NOT por because we are rich. They are poor from their governments suppressive nature.

      It's become fashionable to dislike the U.S. here in the U.S. It's the in vogue thing to do. So, our own media bashes the system that allows it the freedom to do so. Do you even REALIZE that this is NOT ALLOWED in many other countries? The result is that our own free media spreads the propaganda being spewed forth from these repressive regimes. And people like YOU (yea, the one that mentioned the bombs) pick up on it.

      I got one thing to say about people who live in the U.S. and bash it: GET OUT!!!!! Then you will see how good the U.S. really is.

    11. Re:My take on this? by Snodgrass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you'd put your attitude aside (America gets all the attention, boo-hoo!) and actually take a look at the rest of the world, you'd see that it is you who are mistaken...about a great many things.

      Go to any under-developed country and see who they think is the envy of the world. Whether they like us or not, they envy us.

      That's not to say that any number of other countries don't also deserve envy. But we get all the attention, whether or not we deserve it (and whether or not you like to admit it).

    12. Re:My take on this? by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      You could also say, that Microsoft is the envy of the business world which is why its so hated. So are you saying that we are the Microsoft of the world?

      Well that just fucking sucks, thanks for brightening my day.

    13. Re:My take on this? by FurryFeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, I'm an educated, straight, white, christian, mexican male, aged 18-35, living in Mexico, and I don't envy you a damn thing.
      I own a nice house and have a job doing what I love. I can walk on the street at night without fear of being shot by any maniac who bought a gun at the seven eleven, and my governmente is not breathing down my neck to protect Disney's encryption schemes. And, most of all, I don't feel like the world should envy me, nor do I confuse material prosperoty with hapiness.
      Reread your message, and realize why a lot of people dislike americans. A hint: It has nothing to do with having; it has to do with the way you are. You are the Microsoft of the world.

      Dear me, I think I just trolled a troll.

    14. Re:My take on this? by chowbok · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We bought plenty of stuff from Nazi Germany before we were at war with them, actually. Does that mean we were "friends"? Is your definition of "enemy" "a country we're at war with"?

      I have no idea what 1984 has to do with my comment, but yes, I have read it. I've read almost everything Orwell wrote; have you? The society in 1984 was based mostly on Stalinist Russia, which China largely resembles. Orwell himself spent almost his entire writing career attacking Communism, and attacking idiots that minimized Communism's crimes simply out of fashionable, dilletante dislike of the western democracies (where they all lived, of course). Sound familiar?

    15. Re:My take on this? by szquirrel · · Score: 1

      ...because we have the best sarcasm?

      --
      Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
    16. Re:My take on this? by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      If thats the test I think Canada beats out the US, especially now that Canadians aren't running to California for programming jobs ;)

      --
      Rod Taylor
    17. Re:My take on this? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Canard. The U.S. is made of people from somewhere else. The only people who are "insular" are the small minority of dirtbags who fear outsiders, and the politicians who troll them. Every country's got that.

      People move where they think the good stuff is, and stay put if they think they can't do better. In many cases giving up everything--or more--to go.

      If even half the U.S. is "insular", that leaves 140 million people savvy enough to go somewhere else, if there was anywhere else worth going.

      I've been to several other countries, some of which have your attitude towards us. I think you have that "insular" thing backwards.

      --Blair

      P.S.

      Q: How can you tell the difference between an American and a Canadian?

      A: Ask them this question.

    18. Re:My take on this? by XSforMe · · Score: 1
      we are seen by them as being a bully and a threat to their country

      And you are not? How would you react if somebody called your family, friends, neighbours and countrymen, "the axis of evil"? May I remind you the amount of bombs, missiles, explosives and other "american friendliness" you have dropped on these people?


      --
      My other OS is the MCP!
    19. Re:My take on this? by G-Man · · Score: 2

      I was born overseas, lived in the Philippines for two years, and have been to some 15 other countries. I enjoyed and found something worthwhile in all of them -- and I wouldn't trade any of them for the US.

      But hey AC, don't let me get in the way of your stereotyping 275 million people from virtually every culture and ethnicity on the planet.

      Oh, and of course Canadians don't have a desire to move to the US -- they already have largely unfettered access to most of its benefits. Canadians can trade with, travel to, and live and work in the US almost as if they were citizens here. Nobody sees Peter Jennings on the TV and thinks "Hey, why do they have a foreigner hosting the news?" You may hate being thought of as the 51st state, but you derive a hell of a lot of benefit from it -- if any other country plagued us with Bryan Adams *and* Celine Dion, it would be grounds for war. (But feel free to kill all the Baldwin brothers whenever you feel like it.)

    20. Re:My take on this? by Iamthefallen · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually yes, I made that little comparison in a post some months ago, the US is the MS of the world. Just as Billy boy can't accept that he's not loved by all and that MS products aren't the answer to life, the universe and everything, the US cannot accept that they're not loved by all and that some of its actions aren't really done for the good of the world.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the US, but, the actions, methods and politics of the US goverment leaves a lot to be desired from this point of view, and that criticism tends to be taken by americans as an attack on their person and they step in to defend their nation ano matter what the case presented is.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    21. Re:My take on this? by 10am-bedtime · · Score: 1
      i am a US citizen but i'm considering emigrating because what i do (write free software) has been under cultural (and legislative) attack enough to make the hassle not worth it. dismiss this personal perspective if you wish, and of course realize that actions are what count. check back w/ me in a year.

      thi

    22. Re:My take on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dude.. while i'm not saying that the phenomenon you describe is uncommon worldwide, you shouldn't assume ANYTHING from Iraq as representative of the rest of the world at large. Iraq is a hellhole. Iraq is also a special case becuase of all the complex recent history they've had with the U.S., as well as the fact that their media is state-controlled and HIGHLY slants the facts (and the facts didn't need *that* much slanting to begin with..) *and* that without the U.S., all that oil that they sell despite the embargo wouldn't be worth nearly as much..

      Just a thought. America as a whole seems to be rather deeply engrained with "the new york fallacy"-- i.e., everyone there seems to think that the rest of the world's lives are consumed with either loving or hating america, and no one seems aware that there could be anyone anywhere in the world whose lives are just not that affected by america that much either way, and who doesn't particularly think about the whole "mcdonalds is everywhere" thing too much. Yeah, a bunch of the world either unhealthily loves or unhealthily hates america (or both). But that isn't everyone.

    23. Re:My take on this? by netsharc · · Score: 1
      IMO 1984 was less about the society and more about the control the government has over that society. People who say that the US is turning into a 1984 scenario have their points, the US just spins the media (like with this article) to mislead the public.

      But of course I can't convince you, you have to see for yourself.

      On the other hand, I can't believe how decisions that affect the world and lives of many people are left to a couple of idiots at the Washington top and how much personal biases affect those decisions, the US let Palestinia and Israel kill each other, making a lot of Muslims pissed off at the same time, because Cheney and Rumsfeld were probably racists that didn't like Arabs. Sure people too can too be racist and say "wel'll just nuke the hell out of Bin Laden and any country that supports him.", but will you sleep well at night when you realize that those who are angry at how the US government for making their world miserable is on their mission from "God" to kill you?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    24. Re:My take on this? by Wildcat+J · · Score: 1
      Q: How can you tell the difference between an American and a Canadian?

      A: Ask them this question.

      Q: What's a Canadian?

      A: It's like an American, but without a gun.

      Ah, the wit and wisdom of the Kids in the Hall.

      -J

    25. Re:My take on this? by SectoidRandom · · Score: 1

      I think if you thought about that a little more you would relise that the reason most bombs dropped on every second third world country has a "Made in the USA" sticker on it, is because America sell's a hell of a lot of weapons, many to people at special prices because it furthers their own needs..

      A hilarious article I read just recently, about how the Israelis sold many weapons to the Bosnian serbs illegally (as did the the US, useful when you're enforcing the embargo isn't it?), of course Bosina/Serbia being a mix of all races many of the Bosnian Jews living in Muslim-Bosnia were quite supprised to see the unexploded cluster bombs in their backyard with jewish markings on them! hah, how ironic..

    26. Re:My take on this? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      American reply: Wha?

      Canadian reply: Heh?

      :)

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    27. Re:My take on this? by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Iraq is actually more secular than most countries in that part of the world. The government still pays lip service to Islam, to appease fundamentalists who might otherwise make trouble, but government officials themselves don't base national policy on religion. Perhaps you're thinking of the kind of government in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

    28. Re:My take on this? by Analog+Squirrel · · Score: 1
      Dear me, I think I just trolled a troll.

      Ahem. I know better than to feed these, but I thought I might interject an observation here. I live in the middle of the Willamette Valley in Oregon(about 1500 km from the nearest Mexican border). During the harvest season, the population in the region swells noticably from the influx of immigrant workers from Mexico. They are here working long-hour, manual-labor jobs that the typical US citizen wouldn't even consider, and at a pay rate that would be criminal except that the workers aren't actually citizens here. Evidently, some of your countrymen seem to think that this kind of life is better than what they left behind. I'm told that when those who are here illegally get caught and are deported, they come right back across the border for more of the same. And you want me to believe there is nothing my country has that someone in your's may want?

      Please don't mistake my message here. If you're happy where you are and doing what you're doing, why should you want anything else?

      Personally, I wish that the US govt would do more to examine what it is doing and stop going out of its way to make new enemies. Believe it or not, I'm not alone in this wish... maybe someday we all can get along...

      --
      I'd rather be flying
    29. Re:My take on this? by Moofie · · Score: 2

      I haven't dropped anything on anybody. I also haven't supported Israel, or stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, or invaded Afghanistan. You know what? I bet I could find two or three other Americans who also haven't done these things.

      What responsibility do I bear for the actions of others? None.

      By the same token, any Palestinian who is not a suicide bomber is to be presumed innocent of any wrongdoing, and the Israelis should leave them the hell alone.

      By yet the same token, any Israeli not in the uniformed military service must be presumed innocent of all oppression, and the suicide bombers should leave them the hell alone.

      You see a pattern emerging here?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    30. Re:My take on this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Here are some helpful passages that explain why the US, which has only been on the world stage for 50 years, gets much of the ingrained problems of the world. Admittedly the US has exacerbated some of the world's problems, but it has alleviated many more of the problems cause by the Euro's colonization of the world.

      http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020429&s=buruma 04 2902&c=2


      ...[Arundhati Roy's] demonology of the United States takes on the foaming-at-the-mouth, eye-rolling quality of the mad evangelist. Un fortunately, it is this side of her, and not the campaigning against dam projects, that has found a worldwide audience. Roy has become the perfect Third World voice for anti-American, or anti-Western, or even anti-white, sentiments. Those are sentiments dear to the hearts of intellectuals everywhere, including the United States itself.

      The litany is well-known. America is the most belligerent power on earth. Its government is committed to "military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and un imaginable genocide (outside America)." The economic policies of the United States, otherwise known as globalization or imperialism, are "merciless" and rapacious, destroying economies "like a cloud of locusts." This means, in Roy's view, that "any Third World country with a fragile economy and a complex social base should know by now that to invite a superpower like America in ... would be like inviting a brick to drop through your windscreen." This rather ignores the historical fact that it is precisely America's old "client states" in East and Southeast Asia--South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Japan--that have done rather well, politically and economically. South Vietnam, had it remained under American patronage, would no doubt have been among them.
      ...
      There is one verbal tic that keeps recurring in Roy's writings that may help us to understand her feelings--for that is what they are, more than coherent thoughts. She refers a great deal to India's "ancient civilization," usually to show how humiliating it is for an ancient people to defer to a jumped-up, uncivilized place such as the United States. About President Clinton's visit to India, she observes: "He was courted and fawned over by the genuflecting representatives of this ancient civilization with a fervour that can only be described as indecent." This speaks of the same snobbery that informed Roy's remark on American television about Mickey Mouse and the mullahs.

      Rich, rampant America shows up the relative weakness and backwardness of India. This is hard to take for a member of the intellectual or artistic elite, educated by nationalist professors, whose thoughts were often molded by British Marxists from the London School of Economics. The genuine popularity of American pop culture among the urban masses in India makes the elite feel marginal in their own country, which sharpens their sense of pique. For India, you could also read France, Italy, Japan, or even China. Thus Roy's voice is less representative of the Third World than of a global intelligentsia, floating from conference to conference, moaning about the effects of globalization.
      ...
      Arundhati Roy's overheated prose gives criticism a bad name. She makes it too easy for unthinking patriots to dismiss any foreign skepticism toward American policy as mere envy or prejudice. And the effect of her voice in the non-Western world might be worse. The Iraqi intellectual dissident Kanan Makiya observed in his book Cruelty and Silence that Edward Said's Orientalism contributed to a pervasive lack of a sense of responsibility among young Arab intellectuals for the problems of the Middle East. If everything is the fault of a supposedly omnipotent America, or of ingrained Western colonial attitudes, then there is nothing to be done at home, except lash out in a rage.
      ...
    31. Re:My take on this? by Ayatollah · · Score: 1

      Wait, I could have sworn it was . . .

      Oh, I have to finish this later. There's knock at the door. I'll be right back.

    32. Re:My take on this? by thirty-seven · · Score: 1

      About Adams and Dion - let me appologize on behalf of all Canadians and ensure you that nobody listens to them up here. Or at least, only the same type of people who listen to them in the US listen to them here too.

      They are not at all representative of Canadian music. We tend to keep most of our good musicians to ourselves. Sorry for being to selfish.

      --

      Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    33. Re:My take on this? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I DON'T SUPPORT MY TAXES. Somebody with a GUN comes to my HOUSE if I don't pay them.

      As for sweatshop labor, I'd love for you to provide me with alternatives. I actually paid attention to who made my shoes, and I selected for ones that were made in America. And paid the premium. As for the rest of my clothing? Sorry, I'm a college student. I have to pick my battles. Someday I'll replace my wardrobe with one I weave myself from fucking home-grown hemp or something. How is this germane to the matter at hand? You think these people in the sweatshops would be better off if the sweatshop wasn't there?

      I defy you to illustrate my "ignorance of the ways of the world", you puerile little hate-monger.

      Get a clue.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    34. Re:My take on this? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, when they asked me, I told 'em to let the Israelis rot in the sewer of their own hate, and to leave the poor Afghanis alone. They didn't listen.

      Oh, wait...I forgot. They didn't ask.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    35. Re:My take on this? by mcb · · Score: 1

      there is nothing wrong with sweatshop labor. take a basic economics course.

    36. Re:My take on this? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      1984 was about all the governments in power in 1948 when it was written; the US AND the USSR.

      That's the whole point. There are no "good" governments in the 1984 world. They are all awful, and the differences bedween them are insignificant.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    37. Re:My take on this? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Oh? Then explain to me why I saw this on NBC the other night. [...]

      My explanation is that it is because you are a sap who watches NBC. Shame on you.

      Oh, and liking Hollywood movies is not the same as liking the US. They're only movies fer chrissakes.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    38. Re:My take on this? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Funny you should mention that. I renounced my citizenship yesterday.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    39. Re:My take on this? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whether they like us or not, they envy us.

      Why?

      No really, why?

      Because we have the most money, that's all. And that situation could change a lot faster than you'd probably be willing to believe.

      Now, I remember a time when America was envied for reasons other than its money and power.
      I seem to recall the US being regarded as being politically free, religiously tolerant, and relatively peaceful. Frankly, I think we became rich in the first place for these reasons.

      Now, I am afraid, there are many countries that are more democratic, more free, and more tolerant than the US has become. Capital will now flow out of America to these places for the same reasons that it flowed into America in the first place.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    40. Re:My take on this? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2


      I got one thing to say about people who live in the U.S. and bash it: GET OUT!!!!! Then you will see how good the U.S. really is.


      Why does the world hate America? Gentlemen, I present for your consideration, exhibit A.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

    41. Re:My take on this? by Halcyon-X · · Score: 1
      This is not a troll!

      Living in another country, I don't understand. Where does the patriotism come from? Where I live, we're not really brought up with a great sense of pride for our country, we just accept it as the place in which we live, from a purely objective point of view. In USA, it seems different... It seems as if every citizen has a great sense of pride for their country, and even politicians' advertisements are seen upon the clichéd US flag backdrop. Things are touted as "all american" or "america's #1," and people wear their flag as if it was a medal for doing something exceptional.

      It's just not very common in my culture... and I'm not sure if that's because I'm a cultural recluse or what! At least, I don't think I am. I live in Montreal, Canada, btw. Does anyone else in Canada feel the same? Sure, I have a little smile when I see a Canadian band is topping the charts, but nothing other than that really...

      --

      .sig: Open Source, Open Mind

    42. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      "Now, I am afraid, there are many countries that are more democratic, more free, and more tolerant than the US has become."

      And these countries would be...?

      As much as it has become rather popular to bash the US recently, I still don't see any other countries where people are flocking to by the thougsands every day. I'm not knocking you, I only have to much time in a day to read news, so there may be a few countries out there that I don't know about, but please let us know what they are.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    43. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Moofie- notice that all the idiots arguing with you are ACs? Takes a lot of guts to talk trash when you can hide behind annonimity. I'm with you, leave the rest of the world alone, EXCEPT the assholes that attacked us and killed some of my co-workers. And I don't want to hear from any ACs about how they deserved to die- all they ever wanted was to support their families.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    44. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Q: Who's the dead guy?

      A: He was the Canadian without the gun.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    45. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      No wonder we are the only superpower left.... stupid lazy trash....

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    46. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Fuck 'em. They don't like it, we'll drop bombs on them, too. Don't like that? I'll bring my tank over and blast your ass. I'm tired of all this apologist shit- don't kill my friends and we don't blow up Afghan. Pretty fucking simple, folks.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    47. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Well, at least one person understands....

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    48. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Wow- great read. Thanks.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    49. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...hate those guys who blow the WTC?"

      Internet access- $25
      /. AC bad grammar- priceless!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    50. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Please don't confuse tourists in Australia with most Americans. If they can afford the trip (expensive flight, etc.), then they are most likely spoiled already, and probably act that way when at home. Us ordinary people would rather just shake your hand and buy you a beer (and see a kangaroo up close!). I look forward to the day where I can travel over the world and buy a beverage for someone in each country without being shot.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    51. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      YOU lose, replace Aethist with monkey.

      I wanna my banana!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    52. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      I will speak for "most" Americans here, though there are lots of different views. Our patriotism comes from fighting our way to freedom 200 years ago and sending our people to die in war to fight evil (Hitler and such). Yes, we have our questionable actions (bombing aspirin factories), but our pride comes from the good stuff we did/do. That probably doesn't explain it very well, but it's a hard thing to explain.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    53. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      "Why can't we just all get along? We're all on the same side? ...right?"

      I hope to God (or whatever you want) that we are!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    54. Re:My take on this? by mpe · · Score: 2

      I DON'T SUPPORT MY TAXES. Somebody with a GUN comes to my HOUSE if I don't pay them.

      A while back a group of people got fed up with "taxation without representation". So they staged a revolution, setting up a federal republic with a written constitution. Want to guess where this happened?

    55. Re:My take on this? by mpe · · Score: 2

      USians are insular - which just goes to prove his point; you don't want to live anywhere else because you don't know about anywhere else, and you've brainwashed yourselves into thinking you're the best.

      That only applies to regular people though. US corporations and the US government are rather imperialist.

    56. Re:My take on this? by mpe · · Score: 2

      I think if you thought about that a little more you would relise that the reason most bombs dropped on every second third world country has a "Made in the USA" sticker on it, is because America sell's a hell of a lot of weapons, many to people at special prices because it furthers their own needs.

      Note that "sell" can equate to "paid for by US taxpayers". In situations where the US is providing "aid".

    57. Re:My take on this? by FurryFeet · · Score: 2

      if any other country plagued us with Bryan Adams *and* Celine Dion, it would be grounds for war.

      People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
      And people from the country that spawned NSync, Bakstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez and Leonardo di Caprio should really not complain about foreign "musicians".

    58. Re:My take on this? by mpe · · Score: 2

      I'd say that a lot of the hatred directed toward america/americans is because it's easy to blame problems on a country you've never been to that's on the other side of the word.

      There is a sterotype about Americans not knowing what goes on in the rest of the world. Also, IIRC, the US has one of the lowest rates of passport holdership in the world...
      Bush's "axis of evil" could also be described as "blame problems on a country you've never been to that's on the other side of the word"...

      Sure, my government has done some questionable and bloody stupid things before (vietnam / meddling in other countries business),

      There is a very long list, which is getting longer. Also what most people outside the US see is the utter hypocritical standards the US government uses. Israel is "good", Iraq and Serbia "bad". Whilst the US claims to champion democracy agents of the US government have worked hard to undermine democratic government, typically because few democratic governments will bend over backwards to accomodate interests of foreign (typically US) corporations operating in their country.

    59. Re:My take on this? by cat_jesus · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm an educated, straight, white, christian, mexican male, aged 18-35, living in Mexico, and I don't envy you a damn thing. I own a nice house and have a job doing what I love. I can walk on the street at night without fear of being shot by any maniac who bought a gun at the seven eleven, and my governmente is not breathing down my neck to protect Disney's encryption schemes. And, most of all, I don't feel like the world should envy me, nor do I confuse material prosperoty with hapiness.
      I could say exactly the same thing, except I don't believe christian mythology. You can't buy guns at seven eleven, hell you can't even buy playboy there.

      I lived overseas for a few years and it is amazing the misconceptions people have about the US. When I told people I lived in Texas they would immediately assume I had a six shooter and rode a horse.

      Everyone should live for a time in another country, it would bring us all closer to understanding each other and humble us all a bit. Too bad dumbya never did this.

      Cat
    60. Re:My take on this? by FurryFeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That was an intelligent and civil answer, and for that I thank you.
      There certainly plenty of poverty in Mexico, and the US do have much more material wealth. Yet, a lot of illegal workers go there and work for seasons, to return to their hometowns and live on what they made. Or they send the money to the families they leave behind. Most of them go seeking work because they have none here, but will return as soon as they can. Mexicans are mostly proud of their roots, and like their life here except when there is no work.
      So, I don't contend that the US has a higher income per capita, and more material wealth. But quality of life, that I don't think you have a lot.
      Then again, I call them as I see them, but can't vouch for the perfection of my sight :)
      Again, thanks. It is this kind of exchange that one hopes for when coming to Slashdot (but, alas, that too often is not found).

    61. Re:My take on this? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Actually, since only a few countries have larger populations than the U.S., the U.S. wins the relative comparison even more handily than the absolute one (smaller number of emigres divided by larger population).

      The U.S. is the destination nation for international migration, and has positive net-immigration with every country on Earth (last time I looked; 2001 we may have had a negative net with India because of laid-off H-1B deportees).

      --Blair

    62. Re:My take on this? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If you believe that that "of the people, by the people, for the people" nonsense is true, if it ever was, I've got some nice beach-front property in Luxembourg to sell you.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    63. Re:My take on this? by Fwonkas · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. Obviously, people (yourself included) will generalize other peoples' attitudes, but at least admit that you're doing it. When I think of people in, say, France, I have no problem admitting that the qualities that come to mind, negative or positive, most likely do not apply to the vast majority of the population. Do you really think really think that Americans in general really want to nuke the world or own guns? What, do you think that all arabs really want to wipe America off the face of the earth? Give me a break.

      As far as cultural invasion goes, well, what do you expect? We aren't the first (and certainly not the last) culture to do such a thing, whether it's intentional or not. Do you really think that the average American citizen cares whether or not people in Zimbabwe eat mcdonalds and wear levis?

      It just irritates me when people commit the (very common, an tempting) fallacy of division. Just because nations may behave in utterly insane fashions (as a previous poster noted), their citizens are not necessarily insane.

      So sure, go ahead and hate Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, George Bush and Dick Cheney. But don't make the ridiculous mistake of hating some random secretary at Microsoft or an average American citizen. That's just stupid. Aren't you doing the same thing as Bush and his silly "axis of evil" thing when you polarize the issue like this?

      Sorry, guess I just needed to rant.

      --
      COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
    64. Re:My take on this? by JLucien · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head:

      The United Kingdom is Europe's top "asylum" destination at the moment.

      Also Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Australia, New Zealand.

      People are flocking to these countries by the thousands every day, and what pisses me off is that most are seeking asylum from nothing more than crappy economies, not state persecution.

      --
      Audere est Facere
    65. Re:My take on this? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Learn something new every day. I'm surprised by Australia, though, since it is not cheap to get there. I agree with the economic thing, the US is being flooded with Mexican immigrants just to get minor, shitty jobs (at least compared to most US jobs). It's sad to think that minimum wage US jobs are preferable to staying in your own country.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    66. Re:My take on this? by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      I can walk on the street at night without fear of being shot by any maniac who bought a gun at the seven eleven, and my governmente is not breathing down my neck to protect Disney's encryption schemes.

      Can you? Mexico's homicide rate is more than twice that of the US.

      When's the last time you heard about people being shot in an armed rebellion in the US?

  16. Part of war on Terrorism? by RunzWithScissors · · Score: 1

    I think the more important question is will this massive DOS attack or encouraged hacking of American computers count in President Bush's War on Terrorism? While the US can engage in a relativly small conflict in Afghanistan, I doubt the US military could control the scale as well in an attack on China. I envision that it would instead have to be a full blown knock-down-drag-out war. I'm not quite sure if American citizens are up for that. Especially in response to some Internet sites/services being unavailable. If they attack military machines, Pres. Bush is going to be hoppin' mad!

    Also, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how China has chosen the machines that they will be attacking. Perhaps they should not sting the sleeping bear.

    -Runz

    1. Re:Part of war on Terrorism? by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      There's no way in hell the US could ever even capture most of China, let alone occupy it. Same goes for a Chinese invasion of the US.

      Both would be amphibious invasions conducted from across the worlds widest ocean. For an amphibious invasion to be successful, you'd need something close to 5-to-1 odds. Neither side has that.

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  17. CIA Warns China Might Be Planning Cyber Attack by billnapier · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now why would the CIA warn China about an attack that they are planning? What is this world coming to?

  18. cyberwar with china by sammy.lost-angel.com · · Score: 1

    Great... cyberwar, massive DoS, blah... I keep in touch with people over the internet in China, and I will NOT be blocking them at my level, but what happens if the US mandates all chinese traffic be blocked? Then what do I do?

    I guess I should colocate my box in Canada :)

    Things like this destroy what's so great about the internet to me.

    1. Re:cyberwar with china by kz45 · · Score: 1

      Great... cyberwar, massive DoS, blah... I keep in touch with people over the internet in China, and I will NOT be blocking them at my level, but what happens if the US mandates all chinese traffic be blocked? Then what do I do?

      The US isn't china. I seriously doubt they are going to start blocking traffic any time soon.

  19. Why?? by EddydaSquige · · Score: 1

    I have a hard time beliving this. Why would China want to do this? It sounds to me like the CIA is just looking for a new enemy for another cold war, since this shit in the middle east is raping up and americans arn't buying that every Arab is a terorist they need a new boogy man. God, it's like our .gov has fallen backwards 15years to the hight of Reagnism.

    1. Re:Why?? by Tazzy531 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I totally agree with you. With the current administration finding itself in a difficult situation (is Arafat a terrorist or "harboring terrorist? if so, why isn't the US arresting him?) And the administration constantly flipping back and forth on the issue isn't helping the situation much. The entire middle east part of the world has lost respect for the US. Just today, the Saudi Arabian (our so call "friends/allies") was just in Crawford, Tx making demands that the US stop backing Israel if we still want oil from S.A.. In addition, the Egyptians are ready to go to war with Israel.

      Unfortunately what the administration has found is that it has opened up Pandora's box and does not know how to handle it anymore. And like you said, it has fallen back 15 years to Reaganism. The thing is, a good majority of the administration are from the Reagan era. It is much easier to lead a country back during the Cold War than it is now. When you know who your enemies are and can rally support against a common enemy, you can pretty much push anything through legistlation. In the past 6 months or so, the administration has tried to find a common enemy (first terrorists, but since that is a broad term, moved onto Usama Bin ladin, and since we can't find him, moved onto al Qaeda then Taliban, etc, etc...)

      Bush has had it out for China since he first stepped into office. Remember the US spy plane incident?. And honestly, China isn't doing anything worse than what the US has been doing for years. I would say distrupting and ousting a democratically elected leader of a country is a bigger crime than DDoS that is talked about in this article.

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    2. Re:Why?? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      arafat is no terriorst.

      who is the country launching all those attacks on foreign underdeveloped countries 'saving' them from 'evil guys' now again...

    3. Re:Why?? by n-baxley · · Score: 2

      The thing is, a good majority of the administration are from the Reagan era.

      I'd like to see who all is back from the Reagan era. I know Cheney and Rumsfeld. Admitidly two very high ranking officials, but who else. It seems a bit generous to say "a good majority"

      Unfortunately what the administration has found is that it has opened up Pandora's box and does not know how to handle it anymore.

      Just when did the US create a situation in the middle east? Look at Britain that created Israel. Look at the arab countries for attacking Israel. Look at Israel for rocketing innocent people. Look at childish leaders that can't agree on how to meet for peace, let alone discuss peace terms. There are lots of people to blame for the problems but hardly the US, unless giving hope of some sort of peace settlement is a bad thing.

    4. Re:Why?? by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2
      I'd like to see who all is back from the Reagan era. I know Cheney and Rumsfeld. Admitidly two very high ranking officials, but who else. It seems a bit generous to say "a good majority
      • Mitch Daniels - Office of Management and Budget Director
      • Condoleezza Rice - Foreign Policy Advisor
      • Robert Zoellick - US Trade Representative
      • Andrew Card - Chief of Staff
      • Richard A. Clarke - Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security
      • Robert Joseph - Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation and Homeland Defense
      • Elliot Abrams - Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights,and International Operations
      • Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State (from former Bush Admin)
      • Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense
      • Gary R. Edson - Deputy Assistant for International Economic Affairs and Deputy National Security Advisor
      • William Howard Taft, IV - Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State
      • Timothy Muris - Federal Trade Commission
      Source and others

      Is that enough for a majority? It seems like most of the major positions are carried over from the Reagan (or Bush, Sr)'s administration.

      Just when did the US create a situation in the middle east? Look at Britain that created Israel. Look at the arab countries for attacking Israel. Look at Israel for rocketing innocent people. Look at childish leaders that can't agree on how to meet for peace, let alone discuss peace terms. There are lots of people to blame for the problems but hardly the US, unless giving hope of some sort of peace settlement is a bad thing.


      I agree with you that everyone has had at least a hand in this cookie jar. But what lead to the recent escalation was the fact that Bush turned a cold shoulder when suicide bombers were blowing up Israel and for the first couple of days of Israel's incursion, Bush did not give a public statement telling either sides to back down. (as reported in Time Magazine and LA Time.

      You must remember that Bush came into the White House saying outright that Clinton's mistake was in meddling with the affairs of the Middle East. Up until 2 weeks ago, he pretty much wanted to ignore the issues...which lead to mass confusion on Bush's stance Which Sharon took as an OK to advance onto Palestine territory. Now recently, Powell went over there to try to resolve things, but his mission was considered by many as a failure. Both sides have lost respect for the US as a mediator.

      Bush does not really care or want to be involved in the middle east. It's quite a tangled web. On one hand, part of his administration wants to fully support Israel. But on the other hand, if he does support Israel, the entire Islamic world will come down upon him. Even today's news, the Saudi Prince (our supposed Ally) just threatened to cut off ties to the US if the US does not take a harder stance on Israel. In addition, Egypt (another ally) is threatening to go to war again Israel once it gets enough financial support.

      Alright...I'm done with my rambling... :-P

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    5. Re:Why?? by netsharc · · Score: 1
      Interesting thought, when the US makes an enemy out of the rest of the world, who will the "bad guys" really be? The US itself? To Muslims extremists, the US is already a regime of terror that has control over their holy land, etc, etc. Imagine if the US is not the US, but each state was an independent country but all share the same ideology. And let's say Russia is the economic and military superpower. How much would you enjoy seeing that Russian military base when you drive to work every day? How much would you like the fact that Cuban nationals (an ally of Russia's), who have taken over most of Florida as their nation, is launching daily attacks againsts what's left of the natives of Florida, and because you live in a powerless nation, all you can do is beg Russia to make Cuba stop? And the only thought that makes you feel independent is the thought that when Russia attacks the hell out of you, your country might disappear, but at least your allies will be mighty pissed off.

      Change States of the US to Muslim countries in the middle east, Florida to Palestina and Cuba to Israel.

      Already, the US controls the world. I wonder how much Hollywood propaganda has helped. Every spy film in the Cold War featured, guess who, the enemy as the evil assholes.

      Of course we think we are on the right side. So does Mr. Bin Laden, he thinks he's on God's side, and Bush thinks the same. We think America stands for liberty and democracy and all that crap (just forget about RIAA, Disney, Hollings, Enron for a bit), but Muslims believe they stand for God and their Holy Book. At least Bush doesn't try to enforce the rule of the Bible on us. True, the interpretation of Quran is opressive against women, I agree thats backwards, but to those who believe it, it's the only source of right.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    6. Re:Why?? by n-baxley · · Score: 1

      All right, I will have to concede on the carry over people. I did not know there were so many. Thanks for the info.

      On the Middle East though, I think that the main reason that Bush wanted to stay out of the middle east was to avoid becoming the world's police force. That was the main problem with Clinton's foreign policy. Civil wars will happen, and that can't be helped. You can't be the mediator in every conflict and you can't stop all the violence in the world. I don't see why the US has to weigh in on every issue. These are grown people. If they can't work things out for themselves and they won't agree on outsiders' proposals, what can we do for them. You're right in that Bush is in a no win situation. I can't say what he should do, I just get very frustrated when the immatureness of the middle east rubs off poorly on the US.

    7. Re:Why?? by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2
      On the Middle East though, I think that the main reason that Bush wanted to stay out of the middle east was to avoid becoming the world's police force. That was the main problem with Clinton's foreign policy. Civil wars will happen, and that can't be helped. You can't be the mediator in every conflict and you can't stop all the violence in the world. I don't see why the US has to weigh in on every issue.
      I agree with you. However, there is one additional thing. The US cannot say they want to be involved in certain issues (that other people don't want the US to be involved in) but not be involved in others. You can't be a "police force" when its only self-serving. My case in point is specifically in a couple of recent events:

      Remember when Bush said, "You are with us or against us"? I think that is an overly simplistic statement in that you either help the US or you are our enemy. Why should other countries come to the aid of the US when they need help, but when the other countries need help, they turn their backs. There are many instances where the US have refused to help due to the fact that doing so will not benefit the US.

      Secondly, the US should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries that lead to instability in the world. Remember a guy named Osama Binladin and "Afghan terrorists? They were products of the US CIA op to hold back the Russia from taking over Afghanistan. Should the US have been involved in that? Maybe it was getting all caught up in the Cold War and stuff like that... I'll give that to you...people make mistakes in life..plus that was a long time ago...
      More recently though...there are direct evidence that the current Bush administration was involved in the current ousting of the President of Venezuala. The biggest promoter of democracy (the US) wanted to oust a democratically elected president. I had read somewhere that the new president wanted to implement policies that would help the Venezualan people but would hurt Chevron, a major oil supplier to the US.

      That's the hypocrisy of US foreign policy. There are many cases in which the US does things to hurt other people and to destabilize the world for the benefit of the US.
      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  20. Neuromancer Anyone? by PrairieFire · · Score: 1

    Does this mean William Gibson is right and the future will be full of Chinese "Ice"?

  21. worries deeply? by joeldg · · Score: 1

    ""China is still an issue that worries Americans deeply, and sometimes the intelligence community gets a head of steam on these things and can go off on tangents that may not be substantiated," he said. " Why do I not feel worried?

  22. hmmm.... by Mupp252 · · Score: 1



    When I start getting e-mails from "l33t Gen Tz0" I'm gonna start freaking out!

  23. Intelligence service spreads disinformation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    News at 11.

  24. Probably already doing it... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    If it's called Spam.

    Just food for thought, or maybe it's FUD for thought, the CIA could already be doing this to others. Don't expect them to own up if they are.

    "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself" has been replaced by "be afraid, be very afraid", have a nice day.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Probably already doing it... by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      If it's called Spam.

      Yes, but the SPAM tends to originate from Western spammers who use open SMTP relays in China.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    2. Re:Probably already doing it... by warpSpeed · · Score: 2

      How incredably crafty, those sneeky chinese are using our own slime^H^H^H^H^H marketing people againt us! Brilliant! Why cyber-attack the US, when they just need to leave all of their mail servers open for relaying.

      And to add insult to injury, they are probably running pirated copies of Exchange too. Take that Bill!

    3. Re:Probably already doing it... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Informative

      A sizeable amount of my spam is in non-english character sets and originating from .cn sites, even offers to lease office space in Hong Kong. Just nuts, since I have no way of reading it. If you're not getting a lot of it, be glad.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Probably already doing it... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      How do you know it's office space in Hong Kong?

      They include pictures, sometimes there's fragments of badly worded english, too.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re:Probably already doing it... by kz45 · · Score: 1

      don't understand why /.ers bitch so heavily about spam from China. 99% of the spam I get in my inbox is straight from the US.

      Asian porn sites anyone?

  25. slight grammer change by rogerl · · Score: 1
    The article has a reasonable amount of information and is probably worth a read if you're curious about what could be a real big deal in the future.

    That should read "Real Big Deal".

  26. Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Such discussion is a red herring to get more government funding as well as to push for even more laws - like we don't have enough already.

    Never underestimate the extent the government will go...for example it's widely suspected the anthrax attacks last year was a government test gone awry; or perhaps more sinister, such as a way to get lots of extra funding and laws passed fast with little resistance - most everyone I've spoken with who has truly read the Patriot Act is appalled at the total disregard of the U.S. Constitution and basic human rights.

    Bottom line is don't believe all you read - but then most here already know that...for the biggest threats to our security are from within...another reason the U.S. government should NOT develop mini-nukes (a misnomer to say the least!) for it's likely they will be used against us at some point...technology is a double-edged sword and thus we should not rely solely on it to solve our problems.

    Ok, I really rambled on here, but anyways one must be careful what they believe...for the U.S. propaganda machine is running full-tilt these days to stuff our minds full of garbage and lies...it's happened before and is happening now!

    1. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall the CIA said a couple of months ago it was going to start spreading disinformation to enemies during war time to help achieve its aims. Then it came out and said a week later, "no, bad idea, we won't be doing that."

      Could this be an example of their disinformation policy in action?

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    2. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Funny
      Never underestimate the extent the government will go...for example it's widely suspected the anthrax attacks last year was a government test gone awry


      Uh, I think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat, there.
      At least try to have your conspiracy theories make some kind of sense. Exactly what kind of government test can go awry, resulting in anthrax being mailed to US senators?


      Prof. Egbert: "Jenkins, I asked you to put that anthrax back into deep freeze, and mail our funding request to the capitol...I found our funding request in the freezer, but where is the anthrax?"


      Prof Jenkins: "D'oh!"

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    3. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      Never underestimate the extent the government will go...for example it's widely suspected the anthrax attacks last year was a government test gone awry; or perhaps more sinister, such as a way to get lots of extra funding and laws passed fast with little resistance

      I don't suppose you could provide a reference from some reputable source for this suspicion?

      Or is it too late for that and we should all get our tinfoil hats on...

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    4. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by Tazzy531 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      At least try to have your conspiracy theories make some kind of sense. Exactly what kind of government test can go awry, resulting in anthrax being mailed to US senators?


      Check these articles: 2nd Leak Of Anthrax Found at Army Lab

      Or this one: investigation raised the possibility that there was a secret CIA project to investigate methods of sending anthrax
      Excerpt:
      Three weeks ago Dr Barbara Rosenberg - an acknowledged authority on US bio-defence - claimed the FBI is dragging its feet because an arrest would be embarrassing to the US authorities. Tonight on Newsnight, she goes further...suggesting there could have been a secret CIA field project to test the practicalities of sending anthrax through the mail - whose top scientist went badly off the rails...

      DR BARBARA ROSENBERG: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: Some very expert field person would have been given this job and it would have been left to him to decide exactly how to carry it out. The result might have been a project gone badly awry if he decided to use it for his own purposes and target the media and the senate for his own motives as not intended by the govt project...but this is a possibility that I think needs to be considered
      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    5. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2
      As I said in another thread following this parent:

      Read this article: investigation raised the possibility that there was a secret CIA project to investigate methods of sending anthrax through the mail which went madly out of control.

      Excerpt:
      Three weeks ago Dr Barbara Rosenberg - an acknowledged authority on US bio-defence - claimed the FBI is dragging its feet because an arrest would be embarrassing to the US authorities. Tonight on Newsnight, she goes further...suggesting there could have been a secret CIA field project to test the practicalities of sending anthrax through the mail - whose top scientist went badly off the rails...

      DR BARBARA ROSENBERG: FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS: Some very expert field person would have been given this job and it would have been left to him to decide exactly how to carry it out. The result might have been a project gone badly awry if he decided to use it for his own purposes and target the media and the senate for his own motives as not intended by the govt project...but this is a possibility that I think needs to be considered


      Is BBC News enough of a reputable source?
      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    6. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by jgerman · · Score: 2
      By definition reputable means government approved. Any underground news source is automatically branded irreputable and fringe.


      ;)


      Just because it doesn't come from a major newspaper is no reason to assume it to be false.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    7. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by Xader+Vartec · · Score: 1

      "Bottom line is don't believe all you read"

      . . . just what *I* tell you to read.

    8. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by zCyl · · Score: 2

      Such discussion is a red herring to get more government funding as well as to push for even more laws - like we don't have enough already.

      And precisely what new draconian laws would a cyber threat from China promote?

      the U.S. government should NOT develop mini-nukes

      We've had them for a long time. It's Russia that supposedly lost 100 of them, not us.

      technology is a double-edged sword and thus we should not rely solely on it to solve our problems.
      ...
      Ok, I really rambled on here,

      Correct on that last part.

    9. Re:Red Herring To Get More Govt Funding and Laws by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

      Uh, I think you need to adjust your tinfoil hat, there.

      Boy, I just never get tired of the "tin foil hat" argument. Does anyone?

      Someone needs to write a suppliment to Godwin's law that covers this.

      PS, Tinfoil hats do exactly what they're intended to do, which is block most forms of electromagnetic radiation. Mine is also quite stylish (I'm considering adding a chinstrap so it doesn't need constant adjusting.)

      --

      "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  27. Yeah, good luck with that, China by Slash+Veteran · · Score: 1

    You can't even secure your mail servers against spammers. Now you want to antagonize people who are actually competent? Go ahead, make our day.

  28. Yes! I'm damage! Unplug me! by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If a server starts throwing garbage over a network, most network engineers that have two brain cells to rub together will either take it offline (if they have access) or blacklist it (if they don't).

    What do you think the networks will do when a nation's government proves to spew this kind of noise all over the world? China could get on everybody's hit list by doing something like that. In that regard, it seems somehow counterproductive.

    I'm not saying it's impossible, a sufficiently short-sighted government (say, one that calls itself the "Peoples' Liberation Army" and expects people to believe it after mashing students with tanks) might attempt it.

    But in light of the possible consequences, it seems somehow e-suicidal.

    --
    You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
  29. Simple Solution by Delphix · · Score: 1

    Just pull the plug on China. If they're going to use their network connection to the US to attack us, just cut them off. When's the last time you looked up a chinese website?

  30. Of course... by Britissippi · · Score: 1
    A quick Google reveals that the US isn't exactly sitting idly by on this either.

    This article and this one and this one too, (Google cache).

    I'm not supporting our Chinese friends if this article is true, but it would seem to me that whats good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

    --
    Meow meow meow meow, meow meow meow meow...
  31. Giant Spam Attack! by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    Giant Spam Attack: and we would notice it precisely how?

    That's like threatening to pour a glass of water on someone's head, while they are taking a shower.

    I already GET 15,000 different INCREASE YOUR MANHOOD and HELLO FUTURE MILLIONAIRE emails, like another 5000 from China are even going to make a dent.

    --
    -Styopa
  32. What are the China-assigned netblocks? by swb · · Score: 2

    Where can you get a regional list like this?

  33. Slightly off topic, but related... by Serk · · Score: 1

    I've seen several references to blocking the entire IP space of China/Asia/whatever. I've searched, and so far have been unable to find where it is listed what IP ranges belong to what geographic areas. I'm sure this info if really easy to find when you know what keywords to search on, but so far I've had no luck. Where could I find the IP ranges of known spam-originating countries so that I can block messages from them myself?

    Thanks!

    --
    Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
  34. whatever. by BenTheDewpendent · · Score: 1

    I rember something like this that was supposed to go down a while back. that turned out to be nothing but a couple websites downed. and some american retailation etc...

    Im more concerned of the stupid nimda and codereds still floating around hitting my webserver wasting my bandwidth.

  35. Quick fix at hand by ScrewTivo · · Score: 1

    remember that little break in the optical cable out of China....hummmm could that have been some S.E.A.L.S. out on a pratice mission.

  36. Re:Article for lazy peeps. by Kasmiur · · Score: 1

    For those who didn't notice. I replaced china with slashdot and tiawan with microsoft. and bombing with slashdoting. My post was a joke people.

    --
    -THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
  37. Cutting off China, again by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 1

    There's certainly been enough talk about just plain blocking all email coming in from Chinese domains thanks to spam issues. What about temporarily shutting direct network links to an entire country as a matter of national security? It seems to me, especially if attacks are impinging upon military networks, that the government could justify ordering ISPs to shut down certain connections. After all, once these "attacks" cross into American networks they are physically within the country, and that certainly falls under our military's jurisdiction.

    Obviously, standard "attacker" procedures would include finding ways to hide your tracks by finding other routes. However, the snipping of links like that sends a strong diplomatic message that has serious non-tangible effects. For example, if multinational companies are unable to reliably maintain informational links with offices in China, they'll pick up and leave. China desperately doesn't want something like that to happen.

    Just some food for thought.

  38. Not the herbal viagra cyberattack by Walob · · Score: 1

    Oh no, those whacky chinese people, stealing our mp3, pr0n movies, computer books et all, gotta look out for that terrorist threat, we don't want yahoo to go down for another 3 hours.Quick firewall USA ISP's, and bomb them just in case.

    --
    -I can only program my video,ahh, I am not a gook, but a joook -The World is a theatre of the absurd
  39. Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da Gimp by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Whatever. The war on Terrorism won't last until the next election. Bush will never be able to kill Bin Laden (the key to electoral success for the idiot). Hank Kissinger, who should be on trial at the Hague along with Milosevic for the Dirty Wars in Cambodia, Bolivia and Chile, is pulling the strings on foreign policy (if you can call it that). And the real evil emperor, Dick "HAsn't seen an Oil Deal or CIA Front that's too Dirty" Cheney has finally got the chance to rule from behind the curtain.

    The racist baiting of China will get the US smacked down like a beeeeeotch. The Chinese have no qualms about killing millions to prove a point , which makes them morally equivalent to the US. The American public is stupid enough to vote for Bush, but is not stupid enough to grind through another Cold War with evil White emperors sending their kids off to the slaughter for God and Country. Makes me want to move to the EU, where fascism is called by its real name, not jingoed patriotism.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  40. Military systems? Probably not. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    If the Communist Chinese think their cyberattack will cripple our military, I think they're going to find out that might not exactly work.

    The reason is simple: US military systems are NOT connected to the commercial Internet. Given that we have devoted a lot of resources to monitor and safeguard our military communications, the Chinese won't dent much of our military communications unless they deliberately drop a nuclear bomb against our military command centers (and even that won't quite work because we have contingency plans thanks to Looking Glass and NEACAP planes).

    Now, China deliberately interfering with the commercial Internet is something else, though. However, careful design of routers and careful firewall installation will likely limit any damage since the Internet doesn't really have any critical points that can bring down most of the Internet.

  41. Okay . . by techstar25 · · Score: 1

    Now everybody, let's all take 10 seconds to make sure our firewall and AV software is up-to-date. Okay. Good. Whooo! That was a close one. (As I wipe the sweat off my brow). Now we can all go back to not giving a shit what the Chinese are up to.

  42. How does this differ... by KC7GR · · Score: 1

    ...from 'Business as Usual?'

    The .cn netspace is one of the biggest spam sources on the planet, thanks to massive numbers of open SMTP relays, open SOCKS proxies, and SysAdmins that are either incompetent or Just Don't Frelling Care.

    I've had the entirety of .cn IP space firewalled out of my domain's mail servers since October last year. It is a simple matter to firewall them out of my router as well.

    How many other admins are doing, or already have done, something similar?

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

    1. Re:How does this differ... by tweek · · Score: 1

      Has frelling finally made it into common speach now? I was actually scared the first time I found myself using it in conversation. People just give you a stupid look. It would take to long to explain anyway =)

      As to .cn, I block all mail from Asia Pacific netblocks personally and professionally. Only postmaster@ and dnsadmins@ allow mail through unfetered We have some contracters working in India right now and I actually had to whitelist rediffmail.com because India gets addresses from the same pool.

      For postfix:

      61 550 This mailserver does not accept spam from AsiaPacific netblocks. If this is in error send mail to postmaster@lusis.org
      218 550 This mailserver does not accept spam from AsiaPacific netblocks. If this is in error send mail to postmaster@lusis.org
      210 550 This mailserver does not accept spam from AsiaPacific netblocks. If this is in error send mail to postmaster@lusis.org
      211 550 This mailserver does not accept spam from AsiaPacific netblocks. If this is in error send mail to postmaster@lusis.org
      202 550 This mailserver does not accept spam from AsiaPacific netblocks. If this is in error send mail to postmaster@lusis.org
      203 550 This mailserver does not accept spam from AsiaPacific netblocks. If this is in error send mail to postmaster@lusis.org

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  43. Be Vare, Take Care (in Bela Lugosi accent!) by Yet+Another+Smith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course, the way we figured it out is we went to the CIA and DOD and said,

    "Are you guys planning to attack Chinese computer systems?"

    "Of course."

    So the thinking goes, if we're planning on how to do it, so are they. Ergo:

    CHINESE MAY BE PLANNING ATTACK ON US & TIAWAN COMPUTER SYSTEMS!

    Awake! Awake! Fear - Fire - Foes! Awake!

    The Russians are also planning on retaliating against a major nuclear attack from the US by launching thier own massive nuclear attack.

    Ain't none of it actually likely to happen.

    --
    if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
  44. Re:Article for lazy peeps. by Kasmiur · · Score: 1

    bummer some peeps don't like my joke.

    --
    -THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
  45. block them out just like their email by pavera · · Score: 1

    It doesn't seem difficult to block out all traffic from China, as we've seen recently the
    blocking of email traffic from large portions of asia, putting a block on all internet traffic from China is a menial task.

  46. Perhaps it's what they want? by caluml · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it's a Chinese government plan so that the rest of the world block all connections to and from China - that way the good honest communists cannot be corrupted by the rest of the world.

    Maybe we'd play into their hands if we blocked them.

  47. Most Favored Nation by inepom01 · · Score: 1

    Aren't they vying for most favored station?

  48. Ask Slashdot: DDoS from China? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    George J. Tenet writes:

    Dear Slashdot,

    I heard a rumor that China was going to attack the US Internet. I am interested in stopping this action before it gets too bad. Any ideas where can I find cheap routers and a rackmount system to protect myself?

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  49. Oh, come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The chinese have a massive military, billions of people, incredibly modern technology, a space program, etc. You honestly think that if we firewall off their nation, that will stop a *planned, deliberate attack*? OK, even assuming you have a fullproof method to wall China off from the internet (and Pakistan, and Russia, and all of the 23 other countries sympathetic to China and willing to let chinese communications companies route through them..) They could just come over to the united states covertly (they have these things called "submarines") drive to some telephone switch in the middle of nevada, and install a box that recieves commands from china via satellite and injects whatever its commanders tell it to into the american communications network. Boom, they're inside the firewall. You think if america couldn't keep agents of a disorganized, wacko terrorist network from infiltrating the U.S. and obtaining pilot's licenses last year, they would be able to keep agents of a nation of 6 billion from infiltrating the U.S. and signing up for free internet accounts on AOL?

    Remember the old adage: Digital security measures are always useless against someone who has physical access to the machine. Firewalls aren't much use if the hacker can physically get to a machine on the inside of the firewall..

    1. Re:Oh, come on by GreenPhreak · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is going to drive a submarine to a telephone switch in Nevada...I don't care how much technology or how many people they have.

      --
      I drink to prepare for a fight; tonight I'm very prepared. -Soda Popinksi
  50. Hellooooo? Spoiler warning! by marekk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, CmdrTaco, how about a spoiler warning?

    Maybe some of us wanted to be surprised when the cyber attack comes? Geez....

  51. CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I knew as soon as I saw the title of this article that the response on Slashdot would automatically be along the lines of:

    A) This is lame. China cant or won't do this, and the CIA is stupid for thinking they can.

    B) This is all part of some plot on the part of the CIA to get more funding and/or strip away all of our remaining freedoms.

    The CIA's primary role is to examine information from a wide variety of sources and attempt to categorize and where possible act to mitigate short-term and long-term threats to the security of the United States. Given that their job is akin to predicting the future, and given that even with tremendous resources, predicting the future is exceedingly difficult, the CIA will miss a lot of things that look obvious in hindsight (Al-Quaeda was planning an attack on NYC!).So the public says "shame on you, CIA, for not spotting that obvious threat!"

    But then, they often catch things that you and I aren't even aware of. They actually do this on a routine basis, and often times American foreign policy is directly influenced by information the CIA has successfully collected and/or analyzed. Of course, the CIA can't go around trumpeting these successes, because it decreases the odds of them being successful in the future.

    So China may or may not be planning cyber-attacks on Taiwan and/or the United States. Do you really think that you for some reason know better than the CIA what's going on in the minds of China's rulers?

    The CIA has been very wrong in the past, but more often than not, they're right. Also, remember that if China doesn't launch such attacks, it's not necessarily proof that the CIA was in error. It could be that by leaking their knowledge of Chinese plans, the CIA is betting that they'll elect not to try it.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by prizog · · Score: 1

      "The CIA has been very wrong in the past, but more often than not, they're right."

      How do you know?

    2. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by ebola_elvis · · Score: 1

      it's this kind of attitude that i find most frightening.

      following this logic, under no circumstance is it appropriate for the public to criticize the government and it's actions.

      just because it is their *job* doesn't mean that it is right to lie/manipulate the entire country. I for one, like being able to think for myself.

    3. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by 56ker · · Score: 2

      I think the CIA wouldn't be talking about it if it was actually likely to happen. However if it did and they couldn't stop it (after they didn't get any more funds) they could always say I told you so.

    4. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      That is something that most people usually do not consider when they think about the intelligence agecies: you only hear about them when they screw up. You hear about everything bad that goes on when the CIA is involved, but when they do something right, nobody knows about it, and that is part of their success. People should be more considerate for their intelligence agencies, seeing as they can only see the bad side. Once they see part of the good side, it becomes bad. It's like cutting yourself to see if some blood is really blue. Once you can see it, it's already red.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    5. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by ronfar · · Score: 2
      I suppose it is possible they might start a war to distract the populace from these internal struggles. However, I think if they decide to do any kind of sophisticated info-war it will be aimed at Falun Dafa and not at the United States in general (unless as an anti-Falun Gong smear campaign). Of course, if they decide to invade Taiwan, all bets are off. In that case, though, we may find ourselves in a shooting war with them. Or maybe we'll wait until they decide to invade Japan, too, but it will eventually lead to a World War.

      Remember, though, the current imperative of the Chinese government is to crush Falun Gong at all costs. It's more important than Taiwan to them, though Taiwan is still considered important, too.

      --
      All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
    6. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

      Do you know Fa Lun Da Fa is just the chinese version of Scientology?

      Did you know that you are a fucking idiot?

      Falun Dafa is more of a yoga than a religion. More importantly, unlike $cientology, everything is free. All the books are available for free online. All practice sites offer free tuition; all the teachers are volunteers. Hell if you are interested and there are no practioners in your country, others will fly to meet you at their own expense. Also unlike $cientology, practioners of Falun Dafa never attack anyone: even facing dath, dismemberment, an pain they never stray from their non-violent creed.

      So exactly how is Falun Dafa a Chinese version of scientology?

      The real reason China is putting the hurt on them is because the Chinese government sees as a threat any group that can organize and put people on the street. If the local LUG could quickly mobilize a few thousand nonviolent protesters in Bejing, the Chinese govt would probably start sending Linux geeks to prison labor camps.

      --InfinityEdge

    7. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by dhogaza · · Score: 2

      The CIA's primary role is to examine information from a wide variety of sources and attempt to categorize and where possible act to mitigate short-term and long-term threats to the security of the United States. Given that their job is akin to predicting the future, and given that even with tremendous resources, predicting the future is exceedingly difficult, the CIA will miss a lot of things that look obvious in hindsight (Al-Quaeda was planning an attack on NYC!).So the public says "shame on you, CIA, for not spotting that obvious threat!"
      When was the last time they were right?

    8. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by inkswamp · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more with your level-headed assessment. We Americans need to re-evaluate what we want of our government. It seems that many of us want it both ways. "Get the info you need to protect us so we can stay cozy and fat and safe, but don't do anything in secret 'cause we're just not comfy with that."

      I often wonder what the public outcry would have been if the CIA had managed to nail the Sept. 11 hijackers and head off the events that happened that day. Of course, it's only a guess, but I bet the outcry against our evil government persecuting innocent Arabs would have been tremendous and the notion that these guys were going to bring down the mightiest buildings in the U.S. would have been scoffed at endlessly. I'll bet the prevailing attitude would have been that our nasty government is using this laughable story about attacks on the WTC as a cover for persecuting these innocent guys.

      Yeah, but let's stop the CIA from looking into the activities of such trustworthy countries like China, countries who have proven time and time again that they value human life so much and that they have no desire to exert their power over others. Let's just leave them alone because, after all, this laughable stuff about "hacking attacks" is just a cover for our evil government to go after otherwise innocent people.

      Right?

      --Rick

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    9. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by numo · · Score: 1

      It could be that by leaking their knowledge of Chinese plans, the CIA is betting that they'll elect not to try it.

      It could be that by manufacturing the information the CIA is betting that they'll elect not to try it.

      Clever using of an information is a weapon, regardless of whether it is true or not. Having lived in a communist country until the commies fell in 1989 I know of quite many examples of how our and western propaganda manipulated the masses - the information of what was behind the iron curtain was comparably falsified on both sides of the fence...

      Frankly, we have no idea what is and is not true. All we can is to speculate and that's what these hundreds of comments do.

    10. Re:CIA: Damned if they do, damned if they don't by mpe · · Score: 2

      Clever using of an information is a weapon, regardless of whether it is true or not.

      Hardly an original idea. Ever heard of Sun Tzu? Who ironically here was from China.

  52. In other news... by cypr355 · · Score: 1
    The [insert government office here] has issued a press release today, see below for highlights:

    "BOOO!"

    What I'm trying to illustrate here is that with the HUGE amount of "warnings", "notices", and "advisories" coming out these days, it may be a good idea to count how many hundred times an article has the word "might" in it.

  53. what this attack will comprise of by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2

    is every citizen of china getting on line and /. ing all the .gov sites in the US

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  54. As an American who has lived in Taiwan for most of by ahfoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    his adult life and who rides his bike by the CIA office where they park their convoy of matching pink 50cc scooters --I'm not kidding-- everyday on his way to work, I can tell you that spooky stories about mainland China are that. . . . spooky stories. Dime a dozen, they wrap fish with spooky China stories around here.
    You want to know about a spooky country--Japan. That's a scare story that has everything to do with Taiwan. Those whacky Japanese are playing scuicide with their economy and they're going to take Taiwan with them.
    DOS attacks from Mainland China are not a threat, Japan's serene implosion is a major threat to the global economy. DOS attacks, not scarry, Yen at 200, very very scarry.

  55. Why not attacks on the UK. by Abnormal+Coward · · Score: 1

    I've noticed, that semptember 9-11, and this are mainly aimed at the US ...

    Wonder why not the UK, well looking at the World Wars (1 and 2) it would seem the UK did pretty well for a 'island' :).

    I wonder ....

  56. Chinese hackers are no pushovers by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember then Chinese hacker push in early May of last year? It was to coincide with May Day and in protest over the whole U.S. Spy Plane Hainan Island debacle the month before that.

    Some MS boxen got "f**k USA government f**k poizonbox" pasted all over their IIS roots. Not much beyond that, and I think some American hackers returned the favor. A little miniature patriotic hacker war.

    Out of curiosity, I kept up to date on Chinese hacking at a site whose address is www.cnhonker.com (visit at your own risk, and don't hit the Back button ;-P ). I guess honker is hacker in Chinese. It was a toolbox of scripts and methodologies.

    But very recently, in March, the site was closed by someone called "lion". I had a Chinese coworker of mine visit the site, and she translated the brief explanation for the site's closing as "After long thinking, we have no choice but close it. Please don't write to us asking why, give us a little time. We'll be back. September 2002, we'll see you again"

    I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but when it comes to autocratic governments, my instincts change... any bets on whether or not the Chinese Government has coopted some of their talented hackers for a patriotic cause?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  57. It's already there mate... by Suburban+nmate · · Score: 1
    It's called Carnivore.

    If china wanted to attack the USA [or anywhere else] then they'd send out some email viruses. There's more than enough dumbasses on the net that would open it up and unwittingly launch the attacks on China's behalf. Carnivore could be used to filter them, if they [guvverment] tried.

    OTOH, direct packet attacks are a different kettle of fish. The only glimmer of hope is that the NSA [or other three-letter-agency] had Cisco equipment riddled with backdoors, just like MS Software. Hell, well all know they've done worse...

    Ali

    --
    "Windows and Linux can co-exist on the same machine." - Microsoft Corporation.
    1. Re:It's already there mate... by Glytch · · Score: 2

      Sending out email viruses? If China is bent on screwing with Outlook users, then slap my ass and call me Comrade, 'cause I'll help.

  58. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2

    Got an apartment there already. See ya and your fascist leaders!

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  59. What do they have to gain? by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    Big deal, they slow the internet down to a crawl for a few days as firewall administrators around the globe block them.

    I've already blocked them. If the eggheads can't control their mail servers I really don't want any traffic from them. They aren't getting me any business.

    Can anyone give me a reason that I SHOULDN'T block those racists?

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  60. I think they've been testing me by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    I've been receiving a lot of test spam from them recently, which I've been bouncing to the FTC and the Secret Service as appropriate ...

    Good thing I never downloaded the Chinese Fonts, or I'd be able to read the messages they write on my screen:

    "All your food is belong to us"

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  61. Treaty forcing Embargo Tactic by Jon+Howard · · Score: 2

    This is all about enacting a treaty that will allow us to pursue "cyber-terrorists" into the networks of china, rather than allowing the world to hack a chinese box and have anonymity.

    Scare the public into blocking china's net access and see how quickly they allow info-extradition treaties to form.

  62. Be careful what you ask for by why-is-it · · Score: 2

    I doubt the US military could control the scale as well in an attack on China. I envision that it would instead have to be a full blown knock-down-drag-out war. I'm not quite sure if American citizens are up for that.

    Consider for the moment that China is a xenophobic nuclear power, and that they have little regard for the lives of their own citizens (c.f Cultural Revolution, Tianneman Square). How much regard do you think they would have for USian soldiers or civilians? China would be fighting against the barbarians at the gate, and there is a dim-witted cowboy in the Whitehouse. It scares me to think who would be tempted to press the big red button first.

    I do not think that it would be in anyone on this planet's interest for China and the US to fight any sort of war...

    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    1. Re:Be careful what you ask for by Xader+Vartec · · Score: 1

      " there is a dim-witted cowboy in the Whitehouse"

      Wow, you must have graduated from a really good college with a good GPA to call a graduate of Yale a "dim-witted cowbow" (your money can get you in the doors but it can't get you the grades, trust me, the profs are too arrogant. Oh, yea, he graduated BEFORE Bush Sr. was director of the CIA too, so Bush Jr. was still a nobody).

      So, where did you graduate again?

    2. Re:Be careful what you ask for by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

      And G.W's favorite childhood book, the hungry catipiler (you know, the only one he has EVER read to kids no matter if they are first or eigth graders) WASN'T PRINTED UNTIL HE HAD ALREADY GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL!!!!

      Face it the dude is functionally illerate. As for how he was able to get those degrees, he probably pulled the same strings that let him walk away from the Air National guard for several YEARS. Most people call that disertion.

      --InfinityEdge

  63. Just an idea... by surfcow · · Score: 1

    Is the CIA ethically above faking an "cyber-attack" from a foreign power? It would justify an increase in the CIA's powers, perhaps to institute a national firewall or other measures to further control the Internet. All in the name of national security, of course.

    I don't trust the Chinese People's Army at all, but I trust the CIA even less. Which has done more real harm in the world? Pretty close call.

    =brian

    1. Re:Just an idea... by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > I don't trust the Chinese People's Army at all, but I trust the CIA even less. Which has done more real harm in the world? Pretty close call.

      Huh? I think the comparable levels of real-world harm are so far away from "pretty close" as to have a red shift due to cosmological expansion.

      I mean, unless there are 40-45 million people dead that we've somehow managed not to notice in the past 50 years.

      You wanna knock the Cultural Revolution casualties down to just the ~2 million actually executed, ignoring the ~10M who "died of natural causes" in the labor camps, and the ~30M who died from starvation... well, fine, but I'll still take my chances with the CIA ;-)

  64. In other news... by tempestdata · · Score: 5, Insightful
    China warns that the CIA and the pentagon might be investing in and researching methods of carrying out Cyber attacks on countries such as China in case of war...

    Why does the US always feel that it is justified in arming itself with every weapon imaginable but others aren't. Remember what happened when India and Pakistan tested their nukes?

    If they are developing methods of attacking via the Internet, so are we. Yes its a good thing we know of its possibility and are going to take steps to defend ourselves incase such an attack occurs, however, it doesn't mean the Chinese are "evil terrorist hackers!"

    Just my opinion anyway.

    --
    - Tempestdata
  65. What has China ever done to the United States? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What is with America's paranoia with respect to China? Why would China "cyberattack" the United States? Do you all really believe that Communism and the PRC is evil, and will stop at nothing to destroy America?

    Reality check: the only nation currently bent on world domination is the United States of America.

    Mod me down: -1 Unpatriotic

  66. Oh come on by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

    Lemme get this straight, they're going to fly around some 3D pylons inside US mainframes and rifle through garbage files? give me a break. There's enough script kiddies running around to keep most sysadmins jumping, what's China going to do? make a full scale attack coming from .cn? America's got China by the balls inetwise and they know it. Piss the US off and they'll just pull the plug; considering the direction of the economy at the moment that would not be a good thing for China.

  67. Maybe but why by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    What would china have to gain by attacking us?

    They might spy on us, but we spy on them too.

    Attacking us is not going to happen, they wouldnt gain anything out of it.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:Maybe but why by digitalunity · · Score: 2

      Hey, if they wanna be seperate from the world, I say let 'em. They have tightly controlled borders. They control the media. They are a socialist country. Can't we just pull the plug? No more internet sounds good to me.

      Fuck em

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    2. Re:Maybe but why by broody · · Score: 1

      China probably wouldn't take the US head on but China invading Taiwan while the United States is busy elsewhere is possible. The other possibillity is a proxy war. China is not shy about publishing agressive statements and is buddy buddy with quite a few nations in our sights. Probably not as extreme as the links above suggest but I wouldn't write off China as a threat.

      I'm glad the CIA is thinking about it, better than being caught flat footed.

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    3. Re:Maybe but why by Beliskner · · Score: 3, Interesting
      What would china have to gain by attacking us?

      They might spy on us, but we spy on them too.

      Attacking us is not going to happen, they wouldnt gain anything out of it. --

      They might try to

      1. World war - Take out the entire Internet infrastructure, same as binLaden tried to take out the world financial system.

      2. Surgical strike - Take out parts of the Internet infrastructure. The Chinese already have heavy controls on their own Internet. If they're this paranoid, they'll want some control over the outside. How do I shut down cnn.com in an emergency if China does another WTC as a diversion to create panic? WTC2 is a diversion for the Chinese military strike force to invade Taiwan while the US licks it's wounds assisted by panic due to the Internet being down. Hit the edge routers, via a weakness in IOS or DoS giving the BGP tables corrupted updates at major ISPs (use an infiltrator if necessary), plus SNMP plaintext password etc.

      3. How do I silence a Chinese whistleblower that just posted some Chinese secret to indeymedia.org? DDoS against inymedia.org webserver, edge routers, Kazaa login system (single point of failure), Gnutella, and Freenet networks. Harness extra CPU by hijacking SETI@home program auto-update's DNS entry (IP address) OR reverse-IPmasquerading to Chinese Govt. server with trojan SETI@home update (their routers already do fancy stuff). This trojan will gradually roll out to all Chinese SETI@home clients and perform DDoS against the above targets. While the website is down the nearest Chinese spy will kill whoever, like when the Russians assassinated Vladimir Kostov, a journalist that talked too much while he was walking down a London (England) street.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    4. Re:Maybe but why by Glytch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, they are a fascist country. Don't confuse their words with their actions.

    5. Re:Maybe but why by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

      so is the USA

      its not like our government takes the constitution seriously or cares what we think about the laws they pass.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    6. Re:Maybe but why by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

      Wars are always for reasons, China could easily destroy us with ground and air troops by numbers alone.

      You act like countries start wars because its fun, there would have to be something to gain from it.

      I dont worry about china starting a war right now, maybe 40 years from now in the nano age i'd worry because at this point China will be dominating the planet not us.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    7. Re:Maybe but why by twentycavities · · Score: 1

      I second that! I don't see why we're always being so nice to our enemies.

      Death to China!

      --
      Monstromart: Where shopping is a baffling ordeal
    8. Re:Maybe but why by orcrist · · Score: 2

      Wars are always for reasons, China could easily destroy us with ground and air troops by numbers alone.

      While I agree with the premise that China doesn't have much (if anything) to gain by attacking us, you obviously aren't aware of the huge difference between a modern, well-trained, well-equipped army and a bunch of conscripts. There is no comparison between China's and USA's military power; Think navy: a handful of nuclear subs will sink 100 troop transports just as easily as one, and they could be firing cruise missiles at China to pass the time while waiting. Of course that doesn't mean that the U.S. could invade China successfully either; I'm just saying China wouldn't have a chance in hell of invading the U.S. or even damaging it significantly in an all-out war.

      Please note: I am not making any political statements here. I don't subscribe to the China-is-evil-in-all-respects theory; I am talking solely about the military aspect.

      -Chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    9. Re:Maybe but why by Natestradamus · · Score: 1
      Remember that China is communist, and that Marxism/Leninism (to which the Chinese Gov't subscribes) espouses the overthrow of all non-communist governments via "armed revolution".

      You can't think of communist goals in terms of gain, that is a capitalist concept. You must think in terms of what the ideology demands in order to understand their motivations.

      --
      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke
    10. Re:Maybe but why by HanzoSan · · Score: 2


      Who ever said i was Capitalist?

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    11. Re:Maybe but why by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      Wars are always for reasons, China could easily destroy us with ground and air troops by numbers alone.

      You act like countries start wars because its fun, there would have to be something to gain from it

      Agreed. If countries acted in their own interests then a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is not feasible.

      Unfortunately I have again and again looked at Hitler's objectives in WW2, and especially Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. Even Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, in charge of such a powerful and indestructible fleet was afraid of this relatively small attack (by WW2 standards) on Pearl Harbour when he said, "I fear we have awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve" in this article. If he knew that the attack would wake a sleeping giant, why would he have done the attack? Why did he not perform Hara-kiri (ritual suicide) instead of attacking Pearl Harbour like any good Japanese soldier would do if victory is not possible (as Japanese culture dictates)? Well actually I over-react, it's possible that he simply thought it would be a difficult war when he said that. However when it became clear that America was kicking ass he should have commited Hare-kiri for starting the war that caused the dishonour of Japan.

      Plus Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - why? Such a small country. Hopefully China will not be to Taiwan as Iraq is to Kuwait.

      President Putin (of Russia) is wise - his cooperation with the Americans brings money, and also allows the US to massively squeeze China. As soon as American military bases are deployed in Russia in the name of good relations (same as they are in Saudi Arabia) you'll see the Chinese shut up, and stick with what they do best - quietly copying CDs, making stuff cheaply, etc.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    12. Re:Maybe but why by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      I'm just saying China wouldn't have a chance in hell of invading the U.S. or even damaging it significantly in an all-out war.
      That's trash. With the nuclear technology the Chinese stole from the Americans, they can easily attack mainland US with multi-warhead ICBMs within a few years. Why do you think the Americans are working on missile interceptor technology in the middle of a recession?

      Then again if a threat comes slowly they can't justify this cost. If CIA says, "We believe the Chinese have some Multi-warehead ICBMs. Bummer" that would be far less effective than, "OH MY GOD! The Chinese have *stolen* the designs for advanced American nukes! They'll copy them within 2 years, same as they copied the Mig-29. We need $50 billion from Washington NOW for missile interceptor technology research".

      Remember, many Chinese army conscripts have graduated from the kung-fu schools in Shaolin. If US goes to war with China, it'll make a really good movie, just throw in Welsey Snipes, Kubrick and Steven Spielberg ;-)

      But really, the Americans will tell Russia to tell China to shut up so I'm not worried about anything. Except maybe the Premiere of North Korea becoming promoted to joint Premiere of N. Korea AND China (because the Chinese Premiere has gone on holiday). When the Chinese Prmiere gets back from holiday, he might find his country is just a big radioactive crater.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
    13. Re:Maybe but why by HanzoSan · · Score: 2



      What do the japanese have to do with the chinese? your whole argument is pointless. Next you'll talk to me about how the jews will become suicide bombers because the arabs have been doing it.

      China has more intelligent ways to attack us, come on a cyber attack? that would be just pathetic, China is not that stupid.

      China would be better off attacking us using bin ladens forces by giving those guys nukes and training and letting them go nuke us. Sorta like how we attacked russia.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    14. Re:Maybe but why by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      What do the japanese have to do with the chinese? your whole argument is pointless.
      That point wasn't the point. The actual point which is seperate from your previous point was that wars are not always fought for good reason. If you look at history, some wars are fought out of ignorance or sheer pride and stupidity. For instance the American overthrow of the British (following Boston tea party), the British could have just decreased taxes on tea by 50% and sent some high level diplomats to America to show "The Crown is sensitive to these issues" but instead they sent soldiers and attacked America.

      Instead of decreasing tax and sending a few Ambassadors they chose war, a stupid decision. End result: America had its independence

      I know many people get confused between Japanese and Chinese, but I assure you I'm not one of those (many) people. The Japanese commander Yamamato knew that an attack on US might not be a good idea, *but he had to do it anyway*, intended result: Japan woud secure Malaysian/Singapore oil fields; actual result: Japan was nuked and beaten back to its homeland. So was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour a good idea? No, it caused their destruction. The British forces defending Malaysia and Singapore were weak, the British had no idea about how to wage a modern war, resulting in the sinking of the greatest British batteleship the HMS Hood, also due to a Titanic-psyche in the design stage of the battleship. If the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbour and went straight for Malaysia, the US would have just sat there looking at the $$ cost of war, like they did at the beginning of WW2. The Japanese attack would have been more of a success.

      The real point is that people that know better are ordered to start wars, even though the war might turn out badly, because some politician or Emperor thinks it was a good idea at the time, or has misguided notions of supremacy. Same as the attack on the Chinese embassy in Serbia by the US. If the military can use old maps and old information, and they have billions of dollars to keep up to date with 3D terrain models, then what do the politicians use? Can they only really start wars when it's a good idea, do they really know what they're doing? Think of it this way, when Japanese Emperor said, "Attack Pearl Harbour so that we can take Malaysia, Singapore and China" would any of his Generals have the balls to turn to him and say, "My Emperor, dude, that's a stupid idea, you're a stupid asshole man. Forget Pearl Harbour". Does anyone have the balls to say this to Bush? The last person that said this to the President really caught his eye - she was an intern called Monica Lewinksy.

      The really sad thing is that the bigger countries gain from instability, because they can justify wars. Like if Iraq does even the slightest thing, America can blow it up, and then say "Iran is next, Saudi Arabia is next" and maintain power over them like that and keep oil prices low. In the same way China can never say, "Yeah Taiwan do whatever you want, no problem" because it would lose an advantage, at the very least it can say, "if companies in Taiwan start firing Chinese workers we'll invade Taiwan" thus allowing China to hold power over the country. The US is very dependent on VIA and chipsets manufactured in Taiwan that if the Chinese were seriously going to invade, the US would detect the build-up and send in a couple of Aircraft Carriers on "permanent military excercises" or whatever. Until I see a couple of American aircraft carriers next to Taiwan, I'm not worried.

      You're right, cyber attack is stupid now, not enough critical systems are Internet-enabled yet. Thing is that's changing, I'm starting to see realtime control systems for the military written in Ada having more and more interconnectivity, battlefield networking and the like. Combine this with a 10GigaWatt UWB pulse to disable Aegis and goalpost gun interceptors, and you're looking at a whole pile of trouble when you fry electronics. Then again what panic would be created if all TV was knocked off the air (terrorist strike) at broadcast point (nuke in Hollywood) and CNN.com was defaced, the headline reading, "Terrorists have used some sorta hallucingenic mind control technique to brainwash the National Guard, The President says please all civilians go to your National Guard base and kill everyone." I'm sure a few people would take this advice. This would be in line with The Art of War teachings by Sun Tzu defeating your enemy with the minimum effort.

      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  68. Catch-22? by SloppyElvis · · Score: 1

    If a Communist state prefers tight control of information, and hackers seek to disseminate information, then how can the two justify their coexistance?

    The article talks of military assault, and likens Chinese military capabilities to Chinese student hackers, though in ideology the two groups seem diametrically opposed.

    I don't doubt that nationalism runs in the veins of anybody, but who among you sacrifice your ideology for the sake of your nation? Whose nation says your reprehensible actions are acceptable if aimed at the enemy?

    Well, I suppose they all do. Be wary though, for when the enemy is gone, it is you who will be the enemy.

    One cannot deny the insanity of the masses; one can only hope our leaders are not taken by its charms.

    1. Re:Catch-22? by BCoates · · Score: 2

      hackers seek to disseminate information

      Maybe movie hackers or something, these hackers seem mostly interested in breaking and defacing things, a skill set governments have been interested in cultivating and controlling for centuries.

      Be wary though, for when the enemy is gone, it is you who will be the enemy.

      Sound advice.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

  69. I can't wait. by red_gnom · · Score: 1
    ...attack by sending billions of "GET HERBAL VIAGRA" e-mails from the .cn TLD." The article has a reasonable amount of information and is probably worth a read if you're curious about what could be a real big deal in the future.

    I can't wait to read the article about HERBAL VIAGRA, and I know "that thing" could be a real big deal in the future.

  70. More jobs for us by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    Good let the prices get higher, We'd all be making more money!

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  71. Blame them for this, blame them for that. by mar1no · · Score: 1, Insightful
    All the USA seems to do is complain, whine and bitch about the world. Their government is a powerhungry hoard of corrupt politicians. Everyone thinks the world is gonna end because of some nuclear war or perhaps a new world threat, when the only real threat there is, is the Americans themselves. They're the victims now, but as they destroy their enemy, and gain more power, they're the ones who are going to become the new threat to this planet.

    If you ask me, someone should be regulating them. Just cause innocent civilians were the target of an attack, what gives them the right to go out and kill? Think about it, why is it right for the US to go out and slaughter people? It's not. They've already killed innocent civilians, violence solves nothing. They're doing exactly what the al-queda (sp?) did to them. They have become terrorists.

    --
    "you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
    1. Re:Blame them for this, blame them for that. by BCoates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're doing exactly what the al-queda (sp?) did to them.

      No, in order to do that, we'd need to build two 110-story buildings in Riyadh (there aren't any, natch), fill them with office workers, and blow them up.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

    2. Re:Blame them for this, blame them for that. by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've already killed innocent civilians, violence solves nothing. They're doing exactly what the al-queda (sp?) did to them. They have become terrorists.

      It is exactly this same FLAWED logic that people use to portray the Palestinians as victims. Civilians being killed by a bomb from a plane that misses its target and people flying planes into a pair of 110 story skyscrapers are not even REMOTELY equivocal.

      Come see The World Trade Center site sometime when you have a chance before you make such misguided comments.

    3. Re:Blame them for this, blame them for that. by warkda+rrior · · Score: 1

      So what? You wonder what give US the right to do that whatever they want. They behave like that because they can, because they have bigger guns, more movies, large quantities of porn. Who are you to judge US?

      There is no democracy across the world, all international politics are purely selfish. Extreme Islamic groups do not want to convert the "infidels" because they would want to save their souls. They want power. Same thing for the Western states. I say let's fight it out and see who wins! Fuck peace.

      --
      You need to install an RTFM interface.
    4. Re:Blame them for this, blame them for that. by Get+Behind+the+Mule · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Insightful ?! Insight is the one thing that is nowhere to be found in this post.

      Just cause innocent civilians were the target of an attack, what gives them the right to go out and kill? Think about it, why is it right for the US to go out and slaughter people? It's not. They've already killed innocent civilians, violence solves nothing. They're doing exactly what the al-queda (sp?) did to them. They have become terrorists.


      mar1no, or whatever your name is, and you too Mr. Moderator, the two of you are so fundamentally unable to distinguish right from wrong that I wonder if you might be capable of heinous crimes yourself. I'm not using a figure of speech here.

      I have certainly never refrained from criticizing the US for the numerous stupidities it has indulged in over the years, and God knows we have an idiot for a president now. But whether I like the guy or not, what he did as an immediate response to the 9/11 attack was exactly what had to be done.

      What gives the US the right to respond to mass murder with force, you ask? You tell me, what gives law enforcement the right to use force in the apprehension of a murderer who is resisting arrest? Do you believe that murderers should go free?

      I'm a strong believer in peaceful resolution of conflicts, but the awful fact is that human history occasionally produces people who simply go on murdering until somebody forcibly stops them. The existence of Hitler and bin Laden and the Nazis and Al Qaida are the awful proof of this fact. Do you think that no attempt should have been made to capture the members of Al Qaida after September 11? Tell me, what would you have done? What would you have done in the real world that we live in, with all of fanatics and fascists and mass murderers who are not interested in peace at all?

      And for the love of God, where do you get this moral equivalence crap? The terrorists murdered American civilians because they are Americans, and probably because the terrorists assumed that they are all Christians. Bin Laden put it in precisely those terms. But the US has used deadly force in an attempt to catch mass murderers who are resisting with deadly force; the US has not sought not to kill anyone merely because he or she is Arab or Moslem.

      The Al Qaida terrorists used airplanes full of civilians as missiles, to murder even more civilians. Tell me, when has the US put hundreds of civilians on board the missiles it has used in warfare? When has the US deliberately targeted civilians at all? Some people around the world apparently believe that this happened, but I don't where on Earth they get these ideas. Even if you don't believe that there ethical motives for the US military to try to avoid civilian deaths (and I believe they do have such motives), consider the fact that the US has nothing to gain and everything to lose when innocent bystanders die. Public revulsion at civilian casualties is probably the only thing that could make the Americans lose the war; that's what happened at Vietnam. If they want to succeed in their goals against Al Qaida, they simply have to limit civilian deaths as much as they can.

      Another question: Do you believe that the United States should have joined World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor? After reading your post, I can't rule out that you might answer no to that question, in which case you are, to put it bluntly, so stupid that I'm wasting my time. But if you are reasonable enough to agree with most people's take on history, than consider this:

      • IIRC there were fewer than a thousand victims at Pearl Harbor, compared to nearly three thousand on 9/11.
      • Pearl Harbor was clearly a military target. So is the Pentagon, but the World Trade Center, where most people died, clearly is not.
      • Nearly all of the victims at Pearl Harbor were military personnel. Most of the victims on 9/11 were not.


      Can you enunciate a moral principle according to which the US should have joined war after Pearl Harbor, but should not have after 9/11?

      As a matter of fact, there were two things that could have happened after September 11 that would have made all military action unnecessary:

      • The members of Al Qaida could have surrendered.
      • Failing that, the Taliban could have apprehended them and turned them over.


      Both of these were never the least bit likely, given that members of both Al Qaida and the Taliban happen to be murderous fascists. Nevertheless, this is what Al Qaida and the Taliban were morally obliged to do, just as a murderer is obliged to surrender himself to law enforcement. Of course they didn't, and only then was the US in a situation where the use of force was necessary. And for this reason, it is Al Qaida and the Taliban who are responsible for the civilian deaths in Afghanistan. By attempting to get away with mass murder, they are the ones who have placed ordinary Afghans in grave danger.

      mar1no, I live over here in Europe, and I hear idiot blather like yours all the time. Are you a European, by any chance? I think people like you are arrogant and astonishly naive, living in a dream world and completely out of touch with reality. I think you are a moral midget, and above all quite simply dumb beyond my imagination. There's hardly enough I could say to express my contempt for you. You can't be trusted to come up with any serious solutions for the real problems that exist in the dangerous world we live in. And it's too bad, because the rest of the world could give GWB an earful for his mishandling of the Middle East and his stupid ideas about, God help us, the "axis of evil". But no one will listen to you, because you deserve no respect.
    5. Re:Blame them for this, blame them for that. by Aceticon · · Score: 2

      It is exactly this same FLAWED logic that people use to portray the Palestinians as victims. Civilians being killed by a bomb from a plane that misses its target and people flying planes into a pair of 110 story skyscrapers are not even REMOTELY equivocal.

      What twist of mind took you from the parent's post talk about American intervention to saying that the Palestinians are not victims?

      It's even more amazing that you believe that all the destruction in Ramalah was caused by a bomb from a plane that misses it's target. Maybe the tanks that ocupy some Palestenian cities are there purely by chance?

      In the Middle East conflict both the Israelis and the Palestinians are victims - or to you believe that being blown-up by an Israeli tank or war-plane is different from being blow-up by a Palestinian suicide-bomber

      PS: I love the ever present reference to the September 11 attack - always done in a very visual way so as to go directly to the emotions of the reader (and bypass the part of the brain that thinks) - Interestingly enough, this kind of references mostly comes in posts whose logic is weak or non-existant.

    6. Re:Blame them for this, blame them for that. by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 2

      or to you believe that being blown-up by an Israeli tank or war-plane is different from being blow-up by a Palestinian suicide-bomber

      Yeah, I think it is much different to be blown up by a misguided Israeli tank shell or missile or bomb that wasn't meant to strike me and some lunatic nut suicide bombing terrorist who INTENTIONALLY tries to kill dozens, hundreds or thousands of civilians.

      I also remember Palestinians jumping up and down celebrating when the World Trade Center fell. The Palestinians, like the rest of the Arab world, don't want peace with Israel and never have.

      WHen did I say that all the destruction in Ramallah or anywhere else in the West Bank was brought about by a misguided bomb? Nice of you to draw conclusions that are devoid of logic.

      Here's a tip for the Palestinians: If you don't want tanks and bulldozers rolling through your villages, try not blowing up people in other countries. The Palestinians are victims, victims of being pawns of the other Arab states and their repugnant leadership.

    7. Re:Blame them for this, blame them for that. by Aceticon · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I think it is much different to be blown up by a misguided Israeli tank shell or missile or bomb that wasn't meant to strike me and some lunatic nut suicide bombing terrorist who INTENTIONALLY tries to kill dozens, hundreds or thousands of civilians.

      1) You are making an assumption that the tank-shells /airplane-bombs were misguided.

      2) If the Israelis WOULDN'T go around firing shells or droping bombs, none would hit any civilians. (Please don't forget they were doing it in territory they invaded in 1964)

      3) There is no proven relation between Osama bin Laden and the Palestinians. I would suspect that the situation in Palestine and the American support to Israel are part of the "reasoning" behind the Sep. 11 attack. Then again, so is the fact that there are American bases in Saudi Arabia (holy land and all that) - are the Saudi's also to be blamed?

      I also remember Palestinians jumping up and down celebrating when the World Trade Center fell. The Palestinians, like the rest of the Arab world, don't want peace with Israel and never have.

      1) Never say never - if you say never then it's bound to be false.

      2) I'm sure there were some Americans cheering up when the Oaklahoma bombing happened - does that make all Americans bad???

      WHen did I say that all the destruction in Ramallah or anywhere else in the West Bank was brought about by a misguided bomb? Nice of you to draw conclusions that are devoid of logic.

      Well, it seems i concluded wrongly that your only explanation for the death of Palestinian civilians was "misguided" bombs. This was the core argument in your explanation that Palestinians are not victims.

      How can you then equate the destruction in Ramalah and other places (like Jenin) which was brought about by bombs which according to you are not necessarily misguided with the fact that (also according to you) Palestinians are not victims.

      Please keep in mind that destroying a person's home and all his/her thing is a for of victimization and that under all that destruction there were a lot of dead bodies.

      Here's a tip for the Palestinians:

      If you don't want tanks and bulldozers rolling through your villages, try not blowing up people in other countries.

      I agree.

      I can understand the desperation of a people living in an occupied land (yes, Palestina is an occupied land since 1964 - even the UN accepts this) fighting against an army which has all of the latest tanks, planes, helicopters and other weaponry - this surely lead to those desperate measures.

      Yet, i still agree that the suicided-bombings are not the solution, they are part of the problem.

      The Palestinians are victims, victims of being pawns of the other Arab states and their repugnant leadership.

      Remove "other Arab" from the phrase and i'll agree with you:
      - The Palestinians are victims, victims of being pawns of the states and their repugnant leadership.

      With "the states" meaning country leaderships all over including Palestinian, Israeli, USA, other Arab states, Europe, etc ...

  72. Copy of the warning message by Dr_DTHP · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a copy of the message which set off the chain of events leading to this news article.

    ---

    From: eli7ehax0r@yahoo.cn
    to: President@Whitehouse.gov
    Subject: fuck poiSonB0x!

    ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

    FUCk PoiSonB0x! Mr. President@!!!!!`

    from: #poisonB0x@irc.haxor.cn
    w3 are leetest. America must die!!!

    ---

    Needless to say, the US elite anti-terrorism squads are taking the very seriously, and will start bombing China immediately.

    (note: lameness filter sucks.)

  73. How this is different than usual by Bearpaw · · Score: 3
    It's the CIA telling us about it. It is your duty as a Real and Patriotic American to take these threats seriously and to be afraid of the Enemies of Freedom at all times.

    Look out!! Behind you!! Oh, never mind, I must've scared him away.

    1. Re:How this is different than usual by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bearpaw wrote:

      > It's the CIA telling us about it. It is your duty as a Real and Patriotic
      > American to take these threats seriously and to be afraid of the
      > Enemies of Freedom at all times.

      I know you were joking, but what you said makes a very valid point. Beyond the usual issue of whatever organization with a three letter acronym crying wolf yet again, there is the more important issue of how these "calls to panic" are in fact doing the terrorists work for them. Al Quada in particular have an easy job of it. They don't have to take the risks of actually trying an attack anymore, all they have to do is have their jailed members lie. It gets hyped by the media, and people panic nicely. If the media had half a brain, they would have realized by now that the only people in Al Quada that know about an attack before hand are Bin Laden and the guy leading it.

      The duty of Americans is not to "be afraid of the Enemies of Freedom at all times". It is to be vigilant and kick their cans, if indeed they are evil. It is also the duty of Americans to stand up for our rights and the rights of others.

      It is the sad results of a false patriotism that has pale pink and white rags proudly flying from yards and cars, poor filthy flags lying in the road, a capital overgrown with stinkweed politicians, and a loss of real freedom. Firewalls, strip searches, etc. aren't going to come and save us. It's the compassionate heart that saves a stranger's life in a disaster, the courageous heart that defends liberty, and the wise heart that cherishes happiness. Heart alone can conquer terror and restore peace and freedom.

      America, what happened to your heart?!?

      "Heart can reach where hand cannot. Climb over any wall..." Mothra (via Moll) "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

  74. More FUD... by wedg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...this article can't really be taken seriously. The Supreme Court has rejected prior restraint except in cases where National Security is involved. The article states that it was a classified report that discusses China's activities. If it was something important, the CIA could've pulled the whole article simply because it's classified - that's the only justification they need of its importance to National Security.

    Furthermore, isn't leaking classified information treason? Yeah. So read it and write it off as "FUD". China simply wouldn't be able to hack into the U.S. systems - if we thought there was a threat, we could simply temporarily disconnect the overseas backbones (of which there are suprisingly few). Beyond that, the military, for some time, has used satellites to communicate; and every critical computer system is connected to a separate internal network, with no contact points to the Internet.

    If China wants to drop some Spec. Ops. onto the Pentagon, that's a whole different story. But for now I'm not worried. Unless they try and DOS whitehouse.gov and kill all my RtCW ping times.

    --
    Jake
    Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
    1. Re:More FUD... by BCoates · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Supreme Court has rejected prior restraint except in cases where National Security is involved.

      Uh, no. The Supreme Court requires a "clear and present danger" to allow prior restraint; the example they gave is that it would be acceptable to restrain the media from releasing the location of troop ships at sea during wartime. Prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional, the burden of proof is on the government to convince a judge that the information must be kept secret. Security clearances don't do anything to stop the media if they get their hands on something, only the government employee that leaked the information can be (hypothetically) punished...

      Furthermore, isn't leaking classified information treason? Yeah

      No, it isn't.

      --
      Benjamin Coates

    2. Re:More FUD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Unless they try and DOS whitehouse.gov

      Just as long as they don't DOS whitehouse.com. How much would that suck...

  75. Fear mongering by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

    Okay using a bit of Perl we find that this article had 10 instances of the word 'cyber' in it. A stupid meaningless buzz word. Any competant admin who updates their system has very little to fear from

    I especially love the part where it tells us how 'future conflicts will be cyber in nature'. Whatever, we dropped bombs in WWII without computers I'm sure we can do it now.

    Stupid fear mongering, move along

  76. defensive vs. offensive security research by dimitri_k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I submitted this a few hours ago and got rejected, but anyway... One question I raised in my submission (just about where the HERBAL VIAGRA joke is in this one), and one that I still think is worth answering is this:

    The L.A. Times piece cites the CIA as saying that the People's Liberation Amry is conducting "research into offensive-minded cyber-tools" with the intent to cause damage to U.S. and Tawainese systems.

    A technical contact at the Chinese Embassy in Washington counters that the research conducted by the Chinese government is purely defensive in nature.

    There is no difference between offensive and defensive research except the intent, right? I mean, you could write a virus strictly for a deeper understanding of viral algorithms and how to protect against them. You could study more secure firewalls in order to circumvent them.

    In short, the CIA can't prove that the research is offensive in nature unless they have intercepted Chinese plans to utilize the research in an offensive way. Similarly, it would be even harder for the Chinese to prove that it is defensive.

    Therefore the news content in this article is essentially this: the CIA noticed that Chinese government studies network security.

    --
    sig is
    1. Re:defensive vs. offensive security research by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      come on, how many US security sites / funding / research are already out there? It's no big deal...

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  77. In case of war? by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
    By the time a full-scale war erupts between China and the US, China will have about as many functioning computers and internet backbone connections as PLA soldiers in the beaches of Taiwan - which is to say none. They will also have several other things to worry about, like glowing in the dark.

    Oh sure, they can take out Los Angeles. But that will be the end of their country. After that is over, Mongolia will probably invade them again. On horseback.

    This is just the usual yelling "fire!" in the burned-out theater. Wake me up when the Marines start landing in Hainan.

  78. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2

    That's me "treasonous." I would rather live in a country that has just laws and doesn't lock up whole classes of people (Africans) and pushes other countries into conflict by meddling in their internal affairs. Countries that learn from their mistakes. The US that won WWII is long fucking gone. It taught the lessons and then forgot them. Now you have a place that allows fascists to steal elections under a system rigged to empower the rich. Doesn't it sicken you that GERMANY is a freer and more just country than the US? You are a thoroughly propagandized troll who will live and tie under your master's thumb without once feeling free becuase the only real price you ever paid for freedom was $12.88 a Walmart.
    Anyhoo, I grew up speaking German so what's the fucking difference? I am sure you would have loved Germany's policies toward those who dissent if they had won WWII. They labelled them treasonous and shot them. Isn't that what you are doing, you fascist.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  79. I think I found it by swb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try this:

    http://ftp.apnic.net/stats/apnic/apnic-2002-04-0 1

    It shows APNIC assignments. You have to grep through the list to get just the CN assignments. It's a big, ugly, long list of 366 netblocks. 53 /16s and 300+ /24s.

    I'm gonna add it to the filter(s) at home and see what it does before I fubar the office with it.

  80. Blocking China... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Not nearly that simple. Do you cut off HK? Taiwan? Think of the bus. implications of that; companies would have to have private links (no problem), but there will always be a way around.

    There just isn't a way to cut someone off completely, especially when they have friends...

  81. Satellites by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 2

    This isn't significantly different from the militarizaton of space. China has space launch capabilities, and it doesn't take more than simple collision to destroy a satellite. Yet I don't worry about China (or anybody else) knocking US (or anybody else's) satellites out of the sky.

    Why? Because an attack on our satellites would be no different from, say, offshore planes or ships jamming radio signals, or, for that matter, a bunch of commandoes blowing up inland transmission towers. It's a potentially devastating move, but it's also unquestionably an attack on the US and an obvious precursor to invasion or nuclear attack.

    A concerted attack on the Internet, and especially on Amereican military computers that are connected to the Internet, is every bit the act of war as are the other scenarios.

    Folks, the Chinese are not stupid. For all the sabre-rattling Beijing might do (and let's not forget that Washington's swords are pretty noisy, themselves), they're not about to commit species suicide anytime soon. MAD aside, China is no match for the US militarily in an all-out war, and that's what we've promised if they invade Taiwan. They might not like it, but they know it.

    Should the military take steps to protect themselves against such an attack? Of course. But the rest of us shouldn't worry about it any more than we worry about CNN going off the air due to military action.

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
  82. Conspiracy Theory: CIA make-up by eztarget · · Score: 1

    Why in the whole world the CIA would give a secret report to the newspapers?

    The only logic explaination is to keep the americain public opinion has low as possible towards China: the Evil communist folks and to try the ground for a new regulation on the web.

    But in an other way the internet is not at the avantage of China cause it's a salepitch for the americain way of life, capitalist, and less but still controlled speech.

    What is the diference between Democratie and Communist(Totalitarism)?
    In communist, you have to think the way they want, in capitalism you can think what you want as long has you think what they want you to think.

  83. Re:Wasn't China just whining about being in ORBS? by Anonnymous+Coward · · Score: 1
    Uh, yeah. Because there's never been a classified document leaked to the press.

    illegal != impossible

  84. Cold War 2: The Yellow Menace by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 2

    Sheesh, I wish these politicians and spooks would grow up. The Yellow Menace went out with poodle skirts and tailfins. These poor blokes, with George "how do you spell W?" Bush at their head, need an enemy to pad their profit lines.

    Yeah, some Chinese twits might do something annoying -- just like our own twits. Why are *their* twits worse? I can hazard a guess...

  85. A lot of FUD? by Ryu2 · · Score: 2

    Isn't all the really critical stuff (defense, space, air traffic, telecom, power, finance, etc) all air-gapped? Meaning, they're PHYSICALLY disconnected from the Internet or other public networks.

    Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see how short of a "deep plant" to get an agent "inside" in a position of responsibility, very good social engineering or physical sabotage/attacks, hackers (from any part of the world) could cause REAL crippling damage (more than just defacing web sites or destroying non-critical servers).

    --
    There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
  86. E-mail filtering by LordoftheFrings · · Score: 1

    Just another reason to add all Chinese domains to my e-mail blacklist.

  87. Laugh it up, Pal by FFtrDale · · Score: 2, Interesting
    How about the Tokyo real estate market over the past ten years? Remember when the Nikkei average was over 30 thousand? There are some serious problems waiting to disrupt things, and it's hard to predict lag times between untenable situations and effects.

    On the other hand, that DOS attacks will occur is as newsworthy as saying that your children will have colds sometimes. It's all a part of growing up.

    --
    Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
  88. US Needs CIA or something like it by danielobvt · · Score: 1

    The CIA mission is to gather intelligence and provide advice to the leadership of the US. Maybe they need occasional moral steering, but the general need for their mission will not go away. And the CIA is special because they are meant to be the primary human intelligence (HUMINT) agency (as opposed to the NSA, which is an electronic intel (ELINT) agency) Incidents like 9/11/2001 show that they do let things slip past, but I shudder to think of what would be done to us without them out there intercepting things.

    Do you have a suggestion for a replacement? The rest of the world would not stop spying if we suddenly stopped doing it. Would you rather that intel come in through military intelligence agencies?

    1. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by dattaway · · Score: 2

      I would say the CIA's mission is to survey the world for economic potential. Nothing more, nothing less. That's about what all wealth of information is used for.

      Conspiracy stories make for great reading, but all the hype behind the CIA is humorous. Sure, information they sometimes obtain is used for defense purposes. Same could be said for NASA, NIST, TRW, and the local Dunkin' Donuts shop.

    2. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by alan_d_post · · Score: 1

      > I shudder to think of what would be done to us without them out there intercepting things.

      I don't. What do they actually do that helps anyone? Why the need for "intel" -- aside from military adventuring, dissent suppression, and occasional government-overthrowing?

      > Maybe they need occasional moral steering

      If they were all employed doing something productive, we wouldn't need to steer them. Besides, from a practical standpoint, how are we to steer them under the current regime? They're not exactly going to listen to you or me.

      > the NSA, which is an electronic intel (ELINT) agency

      Another good point -- what do the NSA do for anyone? Surely all the smart people doing cryptanalysis and whatnot for them could be doing something more constructive.

    3. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      "I don't. What do they actually do that helps anyone? Why the need for "intel" -- aside from military adventuring, dissent suppression, and occasional government-overthrowing?"
      Anti-Terrorism, preventing other countries "military adventuring", and countering other countries intel agencies (surely you do not think that we are the only people who do this sort of thing, maybe they all are not as world reaching as ours, but they are out there) Even if we stopped engaging in those activities, it wouldn't make us safer. The world is interconnected, and certain countries toppling or not does effect the American people.

      "Another good point -- what do the NSA do for anyone? Surely all the smart people doing cryptanalysis and whatnot for them could be doing something more constructive."
      The idea of intel agencies is that you will not hear of everything that they do. In addition to having systems in place so that they can monitor the electronic activities of people, orgs, and countries who could pose a threat to safety of the US people they also provide a fair amount of support to other government agencies. ie Guidence on how to secure your systems so that other nations have a harder time getting into our systems.

      And I must say that on behalf of the members of the US intelligence field (of which I am not a member), I consider it an insult that you are implying that they are not productive or constructive members of this society. These people have served, and died, to protect this country. I severly doubt that you have contributed (and sacrificed, there is a reason these people are called civil servents) as much to this society as these people have.

    4. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Why the need for "intel" -- aside from military adventuring, dissent suppression, and occasional government-overthrowing?

      Geez, I like AMD too, but Andy Grove isn't that powerful :)

      Seriously - how about finding out about people who Really Don't Like Us, and Kicking their Asses before they can kick ours?

      You may not have noticed, but there are some people out there who Really Don't Like Us. Some of them are pretty open about not liking us. They wave flags and rant and rave in peaceful demonstrations. But some of them keep quiet about not liking us, and you don't find out about them until they fly a plane through a building, by which time it's a bit late, especially for the people in the plane (and the people in the building, for that matter).

      I happen to be among those who believes that the people in the latter group rather desperately need their Asses Kicked, and that infiltrating and exposing such groups is a good way to Kick those Asses.

      Sun Tzu knew that most wars are won before the first battle is fought, and that the best way to win a war is never to need to fight one in the first place. I'd paraphrase that by suggesting that if you can keep your adversary sufficiently off-balance (through the Kicking of Only the Very Few Asses that Really Need to be Kicked), you can defer war indefinitely.

      Good intelligence (whether CIA or Mossad, the point is immaterial) allowed the Israelis to find out about Saddam's nuclear weapons programme. In 1981, eight Israeli F-16s to attack an Iraqi nuclear reactor. During the raid, ONE technician at the reactor was reported killed.

      As a result of that raid 20 years ago, Saddam's nuke programme was set back by years; he had no nuke to drop on Tel Aviv during the Gulf War. In all probability, he still has no nukes.

      Good intelligence meant that one guy got fragged (by accident) in 1981, but millions of casualties were averted in 1991, and if the US goes after Iraq in the near future, millions of casualties may yet be averted.

      Let me put it another way: Only eight guys in eight planes had to risk their lives, and they only had to do it once, 20 years ago, in order to prevent millions of casualties.

      You might want to think about those kinds of numbers the next time you ask "what has intelligence done for us?"

      > Another good point -- what do the NSA do for anyone? Surely all the smart people doing cryptanalysis and whatnot for them could be doing something more constructive.

      Ummm... you mean, like strengthening DES against differential analysis by tweaking the S-boxes when nobody (not even IBM, which invented it) outside NSA knew about it?

      Remember - NSA isn't just about 0wning the other d00dz - they're also in the business of making it harder for other d00dz to 0wn j00.

    5. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Let me put it another way: Only eight guys in eight planes had to risk their lives, and they only had to do it once, 20 years ago, in order to prevent millions of casualties.

      Addendum:

      My original point - that intelligence is probably the greatest force multiplier possible - remains.

      It's bad form to reply to one's own post, but I'd have been remiss, however, if I didn't also credit the unknown number of intel guys who also risked their lives to make it possible for eight pilots to save millions.

    6. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by alan_d_post · · Score: 1

      > You may not have noticed, but there are some people out there who Really Don't Like Us. Some of them are pretty open about not liking us. They wave flags and rant and rave in peaceful demonstrations. But some of them keep quiet about not liking us, and you don't find out about them until they fly a plane through a building, by which time it's a bit late, especially for the people in the plane (and the people in the building, for that matter).

      Did I miss the part where the CIA prevented the attack on the World Trade Center? It looked to me like the attackers successfully accomplished what it was they were after. I think I missed the part of your reply where you talked about the great things that the CIA had done specifically to help people. We have quite a few examples of situations where the CIA hurt people (Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, other Latin American dictators). Whether Mossad helped undermine the nasty dictatorship in Iraq is beside the point -- the CIA has to be competent, as well as aiming to undermine the nasties, in order to be a net plus. And we know that they aren't always aiming to undermine the nasties.

      And screw the flamebait moderation -- I haven't gotten a reply yet that actually showed why the CIA needs to exist. I am totally serious.

    7. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by mttlg · · Score: 2
      I haven't gotten a reply yet that actually showed why the CIA needs to exist.

      And you never will, because you don't have a need to know. That's the way things work in a representative government - we elect people to make decisions for us, including decisions about issues of national security that are too sensitive to release to the general public. The only way you will ever get proof that the CIA needs to exist is if you get rid of it and bad things happen more frequently. Instead of saying "I don't see why the CIA should exist," you should express your concerns (from an objective viewpoint) to your elected representatives. There's a lot going on in the world that you don't know about, so you really aren't in a position to call for the CIA to be disbanded. If you are concerned that your elected representatives can't be trusted to make responsible decisions, then that is where you should focus.

    8. Re:US Needs CIA or something like it by alan_d_post · · Score: 1

      > If you are concerned that your elected representatives can't be trusted to make responsible decisions, then that is where you should focus.

      Unfortunately, I don't really have any control over the election of my national representatives -- they are Democratic incumbents, this is California, and they get lots of money from people with more money than I do.

  89. Let's Just Slashdot China by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    Despite the best efforts of the unamerican fuckheads at Cisco and Yahoo (and AOL, Sun, Netscape) even the great chinese firewall isn't impenetrable. Here's a good link on the subject. So why not do unto them as they do unto us - and hack and/or ddos sensitive chinese sites? Show 'em that Americans aren't as lazy and incompetent as they think we are, at least as far as hackers are concerned. Here's a link to get you started - the official state propoga^H^H^H^H^H^H^H paper The People's Daily, chinese edition.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  90. Bah... by Wntrmute · · Score: 2

    I'll secure my own systems, thanks. I don't need the government to do it for me.

    Not to mention that I don't trust them enough to stop themselves from abusing it.

  91. Be Very Afraid by commodoresloat · · Score: 2
    As nofuncharlie warned almost two years ago, Chinese soldiers were dressing as Mexicans in order to attack the US through Texas.

  92. Non-problem by jet_silver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you get any traffic you want from .cn? No? Then just block it. All of it. Every IP address you can find in the .cn TLD. Anyone who looks at intrusion logs will have come to a similar conclusion. .cn addresses have a very high bullshit-to-business ratio, so why even bother?
    If you want traffic from .cn, sorry, you are probably going to be hurt if this report is right.

  93. Why dont... by tinhorn+king · · Score: 1

    ...they just come out and say, "We want a bigger budget!"? And with Bush Jnr in office, they will get whatever they want. The CIA are the biggest threat in this world, not China.

    1. Re:Why dont... by mikestro · · Score: 1

      "The CIA are the biggest threat in the world, not China"

      Senator Church gutted the CIA in the early 80's. It's been going downhill ever since. Yet it's always the fall guy when it fails. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. So please explain to me how a gutted agency of the government is more dangerous than a nation with 1 billion people and refers to us as "the enemy"? Specifics please. no more blah blah blah. Cite specifics. I will counter. You will lose.

  94. Cry wolf by burtonator · · Score: 2

    The real thing that bothers me here is how easy it is for the FBI and CIA to just cry wolf.

    I can think of at least 20-30 instances of them claiming some terrible tragedy was going to happen and then.... nothing.

    Right now we are currently on "yellow alert" for "unsubstantiated" claims that there will be terrorist attacks against banks.

    ... unsubstantiated huh. If you want any other unsubstantiated claims, just give me a call!

    In San Francisco, we still have national gaurd around the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges because of similar claims made *months* ago!

    The thing I am really worried about is that a real 911 threat comes again and we do NOTHING about it because the CIA/FBI have made 1000 of these claims that ended in nothing.

    Get your act together guys!

  95. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by jgerman · · Score: 2
    doesn't lock up whole classes of people (Africans)


    Uhh, you make it sound as if the police walk the streets and send anyone of African descent to jail. Patently untrue.


    pushes other countries into conflict by meddling in their internal affairs


    Ok yeah, we do this, and we need to stop


    While I wouldn't exactly call you treasonous. (You actually have to betray your country to get that status) You are full of hot air and little sense. If you don't like it here so much get the fuck out.

    --
    I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
  96. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by BCoates · · Score: 3, Funny

    Makes me want to move to the EU, where fascism is called by its real name, not jingoed patriotism.

  97. Holy shit! by r_j_prahad · · Score: 2

    GET HERBAL VIAGRA?

    I just logged into my Hotmail account, it looks like the attack has begun!

  98. Obviously... by MrResistor · · Score: 2

    I mean, why else would they be running Linux? Linux is for hackers, right? And everyone knows hackers are evil, desiring nothing but the total disruption and destruction of the American Way of Life(tm), just like those Godless Commies in China. Open Source is just another form of Communism.

    Of course, the Chinese will say that they run Linux because of "backdoors" and "security holes" in Windows. Well, if they weren't planning to attack us, they'd have nothing to hide, would they? And if they had nothing to hide, they'd be running Windows and the CIA would know EXACTLY what they were up to! None of this "maybe" crap!

    Seriously, though, how much damage could they really do? Oh no, I wouldn't be able to surf the web for a little while! My email might be delayed! Really, how effective would such an attack actually be in terms of an act of war?

    It's well documented that the CIA is the largest drug dealing organization in the world, and it's common knowledge that most dealers are also users. I think this particular theory proves that those CIA boys have been smoking crack!

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  99. Think about if from the other side... by tomdarch · · Score: 1
    Not infrequently we hear about the Chinese military/security complex claiming that the US is up to all sorts of absurd stuff (ocasionally it proves to be true, though). When we hear that these guys are making these goofy claims I think to myself, "those jerks are spouting crap to justify their political power when there isn't really that much conflict." Why shouldn't we think that about this report? I'm sure that the Chinese military/security complex is doing work on cracking/viruses just like everyone else. Would they be stupid enough to try some sort of massive attack? No.

    Given how National Public Radio reported this story (failed to question the hype), I can't imagine how wacky General Electric (defense contractor) news (NBC) will report on it. My boss is usually a good hype barometer, I'll see if he's sucked in by it.

  100. Re:My experiences in China by jgerman · · Score: 2

    At first I started getting angry, then I realized. Troll. Almost got me to flame you,... almost. It was the last paragraph that pushed it WAY over the edge of belief though.

    --
    I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
  101. I tire of this. by phatdawg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Reading this article and especially these comments (one in particular) just bore the shit out of me.

    The one comment is the "I am a white christian male who is a genius and never gets laid and people envy me". Please email me sir, for you are a large part of the same problem that put George Bush illegally into the most powerful position in the world.

    As far as China attacking the United States on any level, the CIA and FBI and all those government agencies have to justify their existance. Call me Tin Foil Hat, but I believe the possibility exists that Sept. 11th was allowed. I believe the government of this country may be corrupt on so many levels, it's unthinkable. The untied states government is being innundated with greedy politicians intent on using their office to manipulate the laws to them and their white christain genius golfing buddies can make more money OFF OF US. China is not the problem. They will have their own revolution in time. Those people aren't going to stand in poverty forever.

    As far as the United States goes, if you can convice the people there is a threat from the outside, they will not see the threats on the inside. The administration is quietly moving around, destroying the environment, looting the economy. In 6 years, if we are unlucky, this could be one huge back robbery.

    We are not respected. We are not envied. We were. Now, we are a nation of greedy, fat consumers (yes geek, look at thou belly and man titties) who have NO CONCEPTION for the most part of what is going on in the outside world. We want Felcity and Ally, we want new cars and cheap gas. The rest of the world is eclipsing us in so many senses, morally, ethically, socially, technologically.

    I am not tolling the bell, there are excellent pockets of innovation and love and life and all that (California) but then there are cancerous pockets of people who still believe in a big man up in the sky who is some kind of an aggressive puppetmaster (The Southern US and Mid East... oops, did I just compare the right to the wrong? maybe the right are wrong).

    China is not the problem. Wake up sheep. Read 1984,stop watching TV, talk to people below you economic class. The biggest threat we have right now is the rights our own government is erroding. Excuse me if I have to leave now, I have to go opiate myself on a diet of fulling yet totally nutriounless fast food and have Dr. Phil tell me how to be a better consum... er... person.

    Peace.

    nickrussell@hotmail.com

  102. Wake Up by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2

    IIRC the Chinese tried to claim Taiwan was Chinese property a few years ago,

    The Chinese have *always* claimed to own Tiawan, and the Tiawanese for that matter claim to own China. This 50 year old conflict has a very real potential to boil over into a real shooting war and if it does we would very likely get involved. The CIA is warning that when/if that happens the Chinese are planning a cyber attack as one element of their battle plan.

    Do the Chinese really want to pick a fight with a country that is fairly internet-dependent and risk starting World War 3 and in the process getting nuked into oblivion?

    No, but it is not hard to imagine a scenario where they did. And it is unlikely that we would use nukes since China is perfectly capable of retaliating in kind. (thanks to US aerospace companies)

  103. NEEDS MORE XENOPHOBIA by inquis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [flamebait]

    Ok, so public support for Operation Bomb the Towelheads is declining; what's the government to do? I know! Let's make the American people xenophobic of ANOTHER socioreligious group!

    What this all boils down to is a game of hide-the-sasuage that the government is playing with us. The general public is like a herd of buffalo: pretty dumb, hard to get moving, hard to turn, hard to stop when they ARE moving. Apparently support of the US' support of Israel (as Israel plays their own game of Bomb the Towelys) is waning, so the US needs another shiny object with which to distract the herd.

    Hmm, I know how to distract them! Let's release a shiny press releas^H^H^H^H news item! Let's see, it's buzzword bingo time:

    Hackers? CHECK
    Cyber-terrorism? CHECK
    Red commie Chinese? CHECK

    SHINY OBJECT COMPLETED. DO YOU WISH TO DEPLOY? (Y/N)

    DISTRACTION SUCCESSFUL, YOU MAY RECOMMENCE BOMBING OF THE ARAB NATION.

    [/flamebait]

    I'm sorry if I sound cynical, but the public seems to be infinitely stupid and the government seems to be infinitely willing to leverage this stupidity to their advantage. Just planting the meme of "Chinese Cyber-terrorists!" is bad enough. What's even worse is that the lemmings will be talking about this vaporous Chinese threat over the watercooler tomorrow morning instead of talking about how Israel murdered so many Palestinians and buried them in a mass grave.

    It's a red herring planted by a cynical government which isn't afraid to use blatant misdirection to draw attention away from itself.

    1. Re:NEEDS MORE XENOPHOBIA by buss_error · · Score: 2
      "It is not the Chinese government's policy to disrupt the computer system of any other country," said Larry Wu, an official in the embassy's science and technology section.

      No need to see your ID. This is not the Viagra spam you are looking for.:P

      I find it interesting that others have back brain gibber like this. Maybe I'm not nuts. Hitting the trifecta indeed. Just hapenstance. Not planned at all.
      Riiiiiighhhhtt.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    2. Re:NEEDS MORE XENOPHOBIA by Peaker · · Score: 2

      Do you really believe the bombing of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Jenin's houses housing terrorists is unjustified?

      What better way do you know of to fight terrorists, or do you think we should all just ignore our families and friends who die going to a restaurant or to their workplace?

    3. Re:NEEDS MORE XENOPHOBIA by bmf033069 · · Score: 1

      Please, the only reason that you can make the above statements is that you are not yet part of a group that has been labeled "terrorists" by the US.

      You are differentiating between the deaths of "families and friends" by the sole justification that you can call those people "terrorists". When it becomes the political will to call a group "terrorists" is when their deaths become justified?

      You have even bought the line that terrorism is not a act by an individual or group, but is the responsibility of a whole nation, race, or religion. Whatever is most convenient based on the accuracy of your bombs.

      Seems to me that all of the bombing and destruction going on right now can be defined as terrorism. What is the purpose of blowing something up anyway? Destroy the people or their property, such that the people left living obey your political will.

      All of this death and talk of justification is really just word play and politics. The sooner that is realized, the sooner the world will be much better off.

    4. Re:NEEDS MORE XENOPHOBIA by mpe · · Score: 2

      Ok, so public support for Operation Bomb the Towelheads is declining; what's the government to do? I know! Let's make the American people xenophobic of ANOTHER socioreligious group!
      What this all boils down to is a game of hide-the-sasuage that the government is playing with us. The general public is like a herd of buffalo: pretty dumb, hard to get moving, hard to turn, hard to stop when they ARE moving. Apparently support of the US' support of Israel (as Israel plays their own game of Bomb the Towelys) is waning, so the US needs another shiny object with which to distract the herd.


      When the "towelheads" turn out to be people in refugee camps the bloodlust can be lost quickly.
      Maybe the most important question is exactly what is the "herd" being destracted from?

    5. Re:NEEDS MORE XENOPHOBIA by Peaker · · Score: 2

      In Afghanistan all bombs were aimed at the Taliban's warriors. Ofcourse some will miss, but that doesn't make the whole act unjustified.

      The enterance to Jenin and the rest of the west bank was aimed to catch specific listed people in Israel's wanted list, and not at an entire population.

      Its not me who bought it is a whole nation, but you who bought the line that these attacks are aimed at a people, and not at specific terrorists.

  104. Is China gonna hack the gibson? by Aiku1337 · · Score: 1

    Cuz that'd be a really sweet hack. Maybe they'll just deface some websites. CH1N4 RUL3Z. 1N J00R F4C3 4M3R1C4! Seriously though, I'm sure I'm going to demonstrate my ignorance, but, what exactly is out there connected to the internet that is of real strategic importance (ie, electric grids, banks, missile launching stuff).

  105. Think for yourself by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    "following this logic, under no circumstance is it appropriate for the public to criticize the government and it's actions."

    Where in my original post did I say that nobody could criticize the government for its actions? I firmly believe in your right, my right, everyone's right to criticize the government. That's what democracy is all about.

    Think for yourself indeed. I fail, however, to see how a warning about potential Chinese cyber-attacks is manipulation of the entire country.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  106. Don't know whom to fear more - by software_non_olet · · Score: 1


    - EITHER the Chinese haxors OR the open IIS boxes filling the net with millions of worm-attacks in their stupid (but bandwidth consuming) attempts to multiply ?

    - EITHER the single technician within a Chinese ministry who is trying his exploit- and DOS-scripts during the wave of fruitless attacks after the spy-plan incident OR the CIA manipulating public opinion with (no longer soooo confidential) attack warnings ?

    IMO the real thread comes from hatred, intentional misinformation and nationalistic prejudices. These things have allways been a sure sign of hawks seeking more power and preparing for wars. And hawks are having their great high-flights on both sides of the Pacific at the moment.

  107. CIA heroes by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    Riiight.. the CIA, always the heroes. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to popular culture over the last 40 -odd years, but the CIA rarely features as the hero (unless you're watching a Tom Clancy-derived flick), and often is cast as the villain.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:CIA heroes by pmsr · · Score: 1

      That is probably because they haven't been getting much right, then. And they are getting more money and a reshuffling, so in a strange devious you end up proving my point. Pity about me being modded down, and you, that misread my post, modded up. What an unfair world this one is. ;-)

      /Pedro

    2. Re:CIA heroes by Infonaut · · Score: 2

      Slow down, killer. I was being facetious when I said they were heroes. My point was that popular culture doesn't portray them as heroes.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  108. When is it time to filter chinese traffic... by coene · · Score: 1

    They already filter traffic from the outside, when should major backbone routers start filtering anything from China.

    Chinese spam floods US and other countries networks, and DoS attacks (be them intentional, unintentional, or the result of a hacked use of a chinese server) costs money to ISP's, and that gets passed through to the consumer.

    Whens the last time you've received actual, credible, useful mail from .cn? (Not to be arrogant or make a stupid statement -- it really is a question, I'm interested)

  109. Failures more visible than successes by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    That's a good point. I don't know for sure that they're on target more often than not. But we don't hear about the times they're right, because when intel is disseminated to the organizations (military, diplomatic, or other), there isn't a big sticker on it that says "brought to you by the CIA." That's just not how it works.

    For example, US military capabilities are overwhelming in part because of CIA contributions. But no intelligence agency worth a damn is going to go around saying, "See that special ops hit on the enemy command and control node? WE provided the intel for that!"

    Just because they're not crowing about their successes doesn't mean that they're a bunch of incompetents.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Failures more visible than successes by prizog · · Score: 1

      I never said they were incompetant, but it sure would be nice to know how good they were, even if that ended up reducing their effectiveness. It is hard enough to decide who to vote for with complete information; it is impossible without. OK, end off-topicness

    2. Re:Failures more visible than successes by JoeRobe · · Score: 1

      Wait wait wait. YOU'RE telling me that you are willing to make the CIA LESS effective so that you can know if they're good or not? Please, tell me you're joking.

      The CIA's effectiveness, by definition, is measured in the end by how many lives they can save. That's what they're here for - protecting us.

      (Sometimes they screw up, of course, but not always. And please don't ask me when they haven't screwed up - of course nobody is going to take note when the CIA prevents a plane from being hijacked, because nothing is out of the ordinary then. But when one does get hijacked, it's well known within minutes.)

      With that in mind, you are willing to risk lives of however many Americans so that you can know how good your "secret" intelligence agency is? Please....

      JoeRobe

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
    3. Re:Failures more visible than successes by prizog · · Score: 1

      "Wait wait wait. YOU'RE telling me that you are willing to make the CIA LESS effective so that you can know if they're good or not? Please, tell me you're joking."

      No, I am not joking. We make ordinary cops less effective than they could be by requiring warrants -- but we do this because the alternative is a threat to liberty. The CIA and the NSA, given their current level of secretiveness, are a threat to liberty.

      Am I willing to risk lives for liberty? Of course! That's what people have been doing for ever; that's what the CIA claims to do (it probably puts its agents in danger all the time).

    4. Re:Failures more visible than successes by JoeRobe · · Score: 1

      "No, I am not joking. We make ordinary cops less effective than they could be by requiring warrants -- but we do this because the alternative is a threat to liberty. The CIA and the NSA, given their current level of secretiveness, are a threat to liberty."

      We require cops to have warrants because we are constitutionally protected (rather, our liberty is protected) otherwise. I see no fundamental human right or any right in general that says that I must know my nation's secrets. I feel (and after doing a quick poll in my office, so do others) that my liberty is in no way threatened by the CIA having some secrets. Their secrets do not restrict me, they protect me. I'm curious how government secrecy threatens your liberty.

      "Am I willing to risk lives for liberty? Of course! That's what people have been doing for ever; that's what the CIA claims to do (it probably puts its agents in danger all the time)."

      Wait a sec, who's lives are we talking about here? CIA agents risk their lives because that's something that they have agreed to do to protect us. However, a civilian has not agreed to such a deal. Civilian lives are the lives I'm talking about. Since I don't see how government secrecy implies a loss of liberty, I suppose I can't understand risking people's lives so that we can know what our government knows. That's just me, I guess,

      JoeRobe

      --
      The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
    5. Re:Failures more visible than successes by prizog · · Score: 2

      "I'm curious how government secrecy threatens your liberty."

      One of the most fundamental freedoms is the right to choose how the government is run by voting. We can't know which policies are better if we don't know their effects. So, our voting is worthless. Additionally, secret government leads to abuses -- Star Chambers, etc. Just look at all the shit done under the guise of "national security."

      I suppose you also don't have a problem with the firing of Ian Thomas -- the public didn't really need to know the effects of oil drilling on Caribou -- we should just trust Bush!

  110. ashcroft as a kid... by simpl3x · · Score: 2, Interesting

    probably ran around kicking squirels, and wondered why they bit him... maybe he liked the shots? rabies, rabies!!!!

    sounds kind of 1984-ish. the alliance is in great danger of attack from those that are evil. oh yah, everyone except us is evol! kick kick!!!

    nader was right though, gotta wonder what we got ourselves into...

  111. Re:You refute yourself by CyberDruid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Of course, the CIA can't go around trumpeting these successes, because it decreases the odds of them being successful in the future.

    If they don't even want to tell about the times they've been right in the past, it is even less of a chance that they will tell the public a truthful prediction of the future (like this alledgedly is).

    What the CIA says publicly will obviously have no correlation (neither positive nor negative) with what they really think is the truth. They will simply give statements that they think have a desired effect, either on the american public or on foreign governments. How could it be otherwise? This is not because they are "evil" or whatever. It is their job.

    Do you really think that you for some reason know better than the CIA what's going on in the minds of China's rulers?

    This is a strawman. I certainly do not think so, neither do anyone else. The real question is: Do you really think that you know what the CIA knows about the minds of the rulers of China? What would CIA possibly have to gain by being consistently truthful in what they say to you to you (about as much as if they were consistently lying, I suppose)?

    The conclusion must be that to extract any information whatsoever from the CIA, you have to analyze what they say. Do they have anything to gain by lying about this matter? (Yes, a lot - More threats = more budget). Do they have anything to gain by being truthful (Sure - If they think it is a real threat, it is only good if the servers get prepared). This analysis give no reason to believe either one or the other. In other words, the article has almost zero informational content.

    Simple, no? A bit of critical thinking will get you a long way.

    --

    Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

  112. Attrition's take? Still relevant. by dave-fu · · Score: 2

    This is little more than a journalist's self-fulfilling prophecy. You get disinterested parties (the CIA isn't exactly it) saying that there's something big brewing, then you've got a story I'll listen to. Coming from a journalist on a slow newsday or a law organization that isn't a shining beacon of all that is good and great with democracy, however...

    --
    Easy does it!
    This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
  113. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  114. Re:Impeach George W. Bush @# +1 ; Patriotic #@ by Tackhead · · Score: 2
    > This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the us/them dichotomy within hegemonic discourse.

    You mean when Bush said "The Chinese have Chomskybot and are not afraid to use 'em against Slashdotters?" ;-)

  115. Everyone's a "terrorist" now by phpdeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's completely stupid to call every single "evildoer" a terrorist. Terrorism is about terror. I don't care what you do with your stupid computer, I am not terrified. I may be annoyed, it may cost people money and it will piss off a lot of people. But being pissed off is a far cry from being dead. 9/11/01 was terrorism, suicide bombers are terrorists, computer hacking and DOS attacks are NOT terrorism.

    Because American media and politicians find a word that sparks emotion they use it whenever they can until the word loses it's true meaning.

    If you don't believe me, you don't live in the US.

    1. Re:Everyone's a "terrorist" now by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      Terrorism has become so broadly defined to incorporate everyone's common enemy to rally against. Without these "terrorist," (whether real or made up) the current administration would not be able to gain as much support as it does now. By invoking this fear in people, they can get people to support their cause. Would they have been able to take away as much of the people's civil rights without the idea of terrorism?

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
  116. Hey, what gives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Guess you weren't really committed to that "slashdot blackout", huh?

    1. Re:Hey, what gives? by wedg · · Score: 1

      Guess you weren't really committed to that "slashdot blackout", huh?

      Some times I feel like a nut. Some times I don't.

      --
      Jake
      Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
  117. Re:yay china by spike+hay · · Score: 1

    Or, China could just launch a massive denial-of-service attack by sending billions of "GET HERBAL VIAGRA" e-mails from the .cn TLD.

    You mean, that DoS attack is not already underway???

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  118. Egypt ready to fight. Laugh. by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Ever heard of the 6 Days War? Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, Syria in 6 days.

    If any Arab country had any hope of defeating Israel they would have attacked already. They don't and they won't.

  119. Paranoia by Tsugumi · · Score: 1
    Jeez what is with the paranoia in the US? Seing as how history is already starting to see the cold war as purely a paranoid fantasy dreamed up by idiots in Washington, you'd have thought you would have learned your lesson. But no, leaking scare stories to the press one month, telling everyone you're aiming nukes at them the last.

    The only people planning to cyber attack the US are spotty Teaxan kids who hang out in alt.2600

    Ever seen the Chinese character for l33t haXor d00d?

  120. The CIA nabbed Bin Laden's right hand man. by glrotate · · Score: 1

    The rumors are that most CIA personnel feel guilty about 9/11 and are working balls to the wall to redeem themselves.

  121. Its plain ol propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is just the CIA's usual round of fearmongering so that they can (a) scare the government into modifying laws to give them more power and (b) scare the public into accepting more draconian laws.

    I remember a year or two back how heavily convinced they claimed to be that a huge cyber-attack from Cuba was imminent. Oh please.

  122. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by wankomatic2000 · · Score: 1
    Maybe one day you will awaken to the real world instead of being spoon-fed propaganda by your college sociology professor
    Oh wow, did you find out about the real world on CNN? Was it Larry King Live? I guess I missed the NRA meeting where they were telling everyone about the real world.

    Gee, I wish I hadn't missed that one.

  123. This is SERIOUS by quantaman · · Score: 2

    This is a very serious threat. Think about it, if the US is Cyber attacked by the Chinese they're going to retaliate somehow. If they feel threatened enough they might just decide to use weapons of mass destruction, yes I know it's hard to imagine but they might even use The Bomb !!!!! The Netscape could be changed forever and Cyberspace could enter a virtual nuclear winter freezing every server on the planet!! PLEASE think of the children and do all you can to convince the leaders of both country to enter a virtual cooling off period.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  124. Usual CIA scare tactics by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    If china does DNS attack it will be very easy to block them. Just block everything that comes from China. Further more China knows that, and knows that they will suffer economicaly if they are disconnected from the internet and would not try to launch DNS attacks. What the CIA is really worried is hackers from the first world, who will be hard to track down and may disagree with many powerful people's and cormporations visions of the new world order.

  125. how will we survive!? by option8 · · Score: 2

    considering a router somewhere in the midwest going down this morning prevented my office from seeing vast chunks of the internet (including, apparently, our default nameservers.. thankfully i could still get to /.) and thus we were *completely* unable to work for a few hours (a major hardship, not to get email all morning. it took me five minutes to determine it wasn't a local problem. the rest of the time, i read Wired.), a real attack, taking down important sites would make my life.. er.

    actually...

    a lot easier. damn. no nagging email from clients, no more spam for a few hours...

    hell, i should just take the mail server offline and disconnect the phone (people that can't get their email remember my phone number real quick), tell everybody it's the chinese and that the phones got hacked, catch up on my reading or go home for a nap. that should work a a couple times, at least.

    "sorry guys. nothing i can do from here. just gotta wait til things can get routed around the problem..."

  126. Re:Article for lazy peeps. by Kasmiur · · Score: 1

    sadly i don't see how it is redundant. cause its a JOKE PEOPLE oh welll.. blah

    --
    -THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
  127. "Cyber Attack" and other lame-o phrases... by MegaFur · · Score: 1
    Geez. Don't any of you ever read Virus Myths?

    We give away (computer) viruses to China all the time:
    http://vmyths.com/rant.cfm?id=316&page=4
    http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=49&page=1

    Maybe someone should tell the CIA?

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  128. The US probably wants a firewall too by theolein · · Score: 1

    Dear George and the good ol' boys probably took a look at the Chinese national firewall and thought, "Wouldn't it be great if we could have one of those too? Now, how are we gonna get this past the online-rights crowd?"

  129. discovery channel by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

    maybe the chinese are watching the discovery channel to determine what systems are our trusted military ones:

    There was a show on (IIRC modern marvels) that was talking about a military unit dedicated to securing their systems and monitoring for break ins. there was a .mil guy talking about how they keep all there machines secured and was saying that they dont even let the IP addresses for machines be known - but right behind him was a screen that had a list of IPs and hostnames for boxes on their network and it was fully readable when watching the show.

    they prolly just got a freeze frame from that show.

  130. Retalliation! by zentec · · Score: 1


    Here's an interesting thought. How about if you start telling Wal-Mart and Target that you won't buy their "stuff" because half of what they sell is made in China.

    It's my highly opinioned opinion that China needs a quick kick in the pants. It's obvious they're jerking the US around, and of course our highly insightful politicians will continue to tolerate such nonsense because our economy is magically tied to paying the Chinese to make shower curtains for pennies in labour costs.

    It's time that the US population wake up to the problems corporate America has created. We've basically empowered these people through the economic relationships to make what was formerly made in the US. But I'm asking too much, the sheeple of America are happy as long as they can watch some insipid reality TV show.

  131. Re:Hellooooo? Spoiler warning! by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but they usually compensate by posting the stories long after everyone else has run them :]

  132. You've got your principles all twisted by underpaidISPtech · · Score: 2

    The basic problem with your viewpoint here is that you've allowed yourself to be sucked into the American Media Machine regarding Bin Laden.

    Bin Laden is a small time hoodlum that fathered the psychosis and reactionary leanings of a few zealots, like any good cult leader would. Then they commandeered some planes and caused some serious destruction and loss of life. At least that is what you have been fed. It remains to be seen how much of this is truth, and how much is manufactured for convenience. GW can't very well address the American Constituency and say "We didn't even see this coming, and we have no idea who did this".

    To compare Bin Laden with the likes of Hitler is to insult the lives of the *millions* of people who lost their lives during WWII. The American military brass are so busy trying to forestall the next Vietnam, WWII, or Korea, that they cannot see the forest for the trees. In the Eighties it was the Ayatollah in Iran and Mohammar Qadafi in Libya, in the Nineties it was Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and in the 2000's it's Osama Bin Laden. Step back and have a look a what your democratic and free nation has accomplished.
    In five years Bin Laden will be gone and you'll be turning another tin-pot reactionary into a celebrity. Maybe this time he will be a cyber-terrorist. Ooh, just imagine the headlines. Meanwhile in a bombed-out faraway place that was a media/military magnet 10 years ago...a young mother begs for food in the streets...a boy died after stepping on a landmine today...

    Very little of the military actions taken by America in the last 30 years have been based on moral or ethical quandaries facing the free-world, such as those faced by humanity in the 30s and 40s. Rather, the majority of American actions have involved leveraging your superior military might against foreign nations who threaten your economic position, usually in the petroleum based industries.

    Please step back from the fear and hatred for a moment. Step back from the pablum that is your news media. And take a good hard look at the benefits and priveleges you have because of all those people all over the world who cannot participate in democracy, or don't enjoy the same level of economic power because the US government won't "liberate" them, as their is no oil to be found there.

    Nobody gave a shit about Afghani women in burkhas until Bin Laden stepped on your lawn. But now the US has 'moral' obligation to restore order and democracy to the West, and rid the world of the evil Al-Qaeda. It reads like a drug-store novel. People have been twiddling their thumbs and farting around for years over the crap that goes/went on in South Africa (apartheid) and starving Africans, and hummed-and hawed about Croatia, Serbia, and Chechnya. But the US never took much of a moral interest in any of it other than an obligatory peace-keeping role or diplomatic stance. Mainly because their was no economic benefit to any of it, seeing as how there was fuck-all in the way of resources in any of those countries. But oh, watchout for those dirty towel-heads and camel-jockeys, they want to kill all Americans. Right. I think they just want you to stay the hell away. But you don't because you need that oil.

    Israel has one of the most lethal and sophisticated military establishments in the world, heavily subsidized by the US. If anyone has been treading the fine line of morality (can you say systematic state-sactioned racism toward palestinians), it is Israel. And you're in bed with them, and we all know it.

    The world is watching you Rome, and we can see corruption and decadence. Not a good model of democracy and freedom, just a good game of command and conquer.

  133. unrestricted warfare by InfinityEdge · · Score: 1

    Looks like someone at the CIA fianlly got around to reading Unrestricted Warfare by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This is a very interesting read and brings up many points worth thinking about. Chief among these is the fact that in unbalanced conflicts (think U.S. vs. Afganistan) the weaker party must use all means at their disposal to counter their opponents overwhelming military might. This includes computer hacking, financial speculation, sanctions, assinations, and other lovely acts.

    They even get the hacker terminology right:

    [7] The original meaning of "hacker" was neutral and did not carry any derogatory sense. Early hackers used their obsession with technology and good intentions for society to form a unique hacker standard of logic which was strictly adhered to by many people over several generations of hackers. However, in the network space of today where the moral degeneration is getting worse day by day, there is no longer this gentlemanly attitude.

    --Infinityedge

  134. cyber attack by sewagemaster · · Score: 1

    i face that almost everyday...

    come home from work, log onto irc

    /j #

    ** Private messages and popups **

    Hi, ASL?
    69, male divorced, with kids and down to earth.
    Cyber?

    ... repeat above 50 times from 50 different aliases/ people.

  135. That's funny, check this out... by codewolf · · Score: 1

    maybe we are being hacked: check out this site

    --
    http://www.codewolf.com - Just good stuff to waste time
  136. Hold on, I'm confused about this warning... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    What color is it?

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  137. Couldn't it be stopped? by Transcendent · · Score: 1

    These messages have to be routed through major servers. First they have to go to the root nameservers to get the .com... then the DNS blah blah blah to get the IP that they're going to send it to, couldn't they just set something up on the root servers to start blocking requests from Chinese computers after the attack has begun? Is that a possibility?

  138. LOL! by dusanv · · Score: 1

    Seriously, is this a joke? Bosnian Jews??? Never saw one (there are some in Serbia but almost none in Bosnia). Americans selling guns to Serbs? Are you for real? They bombed the Serbs there (and in Serbia later)! Israel selling guns to Serbs? What are you smoking? They were taking in Bosnian muslim refugees ans supporting Bosnian Muslims (until the orthodox Jew backlash) in the spirit of their current (1995-1999) "understanding" with Arabs. Serbs have no US weapons but Muslims/Croats do - that's where it went to. No Jew (execept the very few in Serbia) saw an US bomb in their back yard. No irony there at all.

    Example of irony: Taliban (well radical muslims, not Taliban beacuse they didn't exist at that point but it's the same peeps) were heavily supported by US during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. They are now preoccupied with blowing up US...

    D.

  139. Not a great assumption... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Personally, I wish that the US govt would do more to examine what it is doing and stop going out of its way to make new enemies. Believe it or not, I'm not alone in this wish... maybe someday we all can get along...

    My friend, I wish I had your enthusiasm. More than likely, perhaps millions of years in the future, the last living man on earth will most likely drown trying to attack its own reflection in a lake.

    The truth of the matter, I believe the wholesale behavior of nations are just as insane and lacking in judgement as the people that make them up. So if a nation (as a whole) acts nuts, well then, there you go. Perhaps most of the people there are nuts too.

    The USA doesn't act stupid. The USA is admittedly greedy. Not nuts or stupid. Not any more nuts than Rome acted before the whole lead in the drinking water thing, and look what they did. To think that other nations think that we are a bunch of stupid cowboys only gives us a tactical advantage. Keep thinking that. Its that same thinking that deep, hidden rock caves can save you in 21st century warfare. And that you can attack innocents in a twitchy, militaristic nation and not get some serious retribution.

    I share the same feeling about most nations as I do the USA. Not nuts, not stupid, just trying to carve something for themselves. Not as greedy as America perhaps, but certainly not a bunch of saints because they're not America.

    However, Saudi Arabia (and many Arabic nations) appear on the outside to be nuts. Not evil. Nuts. Any nation that enforces its dress code lethtally, speaks to the President of "the meanest dog on the street" like he is a piece of crap and HAS NO REAL ARMY TO BACK THAT SHIT UP, and then has a member of its diplomatic corps for the UK print poetry about the glorious death of their hijackers killing innocents, well then, there you go. Nuts. Not acting in a sane way. Practically begging to get fucked with by the CIA. Or killed. You just don't talk to "ol hot head" like that.

    Don't even get me started on Israel.

    Also, I would argue that the US has done great controlling the world. We shouldn't want to control the world, but we certainly aren't piss poor at it.
    The anti-civilization nutties are rising up now, but that is because they haven't threatened me (meaning the citizens of the world) personally.
    When Hussein or someone decides to make New York dissapear in a blinding white flash, well, then they will see what happens when the US starts conscripting troops, and we open up all of those warehouses full of rifles and ammo we've been stockpiling for two generations. We're the only ones fully prepared for straight up war all over the globe.

    I've been to those military bases, it scares the hell out of me to see that much weaponry, and I'm an American.

    But I don't think we're going to flip out real soon, though, unless someone flips out on us first, and I think that many Arabic nations have been waiting to flip out on everyone not themselves. They have been attacking the reflection in the water for generations.

    1. Re:Not a great assumption... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      I have a little different feeling about the US: just leave us the hell alone! We throw money at nearly every country in the world. We trade with nearly every country in the world. We don't want to take anyone over, we just want to sell whatever crap you want to buy, and just live in peace. I work in the defense industry, so war makes us money, but trust me, we would rather just have peace. Everywhere, forever, but it just isn't going to happen soon, and the harder these crazy nations push us, the more pissed off we get. Please just stay home and play cards or something rather than blowing things up! Hell, you don't read about the US blowing up Canada every day! (The Canadian moose are very stealthy :) )

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  140. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by kz45 · · Score: 1

    That's me "treasonous." I would rather live in a country that has just laws and doesn't lock up whole classes of people (Africans)

    the fact that there is a higher percentage of african-americans in the US prison system, has nothing to do with racism.

    What about the only country in the world that will give you a higher chance of getting into a desired college because of your skin color. (affirmative action)

    GERMANY is a freer and more just country than the US?

    There are 10X the amount of people trying to enter the US...Why?

    give me an example of why German is SO much better thgan the US.

    Anyhoo, I grew up speaking German so what's the fucking difference?

    where do you live now? If it's in the US, you have already lost your own argument.

  141. but by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    The other half have a little "Made in the USSR" sticker on them, and except for the Chechnyans, nobody's too mad at Russia...

  142. Computer Ethics Term Paper by DCookie · · Score: 1

    Hello all, I'm writing a term paper in CSC300, professional responsibilities, course at Cal Poly. My topic is cracking with a national security spin... if we outlaw and strictly punish cracking, can we defend ourselves when 'cyberwar' breaks out? Should the US gov or other govs for that matter set up cyber branch of their military? etc. I'd appreciate any thoughts, ideas, or research pointers you could provide. Thanks.

    -DCookie

    --
    My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
  143. Amen! by istartedi · · Score: 2

    I can't believe I had to scroll this far down to find this post. There is a case that probably proves your point. Around y2k, there were major attacks involving airliners that were thwarted. You hear about it from time-to-time in the media, but there is no way that such a thing can ever generate the volume of coverage that 911 can. That's because the very nature of such work is such that when you succeed you generate little or no news. The same thing applies to presidents. A president who wins a war is a hero. A president who prevents a war is just "a good foreign policy president".

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  144. Re:Excuses for even more defence spending? by archivis · · Score: 1

    You disgust me.

    --
    In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
  145. Re:Excuses for even more defence spending? by archivis · · Score: 1

    You disgust me as well. I've been living in Canada the past two years, going to school, and they have been most supportive.

    --
    In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
  146. The Security Firm Re:Chinese hackers are no pu by kbs · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the Security Firm is called the People's Liberation Army.

    --
    yours,
    kbs
  147. LATimes talks crap incessantly by halfelven · · Score: 1

    (subj)

  148. Wouldn't that be... by gnovos · · Score: 2

    "GET HERBAL VIAGLA"

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  149. Under-developed countries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. I am from an under-developed country, South Africa, and I do not want to move to the U.S. - and I don't envy the U.S. When a programmer can get arrested for giving a speech in the U.S., things are not all well. With the DMCA, the U.S. is becoming the 1984 of old. I'd rather live in an underdeveloped country in freedom than live in the U.S. as it is now.

  150. The CIA?? by 1001+0000 · · Score: 1


    Are any of you still taking the CIA seriously after they released this

    Use above link in moderation -- a slashdot effect on cia.gov could trigger a hail of nukes.

  151. Oh, the humanity! by gnovos · · Score: 2

    Yeah right, whatever. What possible reson would China have to do this? What do they get if they "win"? Is a few days (a week at the most) of clogger routers worth having trade restrictions imposed by the US and it's allies, decimating thier economy? Are a few delayed "joke of the day" emails worth having missles hurled at them evoporating thier cities? People don't start major international wars just to be mean, they do it when they can gain something. What can be gained from this?

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:Oh, the humanity! by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      clogger routers worth having trade restrictions imposed by the US and it's allies, decimating thier economy

      What many people don't realize when they say this is how closely tied the US economy is to China and eastern Asias. Do people realize how much we actually import from there? If there was a trade restriction put in place, it would hurt you as much as it hurts them. Just look at your computer in front of you...how much of that is made in Taiwan or China, etc. How about the clothes that you are wearing (look at the tag now) where is that made? How about the food imports? etc...

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    2. Re:Oh, the humanity! by gnovos · · Score: 2

      What many people don't realize when they say this is how closely tied the US economy is to China and eastern Asias. Do people realize how much we actually import from there? If there was a trade restriction put in place, it would hurt you as much as it hurts them. Just look at your computer in front of you...how much of that is made in Taiwan or China, etc. How about the clothes that you are wearing (look at the tag now) where is that made? How about the food imports? etc...

      What you say it true... BUT simply becuase we import so much from China doesn't mean that there aren't smaller countries ready to line up around the block waiting to get thier piece of the pie. Right now, we give huge concessions to China economically, but no becuase we have to. If China were suddenly out of the picture, it wouldn't be more than a week before all our little plastic American flags were stamped "Made in Chad" instead of "Made in China". Cheap labor is a easy to find in this world.

      On the other hand, from China's point of view, we are absolutly vital. If they aren't sellin thier laptops and printer cables to the US, then who are they going to sell to? Uganda? Iraq? Not likely. The "free world" is the only place that can afford all that stuff.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    3. Re:Oh, the humanity! by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2
      What you say it true... BUT simply becuase we import so much from China doesn't mean that there aren't smaller countries ready to line up around the block waiting to get thier piece of the pie. Right now, we give huge concessions to China economically, but no becuase we have to. If China were suddenly out of the picture, it wouldn't be more than a week before all our little plastic American flags were stamped "Made in Chad" instead of "Made in China". Cheap labor is a easy to find in this world.
      I don't think it's as easy as you make it out to be. One thing about capitalism is that companies are not owned by the government and are not run by the government. For them to operate as a single entity is almost a miracle. It comes at a great initial cost for a company to move their operations elsewhere. Do you think a company like Gap or Hanes is able to do something like that overnight? No. Ok, maybe it takes them a couple of weeks at best to do so. But think about the smaller companies. Not all companies out there that do business with foreign nations is a Fortune 100 company. A small T-shirt printing company in Omaha, Nebraska will not be able to do such a dramatic shift. Do you think the administration will take such a stance against the companies that support them? [Corporate lobbyist are quite powerful in DC]

      On the other hand, from China's point of view, we are absolutly vital. If they aren't sellin thier laptops and printer cables to the US, then who are they going to sell to? Uganda? Iraq? Not likely. The "free world" is the only place that can afford all that stuff.

      Do you think we are the _only_ consumers of east asian products? You don't think there are other nations out there that will buy the products? Think Japan, Taiwan, England, France, Saudi Arabia, etc..

      Look, the fact is, in the end, it will end up hurting the US more than it hurts China. China has a great amount of cheap labor and the total cost of living is significantly less than it is here. Are you willing to pay $5 more per shirt that you wear? Are you willing to pay $10 more per 100 pack of CDr? The American people as a whole is not happy to pay a few cents more at the gasoline pump nonetheless a few dollars more in other products.
      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    4. Re:Oh, the humanity! by gnovos · · Score: 2

      Think Japan, Taiwan, England, France, Saudi Arabia, etc..

      ALL ALLIES OF THE US.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  152. With all the spam we get from Taiwan and China by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 3, Funny

    I seriously doubt we'll notice any difference.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  153. Oh no. by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

    I hope they do not attack our cyber.
    We like it very much.

    --

    Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  154. Re:As an American who has lived in Taiwan for most by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

    The news in Japan is similar. One of the more popular foreign policy rags (Sapio) ran an "intelligence" report last week about Korea and China teaming up to conquer Japan.

    Riiight.

    --

    "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  155. This would gain them... what? by gnovos · · Score: 2

    What would be the gain of a world war or a surgical strike? They won't be conquering American soil, we'd nuke everything before that happened. They will be severly hurting themselves economically (The US economy is huge, and combined with it's allies, could make China a very unhappy camper). At best, they would get to act all smug and pat themselves on the back during the couple of days it takes to clear up the routers and bring back up the sites... but a pat on the back isn't particularly comfotring when you find your country engulfed in sanctions, frozen bank accounts, and global ill-will... not to mention the revenge cyber attacks!

    In fact, the revenge attacks will be particularly devistating, becuase America wouldn't be simply DDoSing, they would be breaking down firewalls and disseminating pro-democracy propaganda. As highly as the Chinese leaders think of thier little dictatorship, there is no way in hell they think they could win over the rest of the world to their cause just by spouting "Down with the Capatalists", but the reverse is very true. The free countries of the world could deal a very heavy blow simply by allowing their propaganda to flow freely in China.

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:This would gain them... what? by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      As highly as the Chinese leaders think of thier little dictatorship, there is no way in hell they think they could win over the rest of the world to their cause just by spouting "Down with the Capatalists", but the reverse is very true. The free countries of the world could deal a very heavy blow simply by allowing their propaganda to flow freely in China
      Wrong. Read more Chinese /. postings - many many people in China see paedophile sites blocked and think the Chinese Govt. is doing a good thing. They aren't aware of democratic sites being on that list as well. Even if they did they've been brainwashed by the Chinese non-liberal media elite to regard democracy websites = Klu Klux Klan websites, therefore it's good that they are blocked. Same as from Saudi Arabia "Sharia law is evil" websites.
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  156. Way to find the moral highground... by ToastyKen · · Score: 2
    A friend of mine is spending a few months in China teaching English. She even gives an open-mic style cultural exchange lecture every week, because the school is actively seeking to give their students a first-hand look at American values. (So closed-minded and totalitarian, eh?)

    Of course, she cannot see the digital photos I put up on my homepage because, presumably, my whole college is blocked by the Great Firewall. This very much annoys me. What this means, though, is that China is a complex country with both liberal and conservative elements. (*gasp!*) I like a lot of the progress these days, but I find their wanton blocking of any sites with opposing viewpoints really despicable.

    And here you are blocking off a whole country... Which side are you on, exactly?

  157. "War On Spam" becomes "War By Spam" by Cheesewhiz · · Score: 1
    I guess this explains all the spam I've been getting lately.

    Damned Reds, at it again!

    First they try to destroy the free world, and now SPAM! Hmmm...perhaps there's a causal link somewhere here...

    --

    -----
    "Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
  158. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by Squeeze+Truck · · Score: 2

    So he tells you he's leaving the US, and you respond with "get the fuck out?"

    Smaaaart.

    --

    "Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao

  159. Re:but Have you seen Russia? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    if you've seen Russia you couldn't be mad at them.. their country is still f*******d up for most parts. pitiful place... but cheap vodka, which makes me envy them.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  160. Obviously Prototype OS X by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    Mac running Unix? Hollywood was just a little ahead of its time!

  161. So the average school in the US by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    (e.g. MIT) has more IP addresses than a country with 1.2 billion people? I wonder who designed that setup :-)

    Of course the US would prefer all resources to be allocated in that manner, not just netblocks.

  162. Insightful? by blametheduck · · Score: 1

    It's very disturbing to see such an unqualified comment modded to "insightful".

    Chinese culture and politics are different and difficult to understand - agreed. But that's true for the USA from the european perspective as well. Sometimes.

    Ok, just put them on axis of evil list and switch the status flag to "enemy". I don't think that politics is binary-coded.

    1. Re:Insightful? by Glytch · · Score: 2

      It doesn't take a deep study of Chinese culture and politics to understand that driving over unarmed protesters with tanks or enforcing "one family, one child" laws is the mark of an authoritarian state.

    2. Re:Insightful? by blametheduck · · Score: 1

      You could add the suppression of religious freedom (Falun-Gon) and the occupation of Tibet as further marks of an authoritarian state.
      Yes, China has a long record of violations of human rights, but it's not a fascist state.

      When everybody's talking about black or white, it's important to remember that there is a lot of grey in between.

  163. Re:As an American who has lived in Taiwan for most by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    I thought that Japan imploded 2 years ago? And why would anyone want to attack Japan, it's not like they have any natural resources worth worrying about. Except schoolgirls, that is, but that seems to be a Japanese thing, anyway.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  164. Secure systems by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

    Didn't see this posted yet- everyone knows that all the really important gov systems are NOT on the Internet, right? And good luck getting into NIPRNET or SIPRNET. Of course, /. and uberpron.com will be down, but important gov systems won't be fux0red. Deciding whether this is good or bad thing I leave to the audience to decide.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  165. Doubtless you mean the People's Liberation Army. by Natestradamus · · Score: 1
    The Red Army belongs to Russia.

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke
  166. Your faith in the PLN is truly astounding by Natestradamus · · Score: 1
    First off, thier submarines are diesel powered. We'd hear them coming from miles away. Our navy's subs use the Mk48 ADCAP torpedo, which has a longer range than anything they've got, ergo, they lose.

    Next point, surface vessels. We actually got to see the inside of a few, back in the Clinton administration when things were so chummy. The insides of chinese ships are partitioned with plywood , can you believe it? One good hit and they'd burn like a boxkite!

    No, I don't think we have anything at all to worry about. Let 'em bring it, we could use the target practice. (And I mean that... our slogan should be, "We kill more of our own guys before 8am than the enemy does all day.")

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke
  167. unfair world by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    How is it "strange and devious"?

    Ahhh.. I must work for the CIA!

    By your logic, the fact that the CIA hasn't been well-represented by popular culture means that they haven't been getting much right.

    If that's the case, it's also correct that before the late 1950s, African-Americans were all bumbling servants, because that's how they were portrayed in popular culture.

    It would also stand to reason that because current popular culture lauds their achievements, WWF "wrestlers" are true heroes.

    I could keep going, but your argument is circular, Pedro. First you say the CIA gets all the praise, then you say that they don't because they're incompetent, but that doesn't matter, because they'll still get funding.

    It seems to me that your true argument is that the CIA is an evil organization that doesn't deserve funding, whether they're capable or not. If that's what you think, why not just say it?

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:unfair world by pmsr · · Score: 1

      I never said for instance that CIA gets all the praise. You really do seem to misread a lot and apply some creative liberty when quoting, so i wont try to do what time didn't for a good old pro like you. Just let me expand on my original post. As people who have some knowledge of how the information agency business works are aware, information agencies justify their existence in peace time based in three key points. First is that in the secret world they live in its hard to tell success from failure. Example in hand, we will never know if this CIA warning about China really made a difference. Second, is that failure can and probably will be attributed to an erroneous analysis to exact information given by the agency to the governments. And third is that the agencies could have given the right warnings if they had enough money. These three key points combined can be used to cut by the root any rational analysis to the activities of an information agency, thereby allowing all failures to be transformed in a justification for more money and faster expansion. This has been proved right since before the first world war, more exactly since 1909, date of the creation of the first information agency (in Great Britain, by the way).

      /Pedro

  168. in other news... by ajrs · · Score: 1

    China reports that the CIA might be planning an attack. Chinese officials point to the existence of a downed spy plane as evidence of CIA preparations.

  169. Re:Bushy da Clown, Hank da War Criminal, Dick da G by kz45 · · Score: 1

    Oh really? Perhaps you might like to trawl a little wider for a broader range of views before you so confidently make such an assertion.

    There may be cases of racism that placed some people in prison ( 1%), but saying that's the reason there are so many african-americans in the US prison system is just as narrow minded.

    I guess the reason there are any african-americans are in college is because of affirmative action.

  170. Take Your USA-Rose-Coloured Glasses Off by JLucien · · Score: 1

    I'm not a China supporter or a Communist, but the fact is that just because it's a bastard regime does not mean that the USA or anyone else has some divine-right to interfere.

    No matter what Americans think, the Chinese are not inept idiots and when the shit hits the fan, are as capable of wiping the US off the face of the earth just as the US can do the same to it.

    This "we could beat you up if we really wanted to" attitude is juvenile, naive, and will probably stop abruptly when the US is nuked, which is a fairly obvious ultimate goal for any terrorist organisation, of which there are many.

    And please, comparing Alexander The Great to Curious George is an insult of global proportions....

    --
    Audere est Facere
    1. Re:Take Your USA-Rose-Coloured Glasses Off by Mr.Intel · · Score: 2
      Excellent Troll! I salute you.

      No matter what Americans think, the Chinese are not inept idiots and when the shit hits the fan, are as capable of wiping the US off the face of the earth just as the US can do the same to it.

      The Chinese aren't inept, just different. More to the point, they see the American government as a bastard regime and feel it their divine right to interfere. Furthermore, not even *if* all 20 of their nukes made it to the US would the Americans be wiped off the face of the earth.

      And please, comparing Alexander The Great to Curious George is an insult of global proportions....

      If you are going to be so obvious in your trolling, you should try to bury it a little deeper in the thread...

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    2. Re:Take Your USA-Rose-Coloured Glasses Off by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "I'm not a China supporter or a Communist, but the fact is that just because it's a bastard regime does not mean that the USA or anyone else has some divine-right to interfere."

      That's debatable. Beijing has repeatedly and documentably persecuted minority groups as it sees fit. The current group of persecutees that makes the news the most are the Falun Gong sect. But they are far from being the only ones.

      If they are unable to defend themselves, why shouldn't we look to aid them?

      "the Chinese ... are as capable of wiping the US off the face of the earth just as the US can do the same to it.

      HAH! HAH! And again HAH!

      The United States is currently the world's only superpower. "Superpower" means that we can project our influence (be it political, economical, or martial) to any point on the globe at any time. All continents. All oceans. All countries on this planet have to deal with us in one way or the other. Last year proved that even 180 degrees of longitude isn't enough to escape us.

      The People's Republic of China is a regional power at best and will continue to be so in the forseeable future. Their economic influence may have some global reach, but their political power doesn't reach much beyond eastern Asia and their military influence literally ends at their borders. Their army is numerous but ill-equipped and inexperienced. Their aerospace industry has literally been purchased from foreign suppliers. Their surface fleet couldn't even properly invade the Spratleys. Their few submarines can be found with Geiger counters. And their intercontinental ballistic missiles number in the 20's. The People's Republic would be hard pressed to make their influence felt in the Alleutians, and even that wouldn't last more than a week. For at least the next few decades (if not the rest of the century), the only country that truly has the power to attack us in the way you're talking about is Russia.

      Being able to build a nuclear device is one thing. Being able to mass-produce reliable warheads on a large scale is something else entirely. Being able to build self-guided boosters capable of carrying said warheads and properly following a ballistic flightpath to a target on the other side of the world is orders of magnitude more difficult than either of those.

      "This "we could beat you up if we really wanted to" attitude is juvenile"

      Call it what you will, but it is realistic. Again, there is a reason why we are called a superpower.

      "will probably stop abruptly when the US is nuked, which is a fairly obvious ultimate goal for any terrorist organisation, of which there are many."

      A realistic terrorist-built device will have a yield of maybe 10-20 kilotons. It would be silly to expect there to be much more than 5 such devices built. Each bomb, if properly used, would probably kill ~20,000 each.

      Whether you believe it or not the US has shown a remarkable amount of self-restraint in dealing with Afghanistan. Public outcry against the attacks in the US was such that most people wouldn't have minded nuking Afghanistan. No need to ask for Pakistani airspace, no need to deal with the logistics of long-range bomber flights, no need to try to cooperate with an indigenous force, simply punch in some GPS coordinates and that would have been that. No line, no wait. It wouldn't have even made an appreciable dent in the US nuclear stockpile.

      Public opinion is currently at the point that, if there were a terrorist nuclear attack at any point in the near future, within a week at least one country would cease to exist out of shear principle. After a few years we will have rebuilt and be right back where we were before (New York's financial district was wiped out and yet we're the ones leading the economic recovery), while whatever hapless country on the other end of our retaliatory strike won't have anything left to rebuild with.

      "And please, comparing Alexander The Great to Curious George is an insult of global proportions..."

      I'm not. We're talking about George W. Bush here, not Lyndon B. Johnson. Bush's leadership technique avoids micromanagement like the plague and giving credit for the military victory to someone much higher than Pentagon brass or the folks at Langley would be hollow. Unlike just about Democrat president after Truman, Bush knows enough to stay out of their way and let them do what they do best.

  171. The Pot vs. The Kettle by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2



    T'is another classic case of the pot vs. the kettle.

    Funny why CIA hasn't mention the "Blondes" ?

    They are a group of cracker funded by CIA to whack havoc on China.

    They called themselves "Blondes" because they claimed that they've all dyed their hair blondes, since they hate the original color of their hair - black.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  172. Hmmm, sorry to nit pick but.. by inKubus · · Score: 2

    China:
    Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 200,886,946 (2001 est.)

    India:
    Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 164,410,461 (2001 est.)

    USA:
    Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)

    Fit for service:
    ~35,000,000

    And don't forget the rest of the world; we are outnumbered 20-one with just our most feared enemies. We mustn't forget that just because we have a little bit of water separating us from everyone else.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  173. Sanctioned attacks? by Mnementh1123 · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesnt China only have one ISP, and thats a state operated one? I may be wrong, not certain. But at any rate... surely if they have control of the sole ISP in their country, then they are responsible for any attacks originating from that network? Seems only logical to me. After all, if they didnt sanction the attacks (meaning the defacing of US sites and the like), then they would work to reduce/combat the terrorism.. After all, unknown terrorism enacted externally can easily swing about and become internal terrorism... unless of course, its sanctioned by the Chinese government. Just a thought.

  174. They dont even need nuke! by HanzoSan · · Score: 2

    All they really need is

    Ground troops, how will we stop billions of chinese people all running and attacking the whitehouse?

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:They dont even need nuke! by Beliskner · · Score: 1
      Ground troops, how will we stop billions of chinese people all running and attacking the whitehouse?
      Old news, read this article
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  175. Don't worry by ehiris · · Score: 2

    The only thing that could possibly happen is for everybody to see again how non future minded Microsofts OS Security is.

  176. US Gooberupment Conspiracy by jo42 · · Score: 1

    Fellow geeks, I see a conspiracy here. We the people are being mentally prepared for out war. Notice the blather about attacking Iraq. Now this article about being hacked by a bunch of SEMoFu's. Beware, you are slowly being brainwashed. Print this out, hide it, when war erupts, "I told you so!".

  177. CHINA is only good for warez by SilverStreak · · Score: 1

    the only reason why some people lik echina is cause you can go over there and get tons of cheap software...admit it!

  178. Diversion by Infonaut · · Score: 2
    I understood what you were originally saying about intelligence agencies justifying their own existence. Like any bureaucracy, of course intelligence agencies exist to perpetuate their own existence. That doesn't mean that they don't provide necessary services. You're ducking the question as to whether the United States needs an intelligence agency or not.

    I'm just curious as to your feelings on this, so I'll ask the question simply. Do you think the United States needs an intelligence agency (in its current form or in some other manifestation?).

    Also, the British may have been the first to create an "information agency" but the use of espionage has been systematically used by nation-states of all kinds since ancient India and potentially even earlier. Seems that many governments find information about threats to be valuable.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ