Richard Clarke: All Major U.S. Firms Hacked By China

You don't say... by betterunixthanunix · 2012-03-27 06:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, it is not as though the US uses its own signals intelligence agency to spy on foreign businesses and pass R&D secrets to domestic firms...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:You don't say... by durrr · 2012-03-27 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

yes but the US government is the good guys. Haven't you heard?
Everyone else is the bad guys.
And if we have to lie a bit to make the US government look better, then it's for a good cause.
Now shut the fuck up before your ass is NDAAed
Re:You don't say... by wisty · 2012-03-27 06:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Also, were it not for western industrial espionage against China, we wouldn't have paper or porcelain or tea.
The US doesn't steal commercial know-how because they already have plenty. China is decades behind (in some areas), and can benefit a lot from acquiring foreign IP.
In fact, China's subsidies of industrial inputs (land, energy, water, steel, etc) are there to drag in foreign manufacturing. Want to guess why they want everything made in China? It's so they can figure out how to make it themselves.
It's a hell of a lot better than invading resource-rich countries to try to build up your industrial base. And if no-one ever stole secrets, we'd still all be in the dark ages.
Re:You don't say... by na1led · 2012-03-27 06:26 · Score: 1

I want access to all the X-Files!

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:You don't say... by marnues · 2012-03-27 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Given the level of understanding you displayed, it'd probably be best to not vote until you've spent more time understanding politics. If someone is telling you political information, it is skewed. Seek it out for yourself, such as both candidates stance on war, specifically Iran. You may find they are both masterfully playing their hands without actually wanting to bomb them.
Re:You don't say... by marnues · 2012-03-27 06:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Also, we expect our corporations to do their own espionage.
Re:You don't say... by cpu6502 · 2012-03-27 06:36 · Score: 1

You mean they're lying to get elected. Yes I am aware of that possibility; especially since both men have a history of flip-flopping. No need for the insult against my intelligence.
And Obama has already demo'd that he is as bomb happy. Continue the Irag/Afghan War even though he promised to end them by Dec 31, 2009. And then start new wars: Bomb Yemen. Bomb Libya. Bomb Iran is next (unless somebody stops him).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:You don't say... by Dhalka226 · 2012-03-27 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does it bother anybody else that the source in question is as bad as it is?
I looked at the source for the claim that the US has engaged in industrial espionage, which points to a 194 page report from a European commission and which the person who made the claim is clearly hoping was too long for anybody to read.
The only point relevant to the claim is this:

The United States readily admits that some of its intelligence service's activities also concern industry. This includes, for example, monitoring of the observance of economic sanctions, compliance with rules on the supply of weapons and dual use goods, developments on commodities markets and events on the international financial markets. The rapporteur's findings are that the US services are not alone in their involvement in these spheres, nor is there any serious criticism of this.
In other words, the industrial espionage they know about is something they aren't even willing to criticize.
Further along, under a big heading "Is ECHELON suitable for industrial espionage?" they go on to explain that if it finds any, it was an accident.

The strategic monitoring of international telecommunications, can produce useful information for industrial espionage purposes, but only by chance. In fact, sensitive industrial information is primarily to be found in the firms themselves, which means that industrial espionage is carried out primarily by attempting to obtain the information via employees

(their emphasis)
In other words, they took two paragraphs and three bullet points to say "no, they wouldn't bother using ECHELON for this."
It is followed by a chart of cases of industrial espionage (with no explanation as to how they arrived at any of the entries), and the only entry that may relate to ECHELON (rather than using an agent or taking photographs) is a 1994 NSA action where they intercepted calls and faxes related to how Airbus was bribing Saudi Arabian officials to win a contract. Those dastardly Americans! It's so rude to use spy on the competition when they're just trying to bribe somebody. Gosh! And yet still, I'm just supposing this entry is in any way related to ECHELON since it makes no such claim.
I am not claiming the US does not engage in this kind of behavior; they probably do, and for all I know they've been caught red-handed at it too. But this report is not proof of that, even if we were to take Wikipedia as a great source of anything to begin with.
Re:You don't say... by cpu6502 · 2012-03-27 06:45 · Score: 1

>>>Given the level of understanding you displayed, it'd probably be best to not vote until you've spent more time understanding politics
Juvenile. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Time to put-away the insults.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:You don't say... by interval1066 · 2012-03-27 06:47 · Score: 1

China is decades behind (in some areas), and can benefit a lot from acquiring foreign IP.
So... stealing IP from the US and giving it to China is some kind of Robin Hood Move?

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:You don't say... by jeffmeden · 2012-03-27 06:48 · Score: 2

Yeah, it is not as though the US uses its own signals intelligence agency to spy on foreign businesses and pass R&D secrets to domestic firms...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

So the two big claims are one of uncovering a bribery ring (hard to say that it is nefarious to report a crime) and one of passing along secrets about wind power despite the company in question filing a patent for said technology some two years before they were "gifted" this information?
Sounds *just like* the endless parade of reports about china-based attackers specifically breaking in to US and international firms in search of IP. /sarcasm
Re:You don't say... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:49 · Score: 1

While I believe every sovereign power does that sort of stuff, citing an article about a cold war era technology like Echelon really doesn't add anything to your case.
Cold war era technology? Echelon is still functioning, it is actively upgraded and the European Parliament made recommendations as late as 2001 to public and private EU organizations that they heavily increase their use of encryption technology and generally tighten security to defend against Echelon and other US industrial espionage efforts.
Re:You don't say... by Pulzar · 2012-03-27 06:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

especially since both men have a history of flip-flopping
How about saying they "changed their mind", or "made a different decision" instead of "flip-flopping"? Why is it bad that somebody in a position of authority changes their mind in light of new information? Don't you want them to do that? Or do you think that if someone thought that something is bad 4 years ago, they should do everything they can to end it today, even if they now believe it's a bad decision?
You have to learn and adapt as you go along to be successful. We should be looking for that in leaders, instead of calling them "flip-floppers".

--
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Re:You don't say... by dougisfunny · 2012-03-27 07:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or how about saying "they lied to get elected" since that is the most likely scenario.

--
This is not the funny you're looking for.
Re:You don't say... by jd2112 · 2012-03-27 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

I want access to all the X-Files!
You can probably view them ask on Hulu and/or Netflx.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:You don't say... by crazyjj · 2012-03-27 07:19 · Score: 3, Informative

A good leader never lets reality interfere with politics.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:You don't say... by dargaud · 2012-03-27 07:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, my beer went through my nose when I read "Diplomatic, military stuff but not commercial competitor stuff". The US has been proven over and over again to have used its very many 'intelligence' agencies (1271, un-freaking-believable) to gather commercial information for the express interest of private US companies. It's not even the stuff of conspiracy theorists as they've been documented by the victim countries themselves.

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Re:You don't say... by jdgeorge · 2012-03-27 07:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes but changing your mind is a slow process, not something that happens in less than a year.
If a president can't change his mind about something in less than a year, he was not qualified to be president. The chief executive needs to be able to respond to changes, not be blindly attached to an existing policy in the face of new information.
Re:You don't say... by jythie · 2012-03-27 07:42 · Score: 1

Not only that, but there have been historical cases of the US government overthrowing entire governments at the rest of US companies. There were quite a few nasty cases of agricultural importers wanting to keep near slave labor and using the CIA or military to get rid of reform governments.

I will take China's tactic of hacking the US's tacit of assassination (character or literal) and overthrowing any day.
Re:You don't say... by cpu6502 · 2012-03-27 07:45 · Score: 1

I was talking about a major policy change, like deciding to be anti-abortion and flipping to pro-abortion. Or anti-GM Bailouts to pro-GM bailouts. That's not a trivial change that happens in less then 12 months.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:You don't say... by khallow · 2012-03-27 07:45 · Score: 1

Why is it bad that somebody in a position of authority changes their mind in light of new information?
It becomes flip-flopping when the "new information" is the composition of your audience. Romney and Obama are both notorious for saying what their audience wants to hear.
Re:You don't say... by poity · 2012-03-27 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now that brings up the question: How does /. reconcile its popularly held belief that people are by and large lazy/stupid/ignorant with its other popularly held belief that people deserve the truth from politicians and a say in policy?

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:You don't say... by lcam · 2012-03-27 08:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

I am not claiming the US does not engage in this kind of behavior; they probably do, and for all I know they've been caught red-handed at it too. But this report is not proof of that, even if we were to take Wikipedia as a great source of anything to begin with.
Masterfully put.
In fact, there is no proof the US does not engage in this kind of behavior. Since the general presumption is that they do engage in these types of activities, to point out equivalent Chinese activities and call it "unlawful" or in someway try to take the high moral ground in regard to the issue is what we know of as hypocrisy.
Whether or not such activities are negative, as far as the human race is concerned, is questionable. Especially if you observe US and Chinese activities from a culturally relative (ie free of political motives) standpoint. Perhaps we can all agree that whatever conclusion governments may make regarding the issue of espionage, whether it be commercial in nature of not, is always based on some political motivation. In this case maybe the US wants more polarization of US citizens so they may (who knows) more easily identify who are the terrorists.
Re:You don't say... by SilentStaid · 2012-03-27 08:25 · Score: 1

... and bomb Iran...
The Beach Boys started it...
Re:You don't say... by SilentStaid · 2012-03-27 08:30 · Score: 2

Let me get this straight, you're actually criticizing a member of a democratic republic for attempting to model their stances after public opinion?! Say it isn't so!!!

The problem is when those opinions aren't followed through on because of private or corporate interests.
Re:You don't say... by Pulzar · 2012-03-27 08:53 · Score: 2

Why not? 12 month is a lot of freakin' time... Maybe GM had a very shitty plan on what to do with the bailout, and then 10 months later they came up with a much better plan.
I would argue that one should be able to change their mind, *especially* on major policies. They have the biggest impact, so make damn sure that you're doing the right thing.

--
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Re:You don't say... by St.Creed · 2012-03-27 08:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Chinese haven't privatized their companies in the sense that they are separate from the state: a lot of companies are part of the state and the army actually runs many companies since they have to create their own budget (and food). A self sufficient army is a big tenet of the Chinese strategy. That's what makes this a bit more unpleasant than otherwise because normally, there would be an independent arbiter reigning in the companies. No such thing in China. The arbiter is playing too.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Re:You don't say... by St.Creed · 2012-03-27 08:58 · Score: 2

Glad to see the "Hey I'm done stealing so you all need to stop too" defense is alive and kicking too.
Let's just say that the biggest thief on the block is hardly a fit epitome of moral outrage.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Re:You don't say... by St.Creed · 2012-03-27 08:59 · Score: 1

You can't access Hulu from outside the states, you insensitive clod!

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Re:You don't say... by grumpyman · 2012-03-27 09:34 · Score: 1

This doesn't apply to the political system. It's considered "bad" because voters can only change their mind every 4 years.
Re:You don't say... by grumpyman · 2012-03-27 09:37 · Score: 1

...plus we got to buy cheap goods.
Re:You don't say... by interkin3tic · 2012-03-27 09:39 · Score: 1

Why is it bad that somebody in a position of authority changes their mind in light of new information?
The answer, for those of you wondering, is that it's politically bad, not actually a bad quality for a political leader. It's politically bad because the other guy, who was choosing a position based off of dogma, lobbyists, polling, or other methods that have nothing to do with truth or what is best for the country, will then use that as vindication of his position (no matter which way the change went) and will use it to paint the flip flopper as weak. Which doesn't appeal to the large contingent of voters who have no idea WHAT should be done, they just want someone who sounds like they know what they're doing.

Same thing with wanting to avoid wars. Somehow, not wanting to gamble with the lives of other people over some economic question is cowardice. Promising to commit war crimes against people who are different from us, that on the other hand is what we like to see in a leader. After two wars that left us broke and decreased our security, we still haven't learned our lesson.

It's a miracle we didn't get into a nuclear war with Russia. I don't think the JFK administration could have navigated through the Cuban missile crisis as they did without Armageddon with the political climate we have now.
Re:You don't say... by khallow · 2012-03-27 09:41 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight, you're actually criticizing a member of a democratic republic for attempting to model their stances after public opinion?!
Remember with flip-flopping the stance doesn't outlive the speech. That's the problem.

The problem is when those opinions aren't followed through on because of private or corporate interests.
"Follow through" is the key phrase here. With flip-flopping there is little to no follow through.
Re:You don't say... by DarkOx · 2012-03-27 10:23 · Score: 2

I think they key is it you change your mind on major policy plank you ought to be able to explain what brought you around to this new way of thinking. A new fact that was discovered, an experience you had, something of substance. Adults ( people who have formed their opinions) don't just change your mind one day about phisophical and ethical issues like individual liberties or abortion. Something happens.
With politicians that something all to often is wining the election, and deciding they don't need to telling those dumb rubes their voting base what they want hear anymore. At least that is what I have to assume it is when a better explanation is not provided and it rarely is.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:You don't say... by smithmc · 2012-03-27 10:28 · Score: 2

Now that brings up the question: How does /. reconcile its popularly held belief that people are by and large lazy/stupid/ignorant with its other popularly held belief that people deserve the truth from politicians and a say in policy?
The two are not contradictory. Even if the people are by and large lazy, stupid, and ignorant, they still deserve to hear the truth from their elected officials, and as long as this is still nominally a democracy, they are still entitled to a say in policy. Don't like it? You could try North Korea for a while, see if you like it better over there...

--
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Re:You don't say... by fullback · 2012-03-27 11:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

The U.S. government tapped phones of Japanese car makers to pass information to U.S. unions for bargaining. They stole manufacturing secrets from a German wind turbine company to give to a U.S. competitor. They stole data and passed on trade secrets to U.S. call phone companies.
This Richard Clarke is either incredibly naive or a bold liar. I would say the latter, since it seems to be a standard practice in Washington D.C.
Re:You don't say... by Thing+1 · 2012-03-27 12:38 · Score: 1

Same thing with wanting to avoid wars. Somehow, not wanting to gamble with the lives of other people over some economic question is cowardice.
I heard on NPR the other day that soldiers who fit the definition of PTSD will cost the government 1.5 million dollars, as they live out the rest of their lives, on average.
I also heard, in the same story, that there is an army base which has recently, upon re-review, disqualified 40% of their PTSD active and veterans, ostensibly to reduce expenses -- except that they were accusing many soldiers of fraud, soldiers who will likely become enraged and commit crimes that they otherwise would not have if we were to have treated our injured soldiers appropriately.
The story that I get out of it is this: does the economic benefit of our going to war (because every war is about resources) outweigh the cost to our economy, in terms of citizens and increased crime? Ignoring the latter, imagine if "the real cost of war" was 1.5 million times the number of soldiers a government put in the theater.
Well, actually, if we put every citizen in that would be 300 million, and the cost would be 4.5 x 10^14. Which is 450,000,000,000,000, or 450 trillion. The cost of the war is at least 3.7 trillion and counting, according to a quick search, and there are 200,000 soldiers deployed (this of course does not include the costs of the civilian companies/mercenaries like Blackwater/Xe); 200k times 1.5m is 300,000,000,000; which is 300 billion, or a thousandth of the cost of the war. That's "the cost of the war so far" but it's been 11 years, make the math easy and call it 10, and we're still a factor of 100 away from the actual cost. So I suppose adding another 1.5 million per soldier isn't much compared to the cost of all that steel and fuel.
My point, however, was going to be this: the government should take into account all of the damage to the economy that going into war will bring: soldiers coming home to cheating spouses; soldiers coming home with PTSD and breaking up their marriages; increased crime; and increased contempt for a government which acts like a bully, by citizens and foreigners alike. And since the comparative cost of veteran care is so negligible (1%), why should we attempt to deny 40% of the people who had already had doctors testify that they needed treatment? It's sad.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:You don't say... by jd2112 · 2012-03-27 14:40 · Score: 1

You can't access Hulu from outside the states, you insensitive clod!
Nothing that a proxy can't fix.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:You don't say... by garyebickford · 2012-03-27 15:44 · Score: 1

Having seen your sig, I had to know - what is the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs?
So, I assumed a 747-8F, the latest freighter version. Payload is 148 tons, volume capacity is 21,347 cubic feet.
CDs weigh an average of 0.58 ounces, plus 0.11 ounces for a paper sleeve for a total weight of 0.69 ounces or 0.043 lbs.
A CD is 1.2 mm (0.047... inches) thick, the sleeve is about 2/250 or 0.008 inches thick, and the CD is 4.7 inches in diameter for a total volume of 0.96 cubic inches or 0.000555 cu. ft. I ignored the extra width and height of the sleeve.
So, in sum, ignoring other packaging issues, I figure the 747 can carry up to about 6,863,768 CDs by weight, or about 38,486,563 CDs by volume. Weight is thus the limiting factor. Using 750 MB CDs, that provides a packet size of 5,147,826,087 MB, at an average flight speed of 480 knots(552 mph, 889 km/hr). If we ignore loading and other ground time, and assume a typical flight from US east coast to US west coast of 3000 miles, that's about a 5.6 hour, or 20048 second flight. So we have a bandwidth of about 5147826087/20048 = 254234 MB/second or 1.94 terabits/second, within an order of magnitude given the sloppy estimating.
Not bad, but the latency really sucks. BTW - I note that the fastest internet II speeds are cited as 272,000 terabit-meters per second. So, using 5000000 meters (3000 miles), I figured that the 747 can do 9,698,256 terabit-meters per second, about 35 times faster.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:You don't say... by Raenex · 2012-03-27 18:00 · Score: 3, Informative

And Obama has already demo'd that he is as bomb happy. Continue the Irag/Afghan War even though he promised to end them by Dec 31, 2009.
You are mistaken. He did not promise to end the war in Afghanistan. In fact, it was just the opposite. He promised to wind down the war in Iraq and ramp up the war in Afghanistan. That's what happened.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/
You have this habit of just making up shit. Try doing some fact checking before you post.
Re:You don't say... by hellop2 · 2012-03-28 02:37 · Score: 1

How can you accuse us Americans of stealing something if we own it now, hmmmmmmm?

You can't steal something that you own. Think about it. ~

--
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
Re:You don't say... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-03-28 05:05 · Score: 1

Oh bullshit. Echelon is an extremely outmoded and limited technology that has essentially no current relevance.
As far as the EP report, take a look at the news of the time:
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-07/tech/echelon.report.idg_1_echelon-european-parliament-report-claims?_s=PM:TECH
Re:You don't say... by cpu6502 · 2012-03-28 05:05 · Score: 1

According to future President Romney..... our chief bad guy is Russia. What a dip! Both him and Obama are trying to revive the cold war (probably because it's profitable). Oh and bomb Iran. Looks like I won't be voting for either of these tools come November.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:You don't say... by gerddie · 2012-03-28 10:11 · Score: 1

Also, were it not for western industrial espionage against China, we wouldn't have [...] porcelain [...].
As far as I know Meissen porcelain was developed without industrial espionage.

Having worked for a few firms... by grasshoppa · 2012-03-27 06:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Having worked for a few firms in the IT division, I can say this isn't surprising...at all. Between clueless management and the inability to grasp IT's value and contribution to a company, it'd have been news if they HADN'T been cracked wide open.

When you mix in outsourcing, the argument can almost be made that this is exactly what these firms WANT to happen.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!

Re:Having worked for a few firms... by grasshoppa · 2012-03-27 06:13 · Score: 1

*is, not isn't. It's one of those days.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 06:37 · Score: 5, Informative

The accountants have a point.
Sales make money. You cost money.
Which would you maximize and which would you minimize? A cost center or a profit center? That is business 101.
I always advice IT people to work in a technology company. Otherwise you will always be undervalued and underpaid. Same is true if you are a financial wizard. You can make a good upper middle class salary at a regular company. However, working at a bank you will be a multi millionaire instead with that background because you add value and contribution to your company MUCH more.
In the past we were once valued as profit centers and assets as great productivity gains were realized switching to computers then desktops, then spreadsheets, email, and so on and so on. Today, a nerd is not someone who can turn on a PC and use a formula in a spreadsheet. Everyone can do this. Therefore, we do not offer anything of important value except when something blows up.
Anyway the risk is well worth the effort of massively increased sales and low cost labor. As long as the share price goes up and the CFO and CEO can get their bonuses from the cost savings and profit center increases then all is good even if it does get hacked.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Pieroxy · 2012-03-27 06:45 · Score: 1

True, 100% true. I wish I still had mod points.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by grasshoppa · 2012-03-27 06:54 · Score: 1

In the past we were once valued as profit centers and assets as great productivity gains were realized switching to computers then desktops, then spreadsheets, email, and so on and so on. Today, a nerd is not someone who can turn on a PC and use a formula in a spreadsheet. Everyone can do this. Therefore, we do not offer anything of important value except when something blows up.
This is precisely the attitude I was talking about; management and bean counters fail to appreciate just how important IT is. You only touch on one, very small, aspect of our jobs. In fact, IT holds as much, if not more, liability as HR; we protect the company in countless ways, and accordingly, our skillsets need to be varied. I need to be at least semi-competent in every skill set necessary to successfully run a company; HR, legal, finance, project management to name the generics, not to mention the specific core competency of the business. And then, on top of all of that, I need to be an expert in various IT technologies. If I fail in any of those responsibilities, I expose the company to serious liability ( oh, you were ignorant of some obscure PCI requirement? Fined. Oh, you didn't realize employee records needed to be handled a certain way legally? Fined. ect... ).
That's what IT is about; not building workstations or servers. It's managing the information in the corp, with the goal to create an efficient organization.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is electricity a cost or an asset? It is a cost. Yes, without it you can't do much but cheap electricity is no different than expensive electricity. Why pay? The less electricity you need the less valuable it is.
Now if you were Amazon and needed your own hydroelectric plant for your cloud then it is more valuable and it is more of an asset and it would even make you money bordering a profit center.
If you work for a company making fish sticks (example), having contractors part time during the harvest and maybe just the bare minimum to survive for the rest of year freezing and packaging your product makes business sense. Investing in good distribution and sales teams to sell to grocery stores are far more important. maybe using expensive freezers that do not break. But I.T.? What value does that provide to the customer? Zero. They are paying for fish sticks. Not for Windows 7 deployments and upgrading to IE 8. So staying with IE 6 and XP for them gives the CFO and CEO a bonus as Wall Street agrees with this.
Work at Microsoft however, and you will get paid very handsomely if you make great contributions to the bottom line. Sorry, but I only am the messenger here. The .com days are over and its time to move on. Go work in an I.T. company or even a contracting company doing consulting if you have your experience and you will be paid well. Otherwise you are a cost there to make sure nothing breaks. Unless you can think of a magical way companies can increase their sales or cut their cost from your ideas? Have any?

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 07:10 · Score: 1

It is the same in other industries as well and other professions. We are not alone.
My example including a financial analyst working for a bank vs a regular company. If you are a lawyer you can make a TON MORE money and be valued if you are part of the bottom line in a law firm instead of a regular office latchkey in a fortune 1000 company.
This cost cutting emphasis is the new rage as CFOs and not product engineers are becoming the next wave of CEOs. This is why Apple is doing so well, while their rivals race towards the bottom etc.
Everyone who is not part of the bottom line directly is being understaffed and underpaid. Go join a .com or software company and you will be respected and paid more. It would not surprise me if they under pay the lawyers and accountants in these companies though ;-)

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by grasshoppa · 2012-03-27 07:42 · Score: 1

It's a valid point, however I feel the difference between our argument is that of scale; I accept the highlighted behavior as the norm. I certainly don't expect to ever get to a place where I can't think of a single thing that needs money spent on it.
However, what I've seen in the firms I've worked for has been the kind of cost cutting that leaves you one power outage from catastrophe. There are HOSTS of servers that no one knows how to manage because the experience and training necessary won't be budgeted for; so they sit there, plugging away. And hopefully, they never need to be worked on, because no one is quite sure who could do it.
Same goes for security, relevantly; every single company I've worked for has had security appliances in place that, more often than not, no one really knows the credentials to. Worse, they usually lack the staff to adequately manage these devices ( lack of training or competency ). We aren't talking about switches here, but edge firewalls that protect things like CC processing servers.
Like I said, I don't expect to have my wish list crossed off, nor even my "Needs to be done" list. But what I WOULD expect is for these companies to understand the risk they are taking and fund the liabilities appropriately.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by grasshoppa · 2012-03-27 07:44 · Score: 1

Of course it's IT's job; no one else understands both the requirements and the technology, nor it's implementation and the implications.
As far as my importance; seeing as I contract with several of my former employers, I think my impact is significant to the various businesses.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Red+Flayer · 2012-03-27 07:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's the problem I have with bean counters - the inability to see the bigger integral picture.
I'm a professional bean counter. I think you're not only wrong about failing to see the bigger picture, I think you're way off on the value of IT.

IT doesn't drive product. It doesn't drive sales. It supports those functions, just as HR or Finance does. IT is not an asset... it is a cost center than maintains an asset.

Regardless of the role and scope of a team (such as IT), you set your targets for what you need and what you want, and then you try to get those things done with maximum bang for your buck. Sometimes that means reducing costs, sometimes that means increasing value -- it is management's call on how to maximize cost-benefit (which is what us bean counters help management do).

What some "big picture" guys (such as you make yourself out to be) miss is that the "big picture" is made up of little pieces, and if you want to affect the big picture, you need to affect the little pieces. The devil is in the details, and if you don't understand that, I don't think I'd want you in my org.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Red+Flayer · 2012-03-27 08:07 · Score: 1

There are only two reasons to hire people: they bring in more money than they cost, or they save more money than they cost.
Sure, any decision should be viewed through a cost-benefit lens. But IT isn't targeted because of managers don't understand thier business -- IT is targeted because over the past twenty years, IT costs have gotten very high for the benefit gained.

The marginal benefit from the last 10% of the IT budget is typically very small in companies that have been around for a while. Do you really need four nines on email uptime? Or just on your critical client-facing servers? Do you even need it on your client-facing servers?

It's been really rare for me to see an IT Manager who really understands that their utility to the company comes from how cheaply they can fulfill their mission.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 08:12 · Score: 1

And if you're right, why don't you just try to entirely remove that "cost center" from your org. ? It's in your own words, not an asset, so you should be fine without it, right?
I don't think I want you in my org.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by grasshoppa · 2012-03-27 08:22 · Score: 1

Well, yes. That's kind of how it works; companies pay you what they think you are worth. It's interesting, then, that these very large companies feel compelled to pay me at all when, presumably, they have internal staff that should be capable of handling it ( and, not to put to fine a point on it; they pay me a lot ).
It doesn't sound like you've ever worked for a large org...or indeed, anything larger than a mom and pop, if at all. It seems to me that you are projecting your own ignorance on the world because you simply can't fathom how a real IT division operates.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Rich0 · 2012-03-27 08:56 · Score: 1

Sales make money. You cost money.
Sales make money, salespeople and marketers cost money. Conclusion, we should get rid of marketers.
Phone calls to customers that result in sales make money. Phones cost money. Conclusion, we should get rid of the phones.
Sometimes you need to spend money to make money. IT is an enabler. Sure, it costs money, but so do phones and electricity.
IT is important for the success of any company. However, IT is generally not important for the success of the CEO and executives. I think that is the real problem. Reward cycles in senior management are so short that they have no incentive at all to keep the company profitable over the longer term.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by KhabaLox · 2012-03-27 09:05 · Score: 2

I was going to mod you up, but I want to add to and reinforce what you said.

Now if you were Amazon and needed your own hydroelectric plant for your cloud then it is more valuable and it is more of an asset and it would even make you money bordering a profit center.
On the Planet Money podcast last year (title was "When Money got Weird") they spoke to a finance guy who worked for an airline. The CEO came to him and told him to figure out how to save money and keep the airline in business. He did two things. The first was some basic accounting "tricks" to reclassify costs, liabilities etc. The second was to start hedging on things like fuel. He ended up turning his accounting department into an internal investment bank. He turned a cost center (the accounting department) into the largest profit center in the company. They made more money hedging against fuel prices than they did selling airline seats.

If you work for a company making fish sticks (example), . . . But I.T.? What value does that provide to the customer? Zero. They are paying for fish sticks. ......
Unless you can think of a magical way companies can increase their sales or cut their cost from your ideas? Have any?
I used to be the IT guy at a sushi company. The department consisted of me and one support person, but we both reported into the CFO and spent more than half our time doing accounting work. My value-add turned out to be BI and business process development. After implementing an ERP system I used it to create a myriad of reports for management. When I tried to get better resources, whether it be replacing 4-5 year old computers, monitors over 15", security cameras, etc. I would always get shot down. But they dropped well over $100k on the ERP system and related add-ons and support because it helped them run the business more efficiently. It's harder to make that case to replace a desktop or get a new printer.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 09:28 · Score: 1

"..IT doesn't drive product. It doesn't drive sales.."
Except in a software company?!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 09:39 · Score: 1

Marketers and phones drive sales and customer service service so customers keep coming back.
IT doesn't drive anything. It is important like electricity but not as important as anything else. It needs to be cut unless you are an IT company where your very business processes require heavy duty uptime, great DBAs, and sonet etc.
I am just the messenger and hate this but IT is matured much like the demand for a HUGE R&D into steam engines and electrical factories 150 years ago. 19th century technology revolutionized the industry. Mechanical engineers and mechanics are still used today. Adjusted for inflation do they get what they were paid 150 years ago? Hell NO. Not even close. It has matured.
IT is about done and now is the time to cut costs and focus on efficiency and logistics. This is why the demand for CPA financial gurus and MBAs are going up through the roof. Outsourcing is the newest rage in a global economy. You can't fight it. Times change.
I worked for a project at a famous door company. Let me tell you their mechanical engineers were paid good because they needed them. Elsewhere not so much. It is the same concept.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 09:45 · Score: 1

I am one of those types who has a BA in business and going for another one in I.T.
I agree with you and figured if I could make great cases for ROI, risk analysis, and aligning business processes I will do fairly well. In your case about client-facing servers yes it would be important if your customers can not get a hold of you or if the CEO is bidding on a contract with some competitors and time is important.
In a risk equation I would show it but depends on the company. My example of someone owning a fish stick company I agree it may not be as important versus a financial institution where things are critical due at deadlines are heavy penalties and violations kick in.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by AK+Marc · 2012-03-27 10:13 · Score: 1

IT is a cost. Same as office space. You couldn't work very well without an office, and most places recognize a difference in value of office space (they don't shop every month for the lowest lease and move based on cost alone). Yet, say "IT is a cost" and people go ballistic. It is a cost. It doesn't generate revenue for most places. As such, it is a cost. That isn't a bad thing, it's just a fact. The only difference with IT is that management knows they can't live without electricity and an office, but doesn't know what value IT has. And that's a problem with IT, not the managers.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by MiG82au · 2012-03-27 12:43 · Score: 1

Bullshit, they do get cut. You could do with some bean-counter stats to form your argument :p
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by MiG82au · 2012-03-27 12:48 · Score: 1

Way to miss the point. I believe that the point was to minimise IT expenditure in light of it being a cost centre i.e. pumping money into it rarely benefits the business, OTH pumping money into sales or development does. There's no logic to your sarcasm.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by MiG82au · 2012-03-27 13:03 · Score: 1

The save more money category has a low saturation point; the IT systems need to support the needs of the business, and investing beyond that gives little return. The bringing in money category usually has an high saturation point; you can invest in it and get good returns. I think that's more relevant than any facts IT can present.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by Rich0 · 2012-03-27 13:13 · Score: 1

I think this depends on what you define as "IT." If you're talking networking and mail servers, then it is just like electricity or any other commodity. However, it is still important - if it isn't done right you're going to lose money - often due to lost opportunities. That doesn't mean that it can't be done by the lowest reputable bidder.
However, IT can also be a source of opportunity in almost any industry. Keeping the hard drives backed up might be a commodity, but chances are the data on those drives is an untapped goldmine of info, and getting the value out of it is not a commodity. I've often seen companies foolishly silo jobs such that gathering metrics or doing analytics is the sole job of somebody with a marketing or science degree. The reality is that somebody with business domain expertise working closely side-by-side with somebody with an IT/database background would get much further.
I tend to work in the sciences, and I've seen numerous cases where automation of routine laboratory work is jealously guarded by people with a chemistry background. Usually this kind of effort yields only modest results - 10% here and there in savings. You never really see it result in much. I've also seen some areas where companies have wisely teamed up scientists, engineers, and software developers in small teams and come up with automation systems that can churn out millions of results in the time it would take a building full of scientists to churn out thousands. Now, not every problem needs that level of investment, but there can be benefits when people with the right skills work together and not in competition for the highest spot in the bell curve.
What would you do if you owned a company and went to the bathroom and saw your best $200k/yr marketer under the sink fixing a leak? You'd probably judge that they're wasting their time. Now, suppose the problem is really bad, and you had to hire a team of plumbers who collectively cost $300k/yr to do the job. Chances are that going with them is still a better choice than having your marketer do the work, because they're going to spend so much less time on it that you save money. IT is no different - it is a skillset and discipline, and if you apply it correctly you make a lot more money than if you don't.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by NotSanguine · 2012-03-27 15:55 · Score: 1

In the past we were once valued as profit centers and assets as great productivity gains were realized switching to computers then desktops, then spreadsheets, email, and so on and so on. Today, a nerd is not someone who can turn on a PC and use a formula in a spreadsheet. Everyone can do this. Therefore, we do not offer anything of important value except when something blows up.
This is precisely the attitude I was talking about; management and bean counters fail to appreciate just how important IT is. You only touch on one, very small, aspect of our jobs. In fact, IT holds as much, if not more, liability as HR; we protect the company in countless ways, and accordingly, our skillsets need to be varied. I need to be at least semi-competent in every skill set necessary to successfully run a company; HR, legal, finance, project management to name the generics, not to mention the specific core competency of the business. And then, on top of all of that, I need to be an expert in various IT technologies. If I fail in any of those responsibilities, I expose the company to serious liability ( oh, you were ignorant of some obscure PCI requirement? Fined. Oh, you didn't realize employee records needed to be handled a certain way legally? Fined. ect... ).
That's what IT is about; not building workstations or servers. It's managing the information in the corp, with the goal to create an efficient organization.
I was going to mod you informative, but instead I'll pile on. I've worked as an IT resource at technology companies and at Fortune 50 companies. Then I spent more than ten years as an IT consultant at large and small consulting firms, and now I work for a medium sized professional services (not consulting) organization.
Everywhere I've worked (almost 100 different companies as a consultant including a significant fraction of the Fortune 50) IT is a key resource, well except for the plumbing factory I worked at when I was 18, for just about any company. IT *can* provide enormous value and it can be a drain on resources. In fact it can do both -- at the same time. Any way you slice it, IT is critical to just about every industry and job function. From sales where CRM, sales management tools and mobile field sales systems to mention a few, to Inventory management, JIT manufacturing, distribution logistics and other LOB systems, to time and expense management, scheduling and revenue prediction/tracking systems for professional services organizations. There are so many more of course, AP/AR systems, SCADA and factory floor control systems, personnel management and project scheduling/management systems. I could go on and on.
Those are just the tip of the iceberg, because you need Directory Services, NOS, LANs, WANs, remote access systems, systems and network management systems, etc., etc., etc.
These systems and the infrastructure they rely upon don't just run themselves. They require (but unfortunately don't always have) skilled and dedicated sys admins, network managers, project managers, DBAs, developers and specialists (and/or generalists) in email, web, security and a half-dozen other areas. Without the IT, the financial services sector would collapse. Manufacturers, distributors, aggregators, consulting firms, law firms, airlines, not to mention software companies would see their costs go through the roof. What is more, national, state/provincial and municipal governments would come to a screeching halt. Power grids would get fried on a regular basis.
To understate the issue, being short on IT these days is tantamount to a death wish for most companies unless they're a bodega or a caterer working out of the kitchen in their house or other small business which relies upon specific non-IT areas. Even those use IT (albeit on a much smaller scale) for a myriad of tasks. Does it cost money, yes? Would more money need to be spent if it wasn't there? Absolutely.
To my mind, anyone who devalues quality IT is either shortsighted or just plain dumb. I realize that to many of you I'm just stating the obvious, but apparently there are a whole bunch of folks here who don't seem to get it. sigh!

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by NotSanguine · 2012-03-27 16:02 · Score: 1

.
Here is an easy way to tell how much of an 'asset' you are to the business: can your entire function be outsourced to a third party, with no impact to the business? If the answer is 'yes' (and for IT it certainly is), then you are just a cost, not an asset.
BZZZZT. Wrong. Thanks for playing. I don't know how many times I've seen IT outsourced at various companies over the years, just to see them in-sourced again because the quality and level of support drops off so precipitously that it either isn't worth it any more or becomes a significant risk to the health of the business, or both.
That's not to say that outsourcing IT can't work, but most organizations have enough quirks that having internal folks who actually understand your business model and organizational structure make it worthwhile.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by rastos1 · 2012-03-27 19:00 · Score: 1

I'm a professional bean counter. I think you're not only wrong about failing to see the bigger picture, I think you're way off on the value of IT.
IT doesn't drive product. It doesn't drive sales. It supports those functions, just as HR or Finance does. IT is not an asset... it is a cost center than maintains an asset.

Enough! I'm a software developer and you ruined my day. Excuse me while I go and cry in the corner.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by makapuf · 2012-03-27 20:00 · Score: 1

Management also is a cost, and yet you don't see brain dead decisions to outsource it. I wonder why ...
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by dbIII · 2012-03-27 20:39 · Score: 1

Accountants are also a cost centre but they can often skew things to pretend otherwise.
One amusing (since I wasn't part of it) example was a State government legal office of a sort, know as The Public Trustee. A major part of their operations was dealing with deceased estates with no clear owner, which often became full State property and could be sold but while it was unclear they still generated rental income. Another was simple legal services such as drawing up wills and handling the legal affairs of estates, overall generating modestly more than total expediture. The third section was accounts. A edict was delivered that each section had to make a profit (which estates and legal were doing), and so the accounts section charged the other two sections enough so that sales of deceased estates and legal services both operated at a loss while the entire entity and the accounts section operated at a profit. This was done even though the accounts section had no external source of income and no choice other than to increasingly cannibalise the other two sections to show growth. Jobs were cut in the other two sections, more accountants were employed and then the whole thing collapsed in a steaming pile with the ruins of the estate section put under more adult supervision.
Thus sometimes the entire concept of profit and cost centres is sometimes just simpistic bullshit for lazy and useless management - effective management needs to look deeper. If the situation above both management and their political masters had not completed more than ten years of education each but there are MBAs jsut as bad.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by thejynxed · 2012-03-28 00:56 · Score: 1

This boat may be turning around and sailing back into port though. Several states have recently (as in, the last 5 years) started adopting laws that basically require companies to publicly report these types of break-ins, what was done to solve the issue, what exactly was "taken", and provide material restitution if a client was harmed.
Companies need a competent IT department just to deal properly with the reporting requirements of these laws. If more states adopt these types of laws, the beancounters and PHBs won't have any say in the matter, as it will be a requirement under the law to have a proper, functioning IT department.
Hawaii is one of those notable states. I believe Colorado is another.
Sure, an IT department costs money, but seeing as how even average state government politicians are starting to realize that IT departments also serve an important role in protecting company assets and profits (and therefore, the tax money and campaign funds of said state government politicians), the dimwits we usually find in charge are going to have to rethink the crap they were shoveled in their MBA courses.

--
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by bigdavex · 2012-03-28 02:11 · Score: 1

Sales make money. You cost money.
Taken to its logical conclusion, the only business activity that makes money is accepting payments. Sales is only creating the promise of a payment, so it's a cost center.
That's obviously vacuous, because people don't just send you payments; you have to make a sale and provide something. Every business unit has inputs and outputs. If you can assign dollar values correctly to those inputs and outputs, then you know how that business unit is doing.

--
-Dave
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by grasshoppa · 2012-03-28 04:06 · Score: 1

I'd argue that I grasp that concept better than many of the bean counters and CEOs I've worked for. For instance, at one company there was a single server in charge of processing payments. That's it. One. It was ancient too. I'm talking 7+ years old. They never patched it ( Hello PCI! ), rarely rebooted it ( and then it was always with held breath ), but through their ignorance they did manage to give everyone in the company administrative access to it.
Now, while I was there ( 10 LONG months ), it never died. Therefore, and ergo, no money needed to be spent on getting new hardware. No money needed to be spent bringing on a competent admin to oversee security on the machine. And true to form, they never did. Nevermind that if that server goes down, EVERYTHING goes down. They can't take in money anymore. They are, in essence, dead in the water. Any user, from the newly hired mail clerk to the contractor that was terminated over a year ago for looking up kiddy porn, could log in and do horrible things to the server ( because they were admins )...and frighteningly, no one would know.
The beancounters, CEO, CIO and everyone along that chain did ( and continues, to this day ) expose the company to significant liability. The kind that can break a company.

--
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by sjames · 2012-03-28 10:51 · Score: 1

Sales without a product makes lawsuits. Product without sales makes bankruptcy. Without accounting, nobody knows if the company is prospering or dying. No IT = no product, no accounting, and no sales (unless you add an order of magnitude to the workforce to do it the old way). Once everyone knows what to do, the biggest financial anchor on the company is the executive suite. It's not that they do nothing useful, it's just that they get paid 10 to 100 times more than necessary.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by sjames · 2012-03-28 11:27 · Score: 1

By the same token, if I want fish sticks, I'm paying for fish sticks, not bean counting, not boat cleaning, and not caviar munching executive parties.
Imagine if they had to multiply their workforce by 10 because IT wasn't there (consider the old days when a 'computer' was a junior accountant adding and subtracting numbers all day and big companies had massive rooms full of them)
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by sjames · 2012-03-28 11:45 · Score: 1

It's all costs and all assets. Skimp on IT and information starts to go missing and sales people idle waiting for their gas fired PC to (hopefully) boot one more time. Skimp on sales and you stop making sales. Skimp on accounting and funds go missing. Skimp on production and customers go missing (but the competition might send you a thank you note). In magical business unicorn world, the product would make and sell itself so production and sales could all be laid off (nice cost savings), but that doesn't happen.
In other words, no necessary function is a pure cost or a pure profit. Electricity never pays for you (even in Soviet Russia), but there's a good reason you don't just stop paying those power bills and go back to adding machines and literal horse power.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... by sjames · 2012-03-28 11:48 · Score: 1

I've been an advocate of scaling back nines to a reasonable number based on actual need for years. I'm not the one who blows my top if email is interrupted for an hour, management is. If they want cheaper IT, they will just have to accept that things will go down from time to time. If they want to have their cake and eat it too (and they really really do), nobody can help them. They will more likely end up neither having or eating their cake.

Riiiiight. by cpu6502 · 2012-03-27 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

The government routinely shares information with its defense contractors. Where that information comes from? The corporation does not ask.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Riiiiight. by cold+fjord · 2012-03-27 15:32 · Score: 1

To defense companies about weapons that they want to counter? Very likely. It's hard to design to defeat something if you don't know its performance. To the Coca Cola company about the threat of that new Chinese cola energy drink? I doubt it.
The corporations don't ask? I'll ask, "How do you know?"

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Riiiiight. by neonv · 2012-03-28 04:53 · Score: 1

[citation needed]

We are spying but.. by Galestar · 2012-03-27 06:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

...we don't do the same kind of spying they do. Our spying is okay, theirs is evil.

--
AccountKiller

Re:We are spying but.. by Baloroth · 2012-03-27 07:33 · Score: 1

You say this jokingly, but it is in a very real way true. It is always in the best interest of a government to be well informed, and for their, uh, "friends" (the quotation marks are not optional in this case) to not be. Which means it is perfectly consistent for a government to protest foreign intelligence gathering, while conducting their own. It is hypocritical, in a way, but in another way it isn't.
Same holds true of nearly every kind of advantage (economic, military, or political). A country wants itself to have it, but not its (potential) enemies. Nothing about that is actually contradictory, unless you are an outside observer who treats every country as being perfectly equal. No such observer exists. Even third parties are inevitably biased, through personal interest or simply prejudice against one side or another.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:We are spying but.. by Kittenman · 2012-03-27 09:14 · Score: 1

...we don't do the same kind of spying they do. Our spying is okay, theirs is evil.
And how do we know that? Simple - if they're doing it, it's evil. If we do it, it's ok. Next slide, please.

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:We are spying but.. by cold+fjord · 2012-03-27 17:13 · Score: 1

We are spying but.....we don't do the same kind of spying they do. Our spying is okay, theirs is evil.
Since the Communists of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China managed to kill about 100,000,000 people between them in about the last 80 years, you could state that pretty much literally, yes.
The Gruesome Consequences of a Political Idea
Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism?
A Tale of Red Guards and Cannibals

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Re:Bah by Fwipp · 2012-03-27 06:16 · Score: 1

You'd think if we were at war with China, somebody would have told us by now.

Aw, darn you. You beat me to it. by Travoltus · 2012-03-27 06:17 · Score: 1

Well done for pointing that one out, though. :D

--
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!

Food for thought by schrodingersGato · 2012-03-27 06:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah its underhanded and shitty, but if we keep playing by the same rules, awe shouldn’t be surprised when nations life china surpass us. I’m not saying I agree with their practices at all, but this is a new reality that needs to be accepted and overcome.

What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

Did he just admit that his government hacks into other governments computer systems to steal diplomatic and military secrets? Did obama not say that cyber warfare like that is testimount to an act of war? If it's not and its ok for them to do it why are they trying to get that uk civilian hacker Gary Mckinnon for doing the same thing to them and saying its wrong and illegal when he did it to them but not when they do it themselves?

Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:28 · Score: 1

War is good now.
Disagree? You are obviously racist.
Re:What? by blackfrancis75 · 2012-03-27 07:25 · Score: 2

I'm pretty sure he didn't say

testimount
, given that's not even a word.
Re:What? by marnues · 2012-03-27 08:00 · Score: 1

He is no longer a government employee, and frankly was never the guy to understand this stuff anyway. I'm fairly sure this is a "hey look at me!" situation.
Re:What? by FormOfActionBanana · 2012-03-27 10:23 · Score: 1

He educated-guessed it. This is different from "said" it.

--
Take off every 'sig' !!
Re:What? by tqk · 2012-03-27 13:47 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure he didn't say

testimount
, given that's not even a word.
Give it up. It seems most of these people are typing on cellphones and relying on autocompletion.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:What? by blackfrancis75 · 2012-03-27 14:16 · Score: 1

ok.. but you know autocomplete wouldn't provide a non-existent word..
Re:What? by tqk · 2012-03-28 01:59 · Score: 1

ok.. but you know autocomplete wouldn't provide a non-existent word..
I don't know how it's implemented. I can add words to my word processor's spellchecker personal dictionary.
Personally, I'd be satisfied if they'd just bother to proofread. Unfortunately, I think this is just going to be the way it is in the future.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:What? by sixtyeight · 2012-03-28 02:16 · Score: 1

Whether or not *you* like it, most governments have the legal power/authority to do this, while civilians do not.
Did I miss a meeting? The federal government has only the authorities that were specifically delegated to it by the People. Those not delegated are retained by the People or, where vested by the People, in the States.
This has not stopped politicians from drafting all sorts of bogus legislation which purports to give them other authorities. But neither does that heap of paperwork legitimately do so. This is self-evident: I cannot give myself that which I do not yet have. I could take it from someone else without their consent, but that would make me a thief. In politics, it's called usurpation.
Amazing how we fought the War for Independence and established perhaps the only country in the world where the whole basis of governance is to represent and serve the People who made it... and 200-something years later we describe those same People as "[mere] civilians". Don't let anyone reframe the relationship between the People and our government like that, because it supports the imposition of a drastically different way of life than we, the People, established for our country.

--
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability

Sooo.... by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-03-27 06:19 · Score: 1

Is corporate America going to stop doing business in/with China? I don't think so...

Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:19 · Score: 1, Informative

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

No, we just overthrow elected governments by cjonslashdot · 2012-03-27 06:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Yeah, we just overthrow governments and set up their elected officials to take the blame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Re:No, we just overthrow elected governments by zlives · 2012-03-27 08:31 · Score: 1

+1 funny
Re:No, we just overthrow elected governments by AK+Marc · 2012-03-27 10:44 · Score: 2

The difference is that the US interfered in areas they claimed are outside their borders, overthrowing democratically elected governments and setting up religious-based monarchies. China put down a "rebellion" in a territory they asserted was within their borders, and the rest of the world agreed. If you think their actions in Tibet were "wrong" then you are arguing that the US civil war was "wrong" as well.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:No, we just overthrow elected governments by cold+fjord · 2012-03-27 16:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, we just overthrow governments and set up their elected officials to take the blame: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Come now, you are being reckless with the facts. The coup you speak of was a counter-coup that retuned the Shaw to power as the head of state of Iran
No, if you want to see real bare knuckled power you need to look at how the Soviet Union overthrew the governments of the independent nations of the Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and incorporated them into the territory of the Soviet Union as puppet states.
Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic
Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Soviet Union also attacked Finland and seized 11% of its territory, and 30% of its economic assets.
The Soviet Union also invaded Poland with Germany, and ultimately annexed 21,275 square Km of Poland's territory as well.
Next we can consider the puppet governments of Eastern Europe that were installed by the Soviet Union: East Germany, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Albania. And don't forget that the Soviet Union led Warsaw Pact forces in to crush the protests of workers in Eastern Europe, such as the the '53 uprising in East Germany , the revolution in Hungary in '56, Czechoslovakia in '68 (the "Prague Spring), and threatened to do in Poland in the 80s.
The People's Republic of China certainly isn't blameless either - note its treatment of Tibet as a similar example. It continues to threaten Taiwan with invasion, and to attack the United States as well over the status of Taiwan. There are other examples as well.
These are by no means the only examples of Soviet Communist and Communist Chinese oppression and adventurism. If you only remember what the US has done then I would say your memory is quite stunted and selective.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:No, we just overthrow elected governments by cjonslashdot · 2012-03-28 02:30 · Score: 1

cold fjord -
I believe that my facts about Iran are correct. I am not an expert on this, but I have read several articles about it from different sources. For example, the wikipedia article explains that MI6 and the CIA arranged for a coup of Iran's first democratically elected government, and that their primary reason for doing this was to ensure that cheap oil would continue to flow from Iran to England and the US. If that is true, and I were an Iranian, I would have a boiling outrage against the US. And if it is true, then the Iranian revolution - when they took over our embassy there - was indeed a legitimate revolution, against the US. I don't approve of the government that they have there now, but if the wikipedia article is true about Operation AJAX, then we can blame ourselves primarily for what Iran has become.
You are right about the Soviet Union. But I was talking about the US. We did terrible things to compete with the Soviet Union's terrible things. But that is an explanation: it is not an excuse. If two gangs are fighting, and one gang shoots an innocent child bystander in the crossfire, that gang is still responsible and guilty of killing the child: the fact that it was fighting with another gang is an explanation: it is not an excuse. To the child's family, the gang that shot their child is 100% guilty, and its anger toward that gang is justified. In our struggle against the Soviet Union, we were one of those gangs, and Iran was a bystander.
But my understanding is that the primary motivation for Operation AJAX was oil: not a struggle against the USSR. And oil has again and again been the reason for our meddling in the Middle East, and it might be our undoing. I wonder what the price of gasoline would be if we included all of the costs of defending our presence in the Middle East, as well as the geopolitical costs of our interference there, as well as the cost of the "war on terror" that is our response to the terrorism that has grown out of our meddling in the Middle East?

sue them by Nyall · 2012-03-27 06:20 · Score: 1

I'm wondering when/if a U.S. company is going to sue China and go after their assets. Namely the Chinese government's stake in U.S. debt.

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Re:sue them by lcam · 2012-03-27 08:24 · Score: 1

That would be like shooting yourself in the foot.
Think about it, trying to invalidate the value of a security you sold to run your household? Nobody would want your securities any more.

Re:Bah by ColdWetDog · 2012-03-27 06:20 · Score: 4, Funny

We've always been at war with China. Err, Russia, Err, Drugs.

Hell, we're always at war with somebody! Even if it's just cancer.

USA! USA! USA!

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Economic Espionage by larsl · 2012-03-27 06:21 · Score: 2

Clarke is either wrong or lying. It is documented that the CIA spies on Airbus to help Boeing get contracts.

Re:Economic Espionage by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:31 · Score: 5, Informative

There is one documented instance where the CIA 'spied on airbus.'
The CIA actually was spying on Saudi Arabia. What they found was that Airbus was bribing saudi arabia to get a big contract. So the NSA spilled the beans, the corruption was rooted out, and Boeing ended up getting the contract.
Do you call that industrial espionage?
I should also note that in the US, it is illegal to bribe foreign governments. This law is enforced, and executives have gone to jail for it...
Re:Economic Espionage by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-27 06:44 · Score: 2

"Do you call that industrial espionage?"
Yes. Is it right? I don't know. Is it state-sanctioned/conducted industrial espionage? Absolutely.
"I should also note that in the US, it is illegal to bribe foreign governments."
That doesn't have anything at all to do with it. US laws don't apply except in the US. If American companies don't like those laws, or can't compete under them, they can try to have them changed.
Re:Economic Espionage by Aviation+Pete · 2012-03-27 06:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

We don't steal technological information from China because right now, they don't have anything we don't already have. We haven't been solidly behind another nation on that one since the mid 19th century. Tied, maybe; behind, no.
And in the mid-19th century, we didn't have the slightest qualm about using industrial espionage against British companies to give our domestic industry a leg up. And why should we, for that matter?
What a load of US-centic jingoism!
What about jet engines? You had to borrow them from Britain first and then needed Germans to build them in the US (Gerhard Neumann). What about rockets? Same thing here (von Braun and his team). Even such mundane things like butter production were revolutionized after the US learned about all the German technology after 1945.
I am sure there are some technological gems in some corners in China which are already superior to all US tech. And they get bigger and more numerous, not least because of an attitude like yours.

--
You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
Re:Economic Espionage by marnues · 2012-03-27 08:04 · Score: 1

I would suggest a combination of both. He hasn't been in a cabinet position since Clinton and hasn't been in the government at all since '03. Of course we're conducting some sort of cyber-warfare, but without specifics (which Clarke doesn't have) we can't know if it's ethical or competent. This all seems like a "I haven't been in the news lately, so look over here!" moment.
Re:Economic Espionage by pz · 2012-03-27 08:32 · Score: 3, Informative

US laws don't apply except in the US.
Not entirely true. Here's but one web page describing laws that restrict individual and corporate action outside the US:
http://www.bu.edu/globalprograms/global-toolkit/getting-established/us-laws-abroad/
Also, certain parts of the IRS code apply to US citizens with foreign income, even if they are no longer US residents.
And, various laws regarding sex with underage minors, even when legal in the foreign country, still apply to US citizens when abroad.
Not surprisingly, children born to US citizens while abroad are eligible for US citizenship, by US law.
Here's another link with a more scholarly discussion of extra-territorial juristiction:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcorporatecompliance.org%2FContent%2FNavigationMenu%2FResources%2FLibrarymembersonly%2FUS_JurisdictionAbroad.pdf&ei=YyJyT4idOaT20gH-zom2AQ&usg=AFQjCNGOlnjQJ6uhrNRE243R7iDhYXy3FA
Here's a preview of another scholarly article:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2203461?uid=3739696&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698810512577
My lay understanding is that generally, US laws do not apply abroad, but that should not be taken as a 100% certainty. Moreover, there are certain US laws which have been written that specifically claim extra-territorial jurisdiction.

--

Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Re:Economic Espionage by zlives · 2012-03-27 08:33 · Score: 1

because only-in-america they are citizens too. so they bribe as a citizen not corporation ;)
Re:Economic Espionage by MiniMike · 2012-03-27 09:28 · Score: 1

Your examples are generally accurate (except I am unfamiliar with the German butter gap) but irrelevant. That you can only think of three examples, both from over 50 years ago, almost proves his point for him (if you change it to mid 20th century). Now I know there are areas where researchers not in the U.S. are in the lead, but those researchers are also not in China. Instead of trying to refute his argument with 'I am sure there are...' why don't you provide some relevant examples?
Re:Economic Espionage by ceoyoyo · 2012-03-27 10:37 · Score: 1

"Not entirely true. Here's but one web page describing laws that restrict individual and corporate action outside the US:
http://www.bu.edu/globalprograms/global-toolkit/getting-established/us-laws-abroad/ [bu.edu]"
Only for US citizens or others with assets in the US. This doesn't apply to Airbus, the Saudi airline or the Saudi government.
"Also, certain parts of the IRS code apply to US citizens with foreign income, even if they are no longer US residents."
Ditto.
"And, various laws regarding sex with underage minors, even when legal in the foreign country, still apply to US citizens when abroad."
Ditto.
"Not surprisingly, children born to US citizens while abroad are eligible for US citizenship, by US law."
Ditto.
And ditto for the rest of your examples.
Re:Economic Espionage by garyebickford · 2012-03-27 16:06 · Score: 1

I have an older citation, but one that was critically important to the early success of the US and the gradual decline of great Britain. Look up a guy named Slater. At the end of the 18th century, the loom technology in England was a state secret. Those who were trained to use and build the machinery by which UK was supplying fabric to the world were not allowed to leave England. Slater (supposedly dressed as a girl) skipped the country, came to the US with the plans for building looms and other machinery in his head, and set up shop with a couple of mill owners here. Over the next 20 years the Industrial Revolution in the US was largely based on this initial impetus and the growth of the industrial engine of New England.
That industrial might and the financial lock it gave the New Englanders over the Southern plantation states (which the New Englanders actively prevented from building their own mills) was a large part of the financial basis for the Civil War, and also a large part of the reason the South lost - the South had little industrial capability, which is the key to success in a long war.
On a side note, I presently work in a mill that was originally constructed by the company that became Fruit of the Loom. It lay empty for 20-30 years after all of the industry went first to the South, then overseas. Life, and change, goes on.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Re:Economic Espionage by dbIII · 2012-03-27 20:42 · Score: 1

Intel

"we don't do that".... by mark-t · 2012-03-27 06:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Those are the words of somebody who is feeling more than just a tad defensive, and trying to justify their own actions because of how they know it would look.

I'm not saying he was lying, but from where I sit, it sure looked like he was just trying to make excuses.

It just seems to scream points #7, #9, and #14 from this list, and raises some red flags, at least.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Over-globalization is the problem here. by sethstorm · 2012-03-27 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is what we get when we get too friendly with nations that are still despotic in nature, reserving freedom for the few businesses and not the many. They are used to take away freedom from people under the canard of "competitiveness", something that is only used to wash the blood from indefensible actions.

Shame we can't have a national security directive to kill offshoring - since it is about the only thing that can kill this for good. It may not be the cleanest answer, but it is the one that cuts the lobbyists out of the equation. If we want offshoring, it cannot be in the current form - a form that is only used as retribution for successes and security gained by First World citizens. It must be in a form that clearly prioritizes citizens of all skill levels first for hiring and training (to get rid of the skill-level complaints) for long-term & direct hire jobs (to obliterate the permatemp culture); it cannot be simply a way to exact concessions in the name of Ricardian economics.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:Over-globalization is the problem here. by garyebickford · 2012-03-27 16:10 · Score: 1

The thing that will 'kill' offshoring is when wages and costs finally level out worldwide. It wasn't that long ago that the unions in Detroit were fighting tooth and nail to prevent the big car companies from building 'green field' plants in Tennessee and other southern states. The arguments were basically the same, and just as ill-conceived.t

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/

He said by future+assassin · 2012-03-27 06:24 · Score: 2

'The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments. There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China.

Kinda like

'The U.S. government is involved in torture against non US citizens There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of torture the United States government does and China.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:He said by Em+Adespoton · 2012-03-27 08:23 · Score: 1

My first thought when reading this was "so why doesn't the US do it?" I mean, under US law, both things are equally illegal. Under most moral codes, both activities are considered wrong. So why do they make the distinction if both sets of activities are equally immoral and illegal? Is it the fact that they consider messing with corporate multinationals more powerful than most world governments to be somehow less good than messing with said world governments? If you mess with the government, *people die*. If you mess with the multinationals, one steals some profit margin and growth potential from another.
I mean, is the real issue here that the Government of China has found a way to profit their country via limited communism in a way that the US Government finds reprehensibe because they are unable to do it or didn't think of it first?
Or are they implying that unlike the US, the Chinese government is actually being run by Chinese corporations?*
*The US Government of course being run by US corporations as well as Chinese corporations.

what? by Xamataca · 2012-03-27 06:24 · Score: 1

Excuse me sir, we don't spy on your business, nor on your private life, we are honest spies!!!

This so called "cybersecurity advisor" is either naive or a blatantly liar...

--
***Game Over***Insert Coin***

Re:US at it too by stooo · 2012-03-27 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

>> The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing

Total bullshit. The US officially steals corporate information on an industrial scale by examinating the laptop of corporate travellers.

--
aaaaaaa

In other news... by k6mfw · 2012-03-27 06:30 · Score: 2

the grass is green and the sky is blue.

<gripe> I mean really, what else do you expect. Don't outsource design and manufacturing to China like so many US companies have done. Cylon kill switches anyone?
</gripe>

--
mfwright@batnet.com

Chinese are bastards by benjfowler · 2012-03-27 06:30 · Score: 1, Redundant

Yeah, the red Chinese are utterly morally bankrupt at an individual, as well as a national level. I've seen how mainland Chinese operate, up close and personal. And the West has had decades to wake up to the threat from the rising superpower that always refuses to play by the rules.

Part of me says that the US corporate Right are full of weak, greedy idiots. And weak, greedy idiots always come a cropper sooner or later. The trouble with this situation, is that the corporate Right, in their weakness and folly, will take the West down with them. Whether it's gaming regulators, dismantling institutions, undermining government, or engaging in outright corruption, they match the Chinese in their immorality, but don't share the Chinese' rat-cunning, sense of patriotism, loyalty to their own culture -- or sense of self-preservation.

Doesn't excuse the behaviour of the Chinese though. They need to be given a bloody nose.

Conflict of Interest? by Jim+Buzbee · 2012-03-27 06:31 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't doubt that a lot of cyber-spying is going on, but also note that Clarke is now CEO of Good Harbor Consulting, which coincidentally makes a boatload of money dong Cyber consulting. The more frenzy he whips up, the more money he rakes in.

Re:Conflict of Interest? by zbobet2012 · 2012-03-27 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

While it is true he makes more money the bigger the frenzy, keep in mind that doesn't necessarily mean he is incorrect or acting immorally. If he believes there is a problem, thinks there is a market for fixing it, and is attempting to raise awareness of the problem he may way be acting in a correct manner. In short conflict of interest is not proof of incorrectness.
So yes by all means take him him with a grain of salt, but also actually look at the evidence he presents.
Re:Conflict of Interest? by Anne_Nonymous · 2012-03-27 07:10 · Score: 1

>> dong Cyber consulting
Dammit! The Chinese have turned him too!
Re:Conflict of Interest? by wanzeo · 2012-03-27 07:46 · Score: 1

Or it provides a convenient excuse for why the rest of the world is passing the US just about every technological pursuit, except maybe online advertising or "Cyber consulting".
The brief period of time during which it was a plausible business model to design things in the US and make them elsewhere has ended. Foreign engineers are just as capable as US ones.
Re:Conflict of Interest? by MiG82au · 2012-03-27 13:39 · Score: 1

http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/ending-sentences-with-prepositions Now fuck off.
Re:Conflict of Interest? by MiG82au · 2012-03-27 13:48 · Score: 1

On second thought, you appear to be trolling with sarcasm. Got me.

Re:Bah by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-03-27 06:33 · Score: 1

It's called a CYBER-war

Fixed that for you.

Is that like cyber-sex, where you only end up diddling yourself?

it's all the same ol.... by 3seas · 2012-03-27 06:37 · Score: 1

....bull shit, upon bull shit upon ....repeat to infinity.... spy vs. spy idiocy as seen in MAD mag.

Re:it's all the same ol.... by rrohbeck · 2012-03-27 07:29 · Score: 1

It's turds all the way down!
Or bull patties or some other shit.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it

Unfortunately, national security trumps "ethics". by sethstorm · 2012-03-27 06:40 · Score: 1

When you are dealing with such a subject of industrial espionage, the first obligation is to defend the country. While you might be able to use some random site's recommendations to make a case against it, national security will trump them every time. Whether it is some offshoring lobby, industrial espionage, or some other group that wants to attack the US, the author is correct to say how bad it is.

But don't let facts get in the way of your anti-American beliefs.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:Airbus you say? by sethstorm · 2012-03-27 06:42 · Score: 1

Shame that the NSA hasn't used this to kill the offshoring lobby given how influential the NSA's information can be. They'd be actually doing their job and repelling countries like China as well.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Why Hack When We Give It Away by geoffrobinson · 2012-03-27 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you want access to China's market, you have to build in China. And if you are building in China, China is figuring out how you build things.

--
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.

Re:Why Hack When We Give It Away by interval1066 · 2012-03-27 06:53 · Score: 1

There is a good point here. It may also be useful to point out that it has been the goal of the United States as national policy has been capitalizing China since the 70's, so its not like the dragon suddenly roared up and bit us on the ass in a surprise move. Except to the US workers, who've not been included in the logistics of this thing. Americans grouse about this and complain that jobs are going to Asia and all that. But the plain fact of the matter is that China is a huge market. If you give it money it will spend it. That's been the plan all along since Nixon was there in '72.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'

Re:Bah by Gilmoure · 2012-03-27 06:45 · Score: 1

*golf clap*

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

What good is it? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-03-27 06:46 · Score: 2

Most large companies I've worked for won't use the *published* best practices of companies like Google or Microsoft, what makes anyone think that a large company can make any use of secret information that can't be verified?

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

The Chinese are upfront about it by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 06:47 · Score: 1

They will downright tell you that if you want to operate in our country you need to give us some of our IP. If it is very valuable maybe in return we can make a deal and have our government even buy your products.

Mitt Romney condemned this as it is a known practice. I assume by refusing they will hack into your network anyway to get it. You might as well voluntarily share and a favor from some of these corrupt officials can go a very long way for your company as they have many connections in the industry over there.

Many companies do not care. They increase in sales and cost savings from cheap labor are well worth the effort to help boost its shareprice and give the CEO and CFO a nice fat bonus they desire. Presidents who care about the company are old school and reserved for private companies.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:The Chinese are upfront about it by lamer01 · 2012-03-27 07:09 · Score: 1

In the short term, yes. Long term, you lose.
Re:The Chinese are upfront about it by BLKMGK · 2012-03-27 07:48 · Score: 1

What CEO are you aware of that's thinking long-term any more? They are ALL after short-term profits in the name of making some stupid reward goal so they get a big fat bonus, workers be damned! It makes the stock holders happy to see these numbers ala Apple but long term? Long term I think we're all going to have some BIG issues! I know guys that work in what little manufacturing still exists in the USA making things that are valuable to the Chinese and who refuse to source it over there knowing full well what will happen. So what happens? The Chinese INSIST on coming here to "inspect" how they do things and bring a team of scientists and engineers over to make sure that the product is "right". Yeah sure. Boy were they PISSED when they didn't get to see the plant or logon to any terminals. Instead they were shown to one bare room, fully escorted, and only allowed to inspect and measure the product.
Sadly, their networks were almost certainly penetrated afterwards but at least the scientists were kept away from the machinery during the visit. The Chinese are very very aggressive, it's scary.
Suggested reading -> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3319656

--
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org

Oy Vey! by alexborges · 2012-03-27 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments. There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China. The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing [many believe that Chinese hackers gave Boeing secrets to Airbus]. "

Here is a hint: start doing it, you dumbasses. Im no expert in chinese culture, but i've been studying their story with reverse engineering and the way they've built their home industry to come to the conclusion that, to the chinese, this is business as usual.

You may be appalled by it, you may cringe with moral sentiment (and stubborn western-european hypocrisy), but you don't just stand there. Have a strategy to take a blow-by-blow approach to this and counterattack.... and maybe then you will realize all your strict IP laws and magical thinking make no sense at all in this brave new world.

Snap out of it NOW!

--
NO SIG

Re:Oy Vey! by BLKMGK · 2012-03-27 07:50 · Score: 1

Well, who would they give the secrets to? Unlike China the US isn't propping up a ton of industry the way the Chinese do. So, if you steal some super duper secret for a widget which manufacturer of widgets do you give it to? THAT is a huge problem with having the Govt. spy and I'm betting it's one of the reasons it's not done. How do you solve that?

--
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Re:Oy Vey! by alexborges · 2012-03-27 08:18 · Score: 1

I don't mean literally "steal it back" (these is technology, not rods of gold). I mean blow-by-blow, wherever it hurts them.

--
NO SIG
Re:Oy Vey! by MiG82au · 2012-03-27 13:53 · Score: 1

I just imagined London style riots being incited by turning off the PS3s of bored youths. Sort of funny, sort of not.

Re:Domestic troubles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:48 · Score: 1

I just loved all the evidence this "guy who wants a well paid job for a private security firm whos going to make a fortune selling useless security measures" gives.

Yet More Proof of my Theory... by humphrm · 2012-03-27 06:49 · Score: 1

"Communist" China is no more. China is state run capitalism.

--
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo

Re:Yet More Proof of my Theory... by Beelzebud · 2012-03-27 09:54 · Score: 1

The merging of corporate and state power is fascism. This is exactly what we see in China today. Mod that down if you will, but words have meaning, and Jonah Goldberg doesn't get to redefine "fascism" to mean "left wing".

Re:Bah by 0racle · 2012-03-27 06:51 · Score: 1

Actually it used to be called industrial espionage, but that just makes it sound like some evil corporation is on the loosing end and doesn't get the little people's blood boiling.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."

Re:US at it too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 06:53 · Score: 1

they didn't give the modified program to the soviets, they watched them break in steal, so they modified it to teach them a lesson, there is a big difference and anyone who can't see that is just trying hard not to see it that way.

I'll try to hit a few points by HBI · 2012-03-27 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

1. To China, US technological superiority in the commercial sector IS a national security issue, so Clarke is just being disingenuous here. If the US were in the same role, we'd steal their commercial secrets, too. The fact that we don't want to just illustrates the advantage.

2. If we hadn't outsourced the more polluting and less skill intensive parts of our manufacturing base, we wouldn't be in this position.

2a. I know the thought pattern - I had it as a child back in the 70s - it was the "brown hordes" thought. What would happen if all the poor people in the world stormed the borders of the US? To avoid that, it sort of compels our hand to distribute the wealth and make this less desirable. So we did. Made it easy as hell for companies to outsource operations to the former Third World.

2b. The delusion started when people like GHW Bush claimed that we'd have an information economy. So the only advantage that the US would have was information? We'd all sit in offices and type things to each other? Seems like an invitation for people to steal our information and produce stuff that we can no longer produce ourselves.

At this point the whole plan looks like a suicide pact. Leave H1B out of it, and it's still a disaster. The tards in power aren't connecting the dots, even now.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:I'll try to hit a few points by Tailhook · 2012-03-28 06:53 · Score: 1

The tards in power aren't connecting the dots, even now.
When the tards in power have their agenda messed up by foreign competition they know exactly what to do. None of this is lost on them.
They have always understood the situation. The left supports it due to your second point; exporting industry to Asia while simultaneously erecting a vast statist regulatory regime for ourselves is optimal. Meanwhile, the right enjoys huge profit margins earned by manufacturing sans regulation in third world hell holes with disposable labor.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:I'll try to hit a few points by HBI · 2012-03-28 07:02 · Score: 1

Your links are on target. I guess I should expand: what we are doing now amounts to a reverse mortgage on our economic hegemony post-WWII. The mortgage is going to run out eventually - it's not far from the end now. What then? Do the tards have a plan for that?

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:US at it too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 07:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

it's a speculation on your part; have any info that supports you theory? they don't selectively screen just business laptops, they screen everyone, also there is a difference screening a laptop and hacking a network in another country to get secrets, so the only BS is your post.

A high horse "We don’t do that. ..." by OldHawk777 · 2012-03-27 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The EU, US, and others need to get off our high Pre-WWI moralistic espionage horse. Cyber-espionage is a pre-WWIII essential to national security and may be the only way to prevent WWIII nation-devastation.

A tit-4-tat cyber-cold-war is the best way to keep the government of CN from perceiving US, EU, and RU as virtual-tigers, and/or having foolish corporate interest politicians enter into a vintage pre-WWII "Appeasement Peace Conference" with CN.

We need to start state cyber-espionage to obtain all domestic, diplomatic, economic, corporate, and military information and appropriately share with US, EU, and RU ... countries and companies.

As they have exploited US and EU, so must we exploit CN. Do it now or regret it later.

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?

It's not as though US executives don't hand over by Colin+Smith · 2012-03-27 07:03 · Score: 2

Processes, secrets, entire facilities wholesale to China.

--
Deleted

Really, Moral High Ground. by databaseadmin · 2012-03-27 07:07 · Score: 1

Really?!?

Did we just see a spy try to claim some kind of moral high ground by defining what he would and would not collect? Spying is Spying. It is an immoral act that if used to protect me/us from getting killed by an enemy obtains 'acceptability' through an 'ends justifies the means' argument.

Re:Really, Moral High Ground. by tqk · 2012-03-28 07:45 · Score: 1

Spying is Spying. It is an immoral act ...
Tell that to Intrepid. Immoral act, my ass.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

He's way ahead of you. by semi-extrinsic · 2012-03-27 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative

I think you meant something like this (from Wikipedia):

Clarke is currently Chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, a strategic planning and corporate risk management firm;

Nothing like spreading FUD when your dayjob is selling "risk management".

--
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done

Re:He's way ahead of you. by jdgeorge · 2012-03-27 07:42 · Score: 1

FUD to you, but reality to corporations who want to protect their assets. The big difference between the hackers now and competing companies in "the old days" is that these allegedly Chinese hackers are getting more assets in far larger quantities than corporate espionage has seen before.
Re:He's way ahead of you. by doston · 2012-03-27 08:39 · Score: 2

I think you meant something like this (from Wikipedia):

Clarke is currently Chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, a strategic planning and corporate risk management firm;
Nothing like spreading FUD when your dayjob is selling "risk management".
Maybe, but Clarke was couter terrorism for every administration in modern history before terrorism was cool. Could be that he works for Global Harbor because of that experience and not because of fear mongering. He was a pretty level headed guy working for Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes. Of course, the last Bush demoted him and didn't listen to anything he said....we all know nothing bad came of that...
Re:He's way ahead of you. by semi-extrinsic · 2012-03-27 09:50 · Score: 1

Sure, I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, just that he stands to benefit from saying this. And I don't doubt his credentials, either.

--
for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done

Re:Bah by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-03-27 07:11 · Score: 1

These "we've always been at war with" posts should only be moddable when they are a direct reference to 1984.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

Its war by AdmV0rl0n · 2012-03-27 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

The West was on top. So its a target. Its values are oppsed by the enemy.

War comes in multiple forms. There isn't any requirement for someone to fight you directly. The lessons of this are available through history. The problem is that in general, the population is cretinously stupid. In the west, in america, and prevelent on Slashdot.

The chinese long ago choose war with the west. And yes, this white house commentry is correct. Its years late to the party though. The chinese choose to make information and IP collection a military grade target, and applied military level resources to the task in hand.

In exchange for taking all your information, IP and data, they then went back to said companies and said - we can do what you do, at a 10th of the price.
Que economic damage doubled.

At no point have I see anything - anywhere thats showing any willingness to even begin to face up to this challenge.

Cutting to the chase, they do not have to use bombs and direct weapons to eliminate your factories, to commit economic damage, to diminish your state, lower your standard of living, and damage your way of life. If the end justifies the result - then its a valid technical stragetic aim. Its been and remains a highly effective strategic application of a militaristic and political plan.

Assuming nothing is done, and its simply allowed to continue, then you will simply see a spiralling issue of damage here, and benefit there. A zero sum game that favours only one side.

And there is no simple answer. In the west, we're so stupid, over payed, flabby, lazy and ill led that it will be a long time before an equalisation of fundamentals allows a reverse of the flow. American or Euro workers will still be paid many times the cost of a chinese worker. Even if you steal back the tech at a later date, the damage is largely done because you can't undercut enough to make stuff at the same cost level. But your structure will still have to pay out multiple times the cost to the now millions of unemployed. Que strike 3 of the cost of the enemy strategic plan.

And how will you defend yourselves?
With windows based networks that are an unholy security mess?
With a military thats suffering the same windows based security mess?
With open source software bases that however anyone might paint it, has enough security issues that its not a trivial issue?

All of these are treated like a play ground by the enemy. A proverbial open door.
Security worsens every day, and in the west IT is in most places simply treated as a red headed step child and an overhead people would like to eradicate if they could.

Until companies and governments get serious, its only going to worsen. And while this is the state of play - with no penalty for the chinese - its well worth playing to a very full extent. At the end of the day, in the west, as the unemployed grow, eventually your customers will dwindle. The fact you get your shit made in the enemy factory now won't help you find exhausted customers in your home lands, and you are not going to outsell Lenovo in china to make up the now drastic shortfall. In the end, binning your own workers in exchange for cheap goods made in china has a culmative effect in you losing your own customers. The unemployed can't really buy from you, and that will turn to bite sooner or later.

It could be ended tommorow assuming some spine can be found.
A singular threat of complete bans on any chinese imports - on scale and across the western would would have sobering affect on the chinese. And at the same time reparations and damages should gained. And some spine should be found, because everyone basically knows this is going on, and has been for an extended period.

China does not give a shit about you, or the west. It will under cut you, subsidise fuel to its operations, steal your data, rob you of your intellectual property, and take your job or life away from you. Its operating on the correct directive which is self interest. The nations and people's

--
We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.

Re:Its war by lcam · 2012-03-27 09:28 · Score: 1

Amen.
I'd like to comment on one more thing.

China does not give a shit about you, or the west. It will under cut you, subsidise fuel to its operations, steal your data, rob you of your intellectual property, and take your job or life away from you. Its operating on the correct directive which is self interest. The nations and people's suffering at this policy - need to understand that its no use playing possom. Being sanguine about this won't stop it, slow it or provide an answer. It_must be addressed.
At the moment, no one is quite willing to do this.
At some stage, democracies and the west will see some final figures and data from the losses, and a slow process of anger will start to take place. Late. Slow, Stupid.
At some point in future history, you might ask yourself, or those round you - what were you doing while the chinese were raping you and yours.
I believe government to be invasive by nature; we have how may 3 letter agencies that attempt to "hold us at bay" from ourselves for what real reason? It's not an incorrect perception to see our own government to have taken many many positions against it's own citizens. The latest patent and copyright litigative culture is enabled by their positions in the matter. We and our corporations fight amongst ourselves. Stupid. Well it does artificially inflate the GDP by creating more consumption of legal services. That's good for the economy right? Just like our Medical industry, let's treat the symptoms because we can then be certain that the cause will always be there, that way we can sell more service.
Nobody can deny that our governments efforts are favorable to your mentioned Chinese war strategy.
While I applaud your idea of a complete ban on Chinese imports, that strategy if flawed for at least 3 reasons:
1. Our citizenry will be in an outrage when they need to purchase a more expensive substitute that eventually makes it's way to the market. The only way to make that happen is to put everyone under the wooden yoke and force compliance. That in itself is a victory for China considering their plan.
2. China and it's economic might, funds our government by buying US government backed securities, our own government who may chose to engage this strategy, needs to secure alternate funding if it hopes not to go bankrupt. During president Lincoln's term, he solved that problem by printing money known as the "greenback". His strategy fueled the economy and provide much needed liquidity for the circulation of some "medium of exchange", however our government has sold out and our money supply is now in the hands of private enterprise. The Federal Reserve Bank is not a government run organization. It's a private one. The constituents of that organization will not likely give up an asset so valuable as the entire money and financial system in the richest country in the world.
3. The powerful and influential people in our country don't want drastic change. They want a change that will provide them with some guarantee as to their future. These are the people we will depend on to lead us through because as individuals, in our ignorance, we are... well... stupid.
In practicality, the only way through is to start competing with China, rather then letting ourselves become indebted to them. We need to produce something besides overpriced F-35's or F-22's or other parts of the war machine. It all starts with policy changes that create incentives for domestic manufacturing to raise up.
As it is now, the US government doesn't give a shit about you, or the west. It will under-cut you, steal your money, put you into petty court battles over intellectual property, take your job and life away by making you an economic exile. It's operating on the correct (?) directive which is self interest. The nations and people's suffering at it's policy - need to understand that its no use playing possom... you get the idea. It _must_ be addressed.
These day
Re:Its war by roman_mir · 2012-03-27 09:34 · Score: 1

In exchange for taking all your information, IP and data, they then went back to said companies and said - we can do what you do, at a 10th of the price.
Que economic damage doubled.
- I have news for you: it takes two to tango.
USA is benefiting from the Chinese much more than the Chinese are benefiting from the USA at this point, and I have written on this last year in the journal and many times over for years before that.
Chinese and the rest of the world is destroying their own purchasing power - currencies, in order to feed the beast that is US government machine, because USA decided only to manufacture one thing: fake money, and given that the rest of the world didn't drop the USD like a dead corps that it was, once Nixon defaulted on the REAL dollar - gold, it just shows how really STUPID the rest of the world is for allowing itself to be turned into slaves with fake paper currency.
But of-course it takes two to tango, Chinese gov't doesn't give a shit about purchasing power and living conditions of the Chinese citizens and neither does US gov't of the US citizens, and thus everybody has the same problem - their governments are basically their real enemies.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Its war by AdmV0rl0n · 2012-03-28 02:11 · Score: 1

Take your points in turn:
1. Your citizens are living in a recession. The chinese are not. You need to understand the width and depth of this war to understand that your citizens in the millions are being degraded and suffering a lower standard of living, unemployment, and all that goes with it, while the chinese take the other direction. Its not a one for one price, because the chinese operate an economic war where each economic soldier - for thats what they are ultimatly operates far below the cost of the opponent. Chinese workers work at costs far below US or Western workers do. Part of this means yes - your citizens get cheap goods, but its not free. They do this by unseating and uneploying you, your friends, your neighbours. And the overall numbers game means in China, they can employ 3-10 workers for the same cost of one of your own.
Chinese factories don't need to be more efficient than western ones, they operate on a base thats simply cheaper. They can have many times the workers at the same or lower cost, and given they have a billion + citizens, they won't change that any time soon. *But* - for each worker they take from west to east - everyone needs to understand that - if that worker then ceases employment - the unemployment costs to the nation state are again much higher than if it affected a chinese worker 1 to 1.
It is war - make no mistake. And if you don't think so, explore how hard it is for western companies to deal in china with knock off copies of IP and products. Examine that in scale and you begin to see the issue. If chinese companies have that done here, they go straight to the rule of law and we then help them defeat us in every way. I'm not proclaiming that we should mimic their action at home, but rather, if china and chinese companies steal and rip IP, they should garner no protection here and punishing damages should be a matter of course.
2. China is not served in the long term by their war activity. Period. In the future, they will need to be able to export and reside in the markets they are ripping militarily and politically. And they even know this themselves. The issue is when that crossing point will come, and how long they can maintain their current war winning strategic operation. Their activities are enormously damaging on a scale not being calculated fully today. Its not just about the IP, Its about the products, the cheap prices, the flooding of markets, the subsidies, and the rest. Their actions are directly unemploying people, and are very much part of a western picture of recession. In the long term, chinese workers and standards will rise, and they will lose the large edge they hold in costs and undercutting. But by that time, they will have gained the fruits to ever larger degrees from their activities. They will have gained immesurable technology, science, capacity, development, and a great deal of it is not indiginous, and never was. And by that time, you can count on the fact that they will have stealth planes, modern tanks, weapons and a capability stolen from their opponents.
3. Waaaaa waaaa, This is slashdot, and whining and self hating is a common feature, as its endless leftist drivel about the powerful. Most people don't want change, or the loss of cheap chinese computers and equipment. But most don't understand that the cost of this isn't free. Wethere its slave workers in a factory, or workers in texas no longer employed at the Dell Texas factories, the price mounts over time.
This is not a typical economic imbalabce between countries trading. Its a war strategic operation by the chinese, and they are being given a free hand.
This is why you have a slow trail of officials at multiple levels talking about this, even if its still semi under the radar.
At the end of the day, millions of people are beginning to ask - where have the jobs gone? And the damage being made is nominkally permanant. The west can't dig its way out of this by employing ever larger numbers of people in hamburger joints, and small business.
Being

--
We`re all equal .. Just some of us are less equal than others.
Re:Its war by lcam · 2012-03-28 03:19 · Score: 1

Thanks for your reply. I'd just like to sprinkle in a few of my comments.

Take your points in turn:
1. Your citizens are living in a recession. The chinese are not. You need to understand the width and depth of this war to understand that your citizens in the millions are being degraded and suffering a lower standard of living, unemployment, and all that goes with it, while the chinese take the other direction. Its not a one for one price, because the chinese operate an economic war where each economic soldier - for thats what they are ultimatly operates far below the cost of the opponent. Chinese workers work at costs far below US or Western workers do. Part of this means yes - your citizens get cheap goods, but its not free. They do this by unseating and uneploying you, your friends, your neighbours. And the overall numbers game means in China, they can employ 3-10 workers for the same cost of one of your own.
It's a misconception to believe that recession and economic cycles are controlled by the Chinese. In fact, economic prosperity has more to do with the availability of money. The problem is, with greater amount of money in circulation, you need more products and services available to buy. China serves the role of producing the products that we buy so as to enjoy the prosperity. In that aspect China actually improves the standard of living because each of us can find a way to be productive in a way that is more enjoyable then working an assembly line task.

Chinese factories don't need to be more efficient than western ones, they operate on a base thats simply cheaper. They can have many times the workers at the same or lower cost, and given they have a billion + citizens, they won't change that any time soon. *But* - for each worker they take from west to east - everyone needs to understand that - if that worker then ceases employment - the unemployment costs to the nation state are again much higher than if it affected a chinese worker 1 to 1.
It is war - make no mistake. And if you don't think so, explore how hard it is for western companies to deal in china with knock off copies of IP and products. Examine that in scale and you begin to see the issue. If chinese companies have that done here, they go straight to the rule of law and we then help them defeat us in every way. I'm not proclaiming that we should mimic their action at home, but rather, if china and chinese companies steal and rip IP, they should garner no protection here and punishing damages should be a matter of course.
Ideally, we should let the Chinese do what they do best. We should procure different ways of to utilize our productive volition. IP is one such area and there are significant efforts that are being put into IP protection.
While I agree that it's a war and I make absolutely no mistake about it, it's important to remember that war is an art. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." The problem is our society has become dependent on them to lend us money and to produce goods we can buy cheaply. The balance of power has tipped over to their side of the field. Americans are not productive enough in a meaningful way to even the playing field. Only a few innovative companies like Goldman Sachs, Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and a few others really have the type of innovative inertia to "play" meaningfully. We must all find a way to become productive in a way that complements the types of benefits China offers us. I say that because the value of money in circulation in our economy must correlate with the productivity we are capable of.

2. China is not served in the long term by their war activity. Period. In the future, they will need to be able to export and reside in the markets they are ripping militarily and politically. And they even know this themselves. The issue is when that crossing point will come, and how long they can maintain their current war winning strategic operation. Their acti

Re:US at it too by gnick · 2012-03-27 07:19 · Score: 1

The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing

Actually, I don't see why anyone would hack into Airbus to give them secrets from Boeing. I'd hack into Boeing and then just openly give them to Airbus. Hacking into Airbus to give them secrets just seems redundant.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.

Re:US at it too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 07:19 · Score: 3, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage

~Cwix

Corporate espionage in the USA by circletimessquare · 2012-03-27 07:20 · Score: 1

is done by corporations against each other.

China, as it emerges from communism and state enterprises, has retained the espionage function at the government level.

Natural suspicion between Chinese firms will take care of this evolutionary holdback.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:US at it too by hlavac · 2012-03-27 07:29 · Score: 2

Try something like that with china, and you find out it is YOU whose ass will explode because you buy the stuff they make from the stolen tech from them...

Temporary labor is the problem, not the solution. by sethstorm · 2012-03-27 07:34 · Score: 1

Work at Microsoft however, and you will get paid very handsomely if you make great contributions to the bottom line. Sorry, but I only am the messenger here. The .com days are over and its time to move on. Go work in an I.T. company or even a contracting company doing consulting if you have your experience and you will be paid well. Otherwise you are a cost there to make sure nothing breaks. Unless you can think of a magical way companies can increase their sales or cut their cost from your ideas? Have any?

Contract/consulting only makes the problem worse, since they pit the providers of indirect labor & the requesting company against the worker. Such an arrangement is largely for the mistrust of the person doing the work, such that it distorts the wages below their actual costs. The solution is to make anything but FTE a very expensive option, not the other way around.

You don't need magic, just regulations that keep business from being screwy with workers.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Hacking vs murder by mr_lizard13 · 2012-03-27 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like how China wages war against other countries. They attack over fibre cables, snitching intellectual property.

Kind of refreshing really, when compared to western countries who send in tanks, warheads and troops and murder innocent civilians.

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman

Re:Hacking vs murder by Kittenman · 2012-03-27 09:19 · Score: 1

I like how China wages war against other countries. They attack over fibre cables, snitching intellectual property. Kind of refreshing really, when compared to western countries who send in tanks, warheads and troops and murder innocent civilians.
China doesn't always work that way. Check out Tibet.

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:Hacking vs murder by mr_lizard13 · 2012-03-27 09:34 · Score: 1

That's a reasonable point. Guess they pick on the locals.

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman

Ok, well then by mrquagmire · 2012-03-27 07:37 · Score: 1

...maybe we should start. The US government seems to be the only one in the world that doesn't display any interest in keeping its own businesses here and employed with its own citizens.

I'm not saying we should go out and steal foreign companies' IP, but our government really does need to step up and start protecting its citizens jobs and creating an environment where businesses don't have an incentive to move production, profits, taxes, and jobs overseas.

--
giggity

Assume the US government is not.... by zildgulf · 2012-03-27 07:39 · Score: 1

...hacking to get industrial secrets from China and giving it to domestic firms, maybe it is time to do so. At this rate China will be capable of rendering our Military IT network useless within the next 15 years.

The more reason to abandon China. by sethstorm · 2012-03-27 07:39 · Score: 1

While you might have 1 billion people, the longterm cost is that you get industrial espionage.

The better thing is to abandon China through large tariffs and develop from the US and western EU. Then do something to silence the inevitable and incorrect "but you're attacking yourself" responses.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:The more reason to abandon China. by interval1066 · 2012-03-27 07:43 · Score: 1

Then you better tell it to the architects of this thing. I'm not condemning or boosting, just reporting. Although I do believe simply paying higher wages to a workforce that demands them when people are willing to do the same job overseas for less is an unsustainable business model.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'

Ha! Joke's on them:) We outsourced R&D years a by bADlOGIN · 2012-03-27 07:42 · Score: 1

Where's the +0 "Sadly true" moderation?

--
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.

Re:US at it too by KingMotley · 2012-03-27 07:42 · Score: 1

You can fix that by putting your tinfoil hat over your laptop!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-03-27 07:46 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Look on the bright side: by Tablizer · 2012-03-27 07:53 · Score: 3, Funny

free offsite backups

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:US at it too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 08:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

US state Industrial espionage is certainly not new, but one would
be naive to imagine it would receive domestic press coverage.
Those of us that read French publications originating in France
know that the practice has been documented for many decades.
Wise up.

patent woes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 08:09 · Score: 1

Given the fucked up joke of a patent system that exist in the US now, thievery is probably the more honorable pursuit.

Re:It's not as though US executives don't hand ove by djdanlib · 2012-03-27 08:26 · Score: 1

...or other countries that China may or may not have in their back pocket!

My 2cents worth.. by Paracelcus · 2012-03-27 08:38 · Score: 1

China is an abomination, we (America) can survive without them and should do so! There are NO acceptable communist dictatorships, they (China) should be the target of our aggression, NOT middle eastern oil producers.

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd

Re:Yes, all America does is... by zlives · 2012-03-27 08:41 · Score: 1

we still call this planet earth...

Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-27 08:45 · Score: 1

>The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing [many believe that Chinese hackers gave Boeing secrets to Airbus].

WTF. Bullshit. Why did you choose this example ? What is your personal agenda ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_%28signals_intelligence%29#Controversy
>An article in the US newspaper Baltimore Sun reported in 1995 that European aerospace company Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia in 1994 after the US National Security Agency reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.

Waaah! Waah! Wah! Waaaaaaaaah! by buybuydandavis · 2012-03-27 08:57 · Score: 2

The Chinese make war by "stealing OUR ideas" instead of blowing things up and killing people, like civilized countries do. Waaaaaaaah!

Re:US at it too by Barlo_Mung_42 · 2012-03-27 09:00 · Score: 1

I was confused by that too. And why would China want to *help* a US company by giving Boeing Airbus info?

Re:US at it too by andy1307 · 2012-03-27 09:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Headline: Terrorists fly planes into buildings

YOU: So what? The US flies planes, too...

Re:US at it too by AK+Marc · 2012-03-27 09:02 · Score: 1

So then consider Stuxnet. Last I heard, that was made by the US and Israel.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:Temporary labor is the problem, not the solutio by St.Creed · 2012-03-27 09:05 · Score: 1

The solution is to make anything but FTE a very expensive option, not the other way around.

Which is not the way capitalism works and thus means you have to implement a new economic system first. It's been tried, but not with much success up to now.

As far as consulting goes: I find it much better to actually justify the salary I get in terms of what my customer needs, rather than to just sit there and get a salary without people actually looking at what I give them. I love being a freelancer precisely because of that sort of thing. And yes it runs the risk of being used to undercut present workers. Well, there's always the trade unions to combat that sort of thing. They've been at that game for over a century so they have some experience with that.

--
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)

Re:And What Are We Paying Them For? by lcam · 2012-03-27 09:36 · Score: 1

Is this how much we fear our Chinese masters?

We had better either take down the US Flag and start flying the Red flag of China or we had better hit them hard and without mercy as we would anyone who would harm Americans.

Are you for real?

You give them too much credit, maybe you recognize them as your masters. I do not.

I agree with hitting them hard. But I must say, we probably disagree on what that means.

Re:Hacked? More like outsourced or hired into. by lcam · 2012-03-27 09:37 · Score: 1

I wish I had mod points lift. I'd mod your post +1 informative.

Very well said.

Re:And What Are We Paying Them For? by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 09:56 · Score: 1

I pay nearly $1500 A WEEK in income tax and I'd like to know what the hell our Government thinks it's doing by sitting idly by and saying "Geez, the Chinese Government is attacking our Corporate Citizens and by proxy, our Economic Security and the future Security of our entire Nation -- that's too bad"

Why isn't this seen as a DECLARATION OF WAR? We make an international incident of locking up Kim Dot Com for some file sharing BUT DO NOTHING while the Chinese Government assails our Corporations with a literal Army of Hackers.

Why are we not destroying this army of hackers, why are we not taking down the Chinese Internet Infrastructure or putting up a great firewall around China in retribution for this behavior.

Are we so badly owned that we can not afford to do a thing?
Is this how much we fear our Chinese masters?

We had better either take down the US Flag and start flying the Red flag of China or we had better hit them hard and without mercy as we would anyone who would harm Americans.

Because the CEOs would have a fit! Our economy would collapse and Apple would be out of business.

The CEOs even admittingly hand over IP when asked. They do not care. They do so because the corrupt official may have important contacts to help the company setup shop in return. Also the lure of cheap labor and a MUCH bigger market than the US is too much to ignore. Wall Street loves and will even give a raise to such CEOs who hand out their IP.

It is disgusting but many are annoyed at first but do not care. Mitt Romney even mentions this and how corporations are asked at point blank ... hand it over or we wont let you enter our market ... etc.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:US at it too by Billly+Gates · 2012-03-27 10:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

In truth go Google Department of Commerce hacked?

The US government did not, but the Chinese government cracked corporate laptops and infected them with malware at customs. Today they have a no laptop policy when traveling out of the country as the hacking did not start with even their termostats and printers using Chinese IP addresses until one of their executives flew to China for a conference.

If I were doing business in China, I would buy my routers here and fly them and use only US contractors to install them as I would assume it would be rootkitted. Same with servers etc.

It is insane

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Bah by AK+Marc · 2012-03-27 10:29 · Score: 1

They always are. Your inability to make the connection doesn't diminish the truth. "We've always been at war with" is an excuse for blind nationalism to generate obedience. The same is true in 1984. The same is true with the reference you are objecting to.

--
Learn to love Alaska

If it were me hacking the US... by cbybear · 2012-03-27 11:09 · Score: 1

I'd go after things like Perforce and other content management systems. Heck, hack Perforce alone and you could potentially get access to hundreds of companies in Silicon Valley, including a few major CG animation studios, once your hacked version of Perforce has been installed.

This is one reason I rather prefer open source software. I suppose you could hack Subversion, but if you aren't part of the core maintainers, then I don't see it sticking.

Re:US at it too by rainmouse · 2012-03-27 12:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's speculation that US intelligence was involved, not confirmed fact.

Yep, just like the main article is nothing but speculation with no confirmed fact.

Re:US at it too by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-03-27 12:50 · Score: 1

And your evidence of this is where?

Re:And What Are We Paying Them For? by mbkennel · 2012-03-27 15:30 · Score: 1

I pay nearly $1500 A WEEK in income tax and I'd like to know what the hell our Government thinks it's doing by sitting idly by and saying "Geez, the Chinese Government is attacking our Corporate Citizens and by proxy, our Economic Security and the future Security of our entire Nation -- that's too bad"

The people who run the government think "those guys are really making lots of money, maybe I can make a little bit by going along with them".

The people who run the government then say "protectionism is bad for Job Creators and we don't ever want to be mean to Job Creators".

Re:Hacked? More like outsourced or hired into. by mbkennel · 2012-03-27 15:31 · Score: 1

Even US firms who take active measures to avoid handing over the family jewels find those same jewels absconded-with.

Look up AMSC.

And the solution is .. by dgharmon · 2012-03-27 16:06 · Score: 1

"Former White House cybersecurity advisor Richard Clarke says state-sanctioned Chinese hackers are stealing R&D from U.S. companies, threatening the long-term competitiveness of the nation".

And the solution is to stop using Microsoft Windows .. :)

--
AccountKiller

Enough already by dgharmon · 2012-03-27 16:34 · Score: 1

Would certain vested in the US milatary/industrial comples please find another bogey man to scare us all with, this one is getting tediious.

--
AccountKiller

Re:US at it too by cold+fjord · 2012-03-27 17:41 · Score: 1

I was confused by that too. And why would China want to *help* a US company by giving Boeing Airbus info?

Gratitude?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Airbus? So who told Boeing the amount of bribes? by Kirth · 2012-03-27 21:10 · Score: 2

"The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing"

That is a good one. Who then told Boeing of the bribes Airbus gave to some middle-eastern officials, so Boeing could match up? I can't find it anymore, but I think it was in the late nineties. And the information about the bribes DID come from US secret services.

--
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse

Too long. by sethstorm · 2012-03-29 01:47 · Score: 1

When you speak of leveling out, you have affirmed that at least a functionally zero-sum situation exists, which takes from the developed nation to give to a freedom-lacking nation without the consent of the developed nation. A legislative measure is more efficient and serves the citizens in a favorable & direct manner. In addition, this transfer can be considered theft, for there is no consent by the First World country.

As for Detroit, I side with Detroit, Michigan, and the rest of the worker-friendly (read: no RTW) North. Restore regulatory parity, and there is no advantage to the worker-hostile South.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:Too long. by garyebickford · 2012-03-29 02:42 · Score: 1

Actually it is not zero-sum. As can be seen in many nations today, as people come into the middle class, their increased purchasing power increases economic activity both internally and externally, which has a multiplier effect (it's been a while since my econ classes so my terminology is lame, but hey). Each of those new 'middle class' incomes generates (by some estimates) as much as five additional jobs, as the first worker buys a car, buys more groceries, etc. those industries require more workers. That is largely why, despite the migration of many jobs and a lot of production to other nations, the standard of living here has not gone down proportionally. It has only stagnated a bit. In fact, compared to the standard of living in the 1960s I would say it has advanced quite a bit.
Re 'freedom-lacking' - a second point, which is the reasoning behind much of the globalization activity that goes back as far as Nixon's opening up relations with China and even back after WWII, is the theory that free and open trade tends to increase the forces toward free and open political systems. While the process is slow, and often twisty, I think the evidence bears that out. Nations that participate in global trade continuously move toward more free politics. Individuals who join the middle class soon start to exert various kinds of pressure on their governments - viz. Libya, Tunisia, etc., even Syria. A big part of that is the requirement for more free communications to support that trade. Syria can not completely turn off the Internet, lest the economy shut down and die. I don't want to go on too long here so I'll have to leave it at this hand-waving level, but I hope my point comes across. China itself has been rapidly evolving toward a more open polity, despite the efforts of the ruling party to slow down the changes. Today even the ruling elite are making the right noises about openness.

--
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/

Hollywood by __aancvu2993 · 2012-03-31 01:31 · Score: 1

Please read about where Hollywood comes from and what they did with Edison's patents a century ago. I applaud that China is able to get up on its feet faster than all the other stupid countries in the third world that had golden opportunities and failed miserably, their incommensurable material wealth only bringing them corruption, war and misery. Look up Africa and South America somewhere. I only hope Chinese people are less adept at war than the US is.

So when no one has been able to make a safe OS, you cry foul and turn to the law. My, my, how adorable.

Slashdot Mirror

Richard Clarke: All Major U.S. Firms Hacked By China

217 of 311 comments (clear)