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."
Hrm... an alternate headline might be: "Is the United States behind the DDoS attack on WikiLeaks?"
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I forgot to *duck*.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Well I guess then that the earlier mentioned possibility that CIA is behind WikiLeaks also could be true. It is extremely wild theory but these days nothing about how the U.S. government and it's intelligence agencies work couldn't surprise me.
Old news, folks!
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
means it's true?
So this means that Wikileaks is an evil organization jeopardizing lives and setting back the cause of freedom and democracy, since that's what the American government been saying? Just like how Osama and the Taliban were freedom fighters against the "evil empire" Soviets and Saddam was a moderate secular leader who was the bulwark against the evil Iranian mullahs back in the 1980's?
Accepting this as truth is Western/American hypocrisy at its finest. As usual, people here will believe something they want to be true, because they hate China and hate the fact that it is no longer an impoverished third-world country but instead is an emerging power capable of competing against the Americans on many fronts, logical consistency be damned.
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.
For such an embarrassment these leaks do go some way to promoting the US world view, or is that just editing from the media outlets. Examples such as many middle eastern counties (Saudi, Jordan and Egypt etc) urging US to bomb Iran, as well as the links below
Iraq document leaks show US forces found WMD after invasion - http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
Wikileaked documents normalise Iraq civilian death toll at 'massive' 66,000
is that 3 ddos attacks going at once?
at this rate the whole idea of a cyberwar is much less idiotic?
warning pointless sig
I know why. Because Slashdot is full of irrational China-haters.
This post asserts one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Why would we engineer a DDoS to block release of AMERICAN GOVERNMENT documents, which no matter what it says, we can easily explain away by saying it's just American propaganda, because that's exactly what these documents are? State Department communications are American propaganda directed toward other countries essentially. We welcome the release of these documents, because they make the Americans look worse, and thus us look better, and the Americans are taking heavy handed actions against Wikileaks and Assange, which makes them hypocrites if they then try to complain about our actions against say the Falun Gong.
But no, it's always China's fault. China is the new bogeyman. I suppose it makes the simpletons here on Slashdot feel better.
The most newsworthy item is that war with Iran is apparently inevitable. Who cares about Google hacking.
I find that a bit of an extraordinary claim, though not in itself unrealistic. Where's the evidence?
Everyone seems to dislike Assange's approach to public relations. But then again, how many people know/knew Anna Politkovskaya? Assange seems to be quite the media's darling and whatever, but that might be essential for his own safety.
Just search for cables about Iran: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks It becomes clear pretty soon that most countries in the region are far most hostile to Iran that I ever knew before (including words like existential threat and direct urging by a number of countries for the US to strike, bunch of leaders call Iran evil and a fascist state) and that Israel will definitely not be willing to live with nuclear Iran and that apparently Iran is not negotiating in good faith and is only buying time until it has enough material for a bomb. Unless Iran backs down, I don't see how that does not lead to a war.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
This is the most surprised I have been all year!
Sure, it's nice to have reliable confirmation, but still, this was kind of an obvious one.
They need to find some to give him a code red
unlike the last wikileak about Iraq, this one is not mentioned by china's own: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english2010/
The US changes president every four years, and each time has a roughly 50% chance of a new party taking the office. It's approach to Iran is 'put it off until it becomes the other sides's problem.' There isn't any nice and tidy solution. The US doesn't have the manpower to occupy Iran now, not while holding Afganistan and Iraq, so there are really only two options: Precision attacks on military facilities and anywhere that works on the bomb program (likely to force Iran into a counterattack, this forcing the use of the second approach anyway) or just bombing every government structure back into the stone age - thus removing the military threat, at the expense of a massive humanitarian crisis. Either way, both major parties would rather the other one be in charge when the order goes out.
Assassination of Julian Assange wouldn't accomplish anything. He's just the messenger.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
UAE prince fears 'logic of war' (February 9, 2010):
The UAE leadership sees Iran as its primary external threat, and one that is existential in nature. Like much of the international community, the UAE finds the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons unacceptable and thinks this eventuality would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least as worrying to MbZ are Iran's aspirations for regional hegemony by support for terrorist proxies (Hizballah, HAMAS, possibly underground organizations in the Arab Gulf countries). MbZ is skeptical that Iran can be convinced to end its nuclear weapons program, and is not convinced that the international community will adopt tough sanctions. In other words, he sees the logic of war dominating the region, and this thinking explains his near obsessive efforts to build up the UAE's armed forces.
[...]
MbZ's main message to us during his September visit was that we needed to be better coordinated for Iran contingencies. High level engagement by CENTCOM planners have helped to address this concern, but he believes we have made less progress in addressing what he sees as the slow pace of deliveries of US security assistance and he is still worried that he does not have enough equipment in place to defend his people when war with Iran breaks out. (And for MbZ it is a matter of when, not if.) We have repeatedly presented to his staff the various explanations for what he perceives as delays, but he remains unconvinced that we are addressing his concerns as a matter of priority.
UAE fret over Iranian meddling (February 22, 2010):
The UAE views Iran as a huge problem that goes far beyond nuclear capabilities. Iranian support for terrorism is broader than just Hamas and Hizballah. Iran has influence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, the Eastern Province of KSA, and Africa (AbZ mentioned Nigeria specifically). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez have close, cooperative ties. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the expeditionary aspect of its foreign policy will become ever more challenging for neighboring states.
[...]
Lowey asked what AbZ thought about tougher sanctions against Iran and how the UAE can help with China. AbZ said the US and its allies "have to decide how to stop Iran" and that the UAE was surprised at the Chinese attitude. AbZ noted the Emiratis and the Saudis have spoken to the Chinese, and the UAE expressed a willingness to expand its energy ties (Note: AbZ seemed to be indicating that this was intended as a carrot, but he acknowledged the difficulty of supplanting an Iran-China trade relationship that reached $50 billion last year. End Note.)
[...]
In response to questions from members of Congress, AbZ said that if Iran goes nuclear others in the region will move forward on the same track and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty will completely break down. He said a crisis or confrontation in the region would create oil supply problems worldwide. 14 million barrels a day pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That said, he noted that the US and UAE militaries have plans to keep Hormuz clear.
US steps up pressure on Turkey over Iran (February 25, 2010):
Burns strongly urged Sinirlioglu to support action to convince the Iranian government it is on the wrong course. Sinirliolgu reaffirmed the GoT's opposition to a nuclear Iran; however, he registered fear about the collateral impact military action might have on Turkey and contended sanctions would unite Iranians behind the regime and harm the opposition. Burns acknowledged Turkey's exposur
Examples such as many middle eastern counties (Saudi, Jordan and Egypt etc) urging US to bomb Iran
Not surprising, really. Relations between the majority Sunni Arab countries and Iran have always been tense and they would loathe the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran.
Well, western governments wouldn't reveal any DDoS capability they might happen to have with so trivial a project. Sure, these document leaks are somewhat embarrassing for the U.S. and potentially other governments, but they don't elevate the importance of wikileaks to that level. Western governments, at least, will pursue a variety of legal and other pressures, perhaps some unjustified, unjust, and even economically brutal. However, a DDoS capability would be considered a secret and important asset at this stage of the game, one worth protecting beyond the mid level bureaucratic machinations which are revealed in the State Department cables and emails.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Diplomats are sometimes pawns or go pieces. Depends upon the game. Also what is at risk. It is better for diplomats to not be told something, or to be told a half truth or lie than factual information. Less security problems if the diplomat turns double agent, or is retained for questioning or the eventual human slip up. Reports from diplomats to their home country, may contain some factual information, but is usually spun and twisted. Again it would depend on the assignment. Negotiations usually contain good information. Reports on political activities and observations of others negotiations usually contain sparse data or outright misinformation from the other parties. So... I am really hesitant to accept these documents as credible. Diplomats are like politicians. I don't trust what politicians say.
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.
The Leaker might not be a U.S. government employee, or even citizen. It might be a fifteen year old kid with a botnet that happened to get a few lucky strikes and upload stuff from a bunch of Pentagon and State Department hard drives.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Oh, it's unlikely that these leaks will much damage the U.S. Leaks of these types of mid level bureaucratic decision making processes were inevitable as soon as the federal government (and foreign governments) standardized on Microsoft Windows, and the accompanying plague of Windows-only viruses, trojans, botnets and worms. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened earlier.
The more interesting question is how the obsession with secrecy damages the national interests of the U.S. It's not at all clear that our current national obsession with secrecy is helping us. Notice that it has a certain "run amok" quality to it: Top Secret America
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Interesting post, but hobbled by a lack of accounting for Syria.
I first heard rumor not about a Syrian program in 1994, it was emphasized by the CIA (2003), and the Israelis (2007).
The reason you aren't hearing about it is because Damascus is not the oldest continually occupied city on earth by chance. Furthermore, their Jordanian counterparts have a penchant for reaffirming covenants with the U.S. & Israel, performing economic due-diligence, sending their children to American Universities (even their presidents!!), and generally being sane and available to Western actors.
Any belief that Syria and Jordan aren't at least ready to go back-to-back if the Middle East disintegrates is unrealistic.
Obviously you're not reading the discussion in which you've elected to participate, let alone source materials and fine articles. If you had, you would know that the surprises are the support for the "U.S. world view" coming from surprising sources, like other countries in the middle east, who agree that Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is a very serious threat to world security.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Your rant doesn't map (assuming the Slashdot system is showing me the parent post you actually replied to.)
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
I first heard rumor not about a Syrian program in 1994, it was emphasized by the CIA (2003), and the Israelis (2007).
Keep in mind that the Israelis bombed it in 2007. And they did so by completely compromising one of Russia's most advanced air defense systems. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Syria is still working on its program, but evidence seems to indicate that they suffered a big set back. But yes, you do have a point about Syria being fairly sane by Middle East standards.
Is it any wonder Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are afraid? They are well aware that once their natural resources out, they will be abandoned by the US. And when they fall away from US' grace, they will most likely face devastation. And for a reason, and they know it. There's even a Saudi saying, 'My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel', uttered by a Sheikh.
Is it me or does the world look more and more like some kid's Civ game from another dimension? A word of wisdom to the Chinese: hack Google all you want, just don't get too ambitious and start building a spaceship to Alpha Centauri, and doom us all to the endgame.
If Wikileaks was not an intelligence front then I am sure the US could easily claim copyright/IP ownership of material being distributed by them and block/destroy their presence online. Seriously anyone that believes Wikileaks is the real McCoy is a twit of the lowest order.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Didn't anyone tell you that you're only supposed to use that "blame America first" language when a Republican is in the White House? If you don't rescind your statement, I'm gonna tell all your freeper friends that you're an Obama supporter. :P
I can't believe this! George Bush was right all along and the media suppressed the story! Only a massive, international socialist conspiracy could explain this!!!!!!!11!!1!oneone
Yeah, the blister agents were discovered and reported by the media. The chemicals had so degraded in potency that Saddam would have had to get American troops to agree to have it rubbed on them, and even then in most cases they would have had a nasty rash. If that's your justification for starting a war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, you have a very low bar for justifying that sort of thing.
Was "China" (ie somebody in China) behind the attack on Google? Perhaps; all governments at some level do this kind of things.
But I don't think this is anything like the main story to extract from this leak; which is much more about what American government and diplomats think, privately, about everybody else. Very revealing stuff, I think, which confirms what we all have had our suspicions about.
In their defence I'll say that what you think in private is often much less refined than what you end up saying or doing, so perhaps we shouldn't judge them too harshly.