Slashdot Mirror
China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack?
theodp writes "While Wikileaks itself is under a DoS attack, details about the US State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks are starting to come out via the mainstream media. Among the most newsworthy, reports Techcrunch's Erick Schonfeld, is one set which deals with the massive computer attack on Google and other companies which was first revealed last January. According to the NY Times, some of the new leaked cables point directly at China's Politburo for instigating the original attacks, which should shed some more light on why the White House and State Department backed Google so vociferously at the time. Developing, as Drudge likes to say."
So the USA suppresses information that china's government engaged in illegal hacking, and the USA is behind the DDOS attack on wikileaks. Why can't China be behind it after a US agent tells a chinese agent what is happening.
I know because China is good and the USA is bad.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I think that hardly anyone is surprised that China's Politburo (a group of 24 people who oversee the Communist Party of China) was behind the hacking of the Chinese Google office computers. You can see the seriousness of the issue after reading Google's response to the hacking and their threat to pull out of China all together and also after reading the Department of the State's involvement in this issue. The Department of the State, and someone as high up as Hillary Clinton, getting involved in this issue shows how important this single hacking event was, and not just because Google is everyone's the current favorite company.
US asks China to explain Google hacking claims
The Chinese government has proven that they'll do anything to stop distribution of negative information about them. If they're behind the DDoS the goal probably isn't blacking out WikiLeaks... just suppressing it long enough that they can configure the "Great Firewall" to block it (content filters, etc).
It makes sense for a few reasons:
1. The Chinese government has already proven they're not above this.
2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.
3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.
There's also a good chance it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.
He is smart enough not to leak Russian secrets.
There is always someone who, after something is relieved, says "told you!" Well, one thing is to speculate, another is to have some [more or less] solid proof. Or are your speculations "good enough"?
If it's said in a private communication between diplomats, the chances are they believe it to be true themselves. Not to say that makes it unquestionably true, of course, but it does make it an awful lot more credible than the PR they dish out to the public. I give these documents a lot more credit than I would to public statements made by the US government, and I see no hypocrisy in that; I'd be interested to hear if you think otherwise.
I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.
The fact that he is still alive raises some questions, for me. WHY is he still alive if what he had to leak was as important as has been said? Was the information not as significant as we have been told? Is the CIA really off their game, and not capable of clandestine actions anymore?
The US government knows what Assange knows, they say him divulging it will endanger security, yet they don't stop him? Is he a necessary demon, needed for the future of their security theater? Something about this saga just doesn't add up.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
The US government has a known leaker who's talented at personally discrediting himself and deals primarily in proof of widely-known information that's humiliating (sometimes for our rivals rather than us, see this story!) but of low operational value. He also leaks to the public rather than foreign security services, and gives them a month or two for preemptive damage control.
I'm sure he's not exactly in great graces, but the terrible PR of him coming down with a sudden case of the dead would quite possibly outweigh that of everything he's leaked. And then who would they watch, and how would they be able to see leaks coming just by keeping a pet reporter or two at the Times and the Guardian?
Are you really surprised that diplomatic cables between US diplomats express a "US world view"?
That would be an act of war.
Killing a citizen is just espionage and will get you in a big of hot water.
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be? If this happened to any of several dozen other countries Assange would be dead already, and there is no doubt that he would be dead if the CIA were ordered to make it so.
Actually, I'm surprised some other country hasn't had him killed just to place blame on the US.
Better known as 318230.
I suspect I might disagree with a more detailed explanation of your viewpoint, but I vehemently disagree with the anonymous use of mod points to beat you down with a Troll mod, simply because the moderator disagrees with you.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I think this tactic is known as 'running cover'. Assange knows that someone has to be the focal point for the ogranisation, to make contact with media reps and various others in order to ensure the responsible dissemination of the data. Doing so allows a great many others to work quietly, undisturbed in the background. Say what you like about his motivation, he's chosen that role. I'd argue that, as someone who believes more in daylight than shadows, he's using the spotlight to keep himself out of harm's way.
Sure. This actually is one of the largest leaks of information in modern history. It's sensational in its very essence. Given that wikileaks' reason for being is to disseminate leaked information as effectively as possible, advance press is perfectly understandable.
Great idea. How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable media organisations in the Western world? How about giving them months of prep time, so they could conduct analysis. How about -shocking, I know- even telling the affected agencies what was about to be released and offering them the opportunity to assist in the redaction process? That's exactly what they did.
Now, there's no way a government could be seen to be negotiating with them, so this might be seen as grandstanding, but who knows what contacts might have been made behind the scenes? (Well, wikileaks, of course, but... you get what I'm saying.)
Indeed they are. And indeed they have.
You can characterise what they do as attention-whoring if you like. The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible on the data they're releasing. If you suffer from this process, you won't be glad about it. I can accept that.
I have friends who were directly affected by information divulged to wikileaks some years ago. While I'm still angry at those who so cynically used wikileaks to release context-free data that wrongly created some very nasty implications, I don't blame wikileaks for releasing the information. That's just what they do.
In fact, I'd rather see wikileaks do it than others. While they're occasionally guilty of editorialising about their data, at least they release all of it, providing others with the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Most media organisations do not do this. They run with what they think will lead, and leave the rest by the roadside.
I don't always like the results of what wikileaks does, but at least they are exactly what the claim to be.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
No, killing him would make him the message, and that would be worth something.
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be?
Hmm, is that the peevish whine of self-pity I hear there?
America has dispensed heavy-handed criticism out to just about everybody over the years; it is only fair that you guys get some back, I think. But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised - in fact, I think it is the duty of a friend to tell you when you are getting things wrong. Your friends - and you have many - wish you well and expect you to do better than just scraping the bottom. In other words, have a some pride and show a bit of dignity.