Slashdot Mirror


US To Charge Chinese Military Employees With Hacking

jfruh (300774) writes "The U.S. federal government will announce today indictments of several employees of the Chinese military with hacking into computers to steal industrial secrets. The indictments will be the first of their kind against employees of a foreign government. Among the trade secrets allegedly stolen by the accused are information about a nuclear power plant design and a solar panel company's cost and pricing data."

126 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. Vs the NSA by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Which just steals secrets from the states, vs corporate secrets and giving them to GM, Apple, General Electric, etc.

    1. Re:Vs the NSA by p51d007 · · Score: 1

      Just thinking that myself!

    2. Re:Vs the NSA by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah it's weird in that regard that they went for opening that pandoras box... the chinese will just indict in response.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Vs the NSA by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least that makes for a bulletproof court case: NSA files show that the data is now stored on a Chinese government computer... Oh, wait.

    4. Re:Vs the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the Chinese will get a good laugh.

    5. Re:Vs the NSA by erikkemperman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TFS and TFA are both ridiculously vague.

      How exactly does this work, in terms of jurisdiction? Is this a case for the ICC? WTO?

      Or is it now (officially) the position of USJ that its jurisdiction covers the whole planet?

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    6. Re:Vs the NSA by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yeah it's weird in that regard that they went for opening that pandoras box... the chinese will just indict in response.

      Weird enough that it has me trying to figure out why they would do it. The other thing that seems weird is that we're charging the guys who were just following orders. Why charge the foot soldiers instead of the generals who ordered the action? It's a pretty extreme tinfoil hat scenario, but could they be trying to establish a story frame of throwing the boots to the wolves, so Clapper and Alexander don't go down?

    7. Re:Vs the NSA by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A country can claim jurisdiction anywhere on the planet, but the trick is to be able to enforce that claim of jurisdiction...

    8. Re:Vs the NSA by LifesABeach · · Score: 3

      One has to wonder about several things. 1, how does the U.S. know whom to indite? 2. jurisdiction of the U.S.? 3. And are we finally seeing the ignoring of this Pin Headed concept of BRIC Nations?

      Also, is the U.S. going after the person who said, "ya, it's good idea; do it." or just the teams of rank and file only?

    9. Re:Vs the NSA by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Someone sent the DOJ a copy of "team america" and they believe it is their new mission.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Vs the NSA by John.Banister · · Score: 2

      They could be trying to show to the public the NSA doing something the public will like. I imagine that showing documented evidence of who in China ordered the foot soldiers to do their job would involve revelation of capability that they don't want to reveal. Whereas, the current business shows a favorable result of spying on international connections to domestic businesses, demonstrating why the NSA wants the access they have to the domestic network.

    11. Re:Vs the NSA by dean.collins · · Score: 1

      chuckles :)

    12. Re:Vs the NSA by gtall · · Score: 1

      Really? Do you have any evidence this has actually occurred or is this just another one of those "There is nothing the NSA cannot do" stories?

    13. Re:Vs the NSA by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      yeah it's weird in that regard that they went for opening that pandoras box..

      They had to do something to distract people from the story that they're sabotaging Cisco routers coming out of the U.S.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    14. Re:Vs the NSA by Zumbs · · Score: 2

      ... and what will happen when non-US entities decides to charge NSA operatives for similar crimes?

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    15. Re:Vs the NSA by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Likely it will just be "John/Jane Doe" indictments.

      So we will be charging no suspect and prosecute them in absentia where they will have no defense, as such it is a forgone conclusion that they will be found guilty, so what is that plan have convictions made up with a "insert name here..." line? Yeah I feel safe living in country that thinks this is fine...

      And beyond the obvious dubiousness of these proceedings isn't this a major pot calling the kettle black situation after everything Snowden has showed us in the past year of the NSA spying, hack/cracking, emplanting of back doors, stealing foreign secrets. We have no moral high ground to stand on in this fight.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    16. Re:Vs the NSA by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I think at this point they have just decided to go with "hay, everyone else is just as bad!"

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:Vs the NSA by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      That has never happened.

    18. Re:Vs the NSA by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      Which just steals secrets from the states, vs corporate secrets and giving them to GM, Apple, General Electric, etc.

      Actually, a couple of NSA's sub-programs relate specifically to industrial-espionage in the oil industry. So it is total hypocrisy.

      --
      Who did what now?
    19. Re:Vs the NSA by CheshireDragon · · Score: 1

      THAT I would love to see!

      --
      "That's right...I said it."
    20. Re:Vs the NSA by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Its probably worse that just the US.

      Notice how the charge isn't just spying but spying on US companies for the benefit of chinese companies? That is because several multi-lateral trade agreements have provisions concerning state sponsored industrial espionage. If there is any creditable evidence to show, its possible most of Europe and a lot of other areas will have to sanction them too.

    21. Re:Vs the NSA by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yes, embargos and trade sanctions would hurt the US, but they would hurt China more. After all, the US is the consumer. It can turn to other vendors, even if they are pricier, and it can reduce consumption if absolutely necessary. China is the seller. It needs those dollars coming into its economy, and there is no other potential customer that has nearly as much money to spend as the US does.

      What planet are you from? Is it nice there?

      America has no leverage. They don't make anything anymore, so they can't trade anything anymore. Just their funny money, and China is in the middle of an effort, coordinated with Russia, to topple the US dollar. But it's not like Chinese people are going to be cold and starving if the US cuts off the supply. Chinese people could dump their manufactured goods in the ocean and it wouldn't really impact them that much as long as their population had somewhere to go and something to do on Monday morning so they don't get bored and cause trouble.

      You guys are like a big, fat, fat, lead albatross around the neck of the planet. Did I mention fat. Yeah, your technology is obvious, your music is poisonous, your cuisine is disgusting and yet, somehow, you're all fat. And liars and spies and war criminals.

      Seriously, why are we reading an article about the Chinese when the entire US government is full of war criminals? Is this a joke? Is it April Fools day? Am I being punked?

      I mean, yeah, I'm not American, so yeah, in the "We're all being punked by the Americans" sense, I know I'm being punked... but there aren't any hidden cameras here, are there?

      I mean, yeah, I know there's a hidden camera in my laptop and two in my phone, and your criminal operatives have probably hacked it because I spout inflammatory rhetoric in public forums all the time and they probably have quotas like a traffic cop... but, this isn't a reality TV show intended to entertain the masses with a big silly joke, is it?

      Please don't put me on one of those shows. I'm not a politician...

      PS: Those nukes don't hide the fact that YOU'RE ALL FAT!!! Have another cheeseburger, fatty!

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    22. Re:Vs the NSA by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Lots of other countries build PCs and their components.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    23. Re:Vs the NSA by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Even more likely, it will be these people http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

    24. Re:Vs the NSA by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      yeah it's weird in that regard that they went for opening that pandoras box..

      They had to do something to distract people from the story that they're sabotaging Cisco routers coming out of the U.S.

      It's the South Park "Look! A wookie!!" defense.

    25. Re:Vs the NSA by rezme · · Score: 1

      Apparently, as an American, I'm a fat lying war criminal... Funny, I don't recall doing any war criminalling...

  2. Jurisdiction by Richy_T · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US govt doesn't know the meaning of the word. Sovereignty's another.

    1. Re:Jurisdiction by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These are political moves. Said actual people better not leave China or Chinese-friendly (extradition-wise) nations.

      Yes it won't do much but it is a statement that your government ordered it is not gonna help you.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Jurisdiction by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Informative

      The US govt doesn't know the meaning of the word. Sovereignty's another.

      Neither does the EU or probably most if not all other countries in the world. Did you know that France makes Ebay restrict certain listings on every Ebay site in the world, not just the French Ebay site, so that French citizens are theoretically prevented (by IP address) from (gasp!) seeing them? Italy has also tried to enforce its law beyond its national borders. Spain went so far as to try people from crimes committed in Latin America that had nothing to do with Spanish citizens. Austria put a Holocaust denier in jail for a while for statements he made in the UK, not Austria. Once he came to Austria they simply nabbed him and charged them under their anti-Nazi laws for something that didn't even happen on Austrian soil. So spare me the usual US bashing.

    3. Re:Jurisdiction by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Fair statement. Though I tend to run in the US stuff more often. It's despicable from all though.

    4. Re:Jurisdiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are alluding to who I am thinking of Pinochet was in outright Crimes against Humanity territory, everyone should be prosecuting him and that he was given amnesty by the UK is outragous.

  3. Talk about by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the pot and the kettle.

  4. presumably... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Presumably, they will also be arresting NSA officials for their industrial espionage as reported by Snowden?

    I mean, they wouldn't be duplicitous or anything, right?

    1. Re:presumably... by NotDrWho · · Score: 3

      Allow me to summarize the American legal system when it comes to international affairs:

      Anything done by the U.S. = Legal
      Anything done by U.S. corporations = Legal
      Anything done by any country the U.S. doesn't like = Illegal
      Anything done by any corporation that doesn't play ball with the U.S. = Illegal

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:presumably... by ComputersKai · · Score: 1

      Wonder where the civilians factor in...

    3. Re:presumably... by monkeyFuzz · · Score: 1

      Anything done by civilians that maximize profits* of US Corporations = Legal
      Anything done by civilians that hurts profits of US Corporations = Illegal


      *profits = national interest = national security

  5. Does that mean ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that I can sue the NSA for trying to crack my machines and that the USA will extradite the NSA employees to the UK so that they can be tried in our courts ? Do the people at the USA DOJ understand the meaning of the word ''irony'' ?

    This is more outlandish than even something that most political satire writers would have dreamed up.

  6. Do as I say, not... by ThomasBHardy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone else find this particularly ironic and posturing after the "Cisco Complains To Obama About NSA Adding Spyware To Routers" article earlier?

    --
    Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
  7. Good luck with that. by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No doubt, China will cooperate fully in extraditing members of their active military so they can stand trial in the US for following their orders.

    Not an Obama hater, but seriously, Russia and now China? Trying to start WWIII on two fronts, in case one backs down? 2016 can't come fast enough.

    1. Re:Good luck with that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "2016 can't come fast enough." You're an idiot if you think that changes ANYTHING AT ALL.

    2. Re:Good luck with that. by just_another_sean · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the democrats are the ones currently instigating WWIII than 2016 ain't going to help. If a Republican gets elected (unless it's Ron Paul, and I'm not holding my breath for that!) than their just going to look at the previous 8 years as laying the ground work. And any democrat that gets elected is going to assume that their election is voter approval of the current administration's policies, otherwise the voters would have ousted the Dems and brought in a Rep.

      In other words, in a two party system, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    3. Re:Good luck with that. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      No doubt, China will cooperate fully in extraditing members of their active military so they can stand trial in the US for following their orders.

      Not an Obama hater, but seriously, Russia and now China? Trying to start WWIII on two fronts, in case one backs down? 2016 can't come fast enough.

      The response against Russia has been so weak that I am completely shocked that today Putin gave the order to pull back from the Ukrainian border. I am baffled about what this is supposed to accomplish in regards to China unless the real reason is to make the accused afraid to travel to the USA or possibly certain US friendly countries that might extradite them. Since the high ups in China love their foreign trips to "decadent" Western democracies, just stopping certain people from traveling and severely annoying them may be the real purpose here. I wouldn't worry about WWIII.

    4. Re:Good luck with that. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There isn't much that can be done in response to Russia. Military action is out of the question: One does not start an open war with a nuclear superpower lightly. Economic sanctions hurt both sites, and Europe needs Russia as much as Russia needs Europe. They supply the gas that keeps the lights on.

    5. Re:Good luck with that. by tquasar · · Score: 2

      The USofA isn't a monarchy, The House and Senate are controlled by special interest groups esp. the World Domination Industry, so cyber war is good(for) business.

    6. Re:Good luck with that. by jargonburn · · Score: 2

      No, 2016 will change something.
      It could easily be for the worse, and most likely won't be any better, but it will change.

    7. Re:Good luck with that. by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      So stop complaining that we did the wrong thing and tell us what we should have done. Put up or shut up. There's a LOT going on politically behind the scenes with ambassadors and such chatting in isolated rooms.

      There are three options I can see:
      1. Ignore it and let the EU sort it out
      2. Sanctions and hard rhetoric, some military posturing in the region
      3. Invasion to reclaim the occupied lands. we (US, GB, etc) invade, China assists Russia, India assists us, Pakistan, Iran and the reset of the nuclear nations join in short order... see where this goes?

      We chose the middle ground, what's your plan?

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    8. Re:Good luck with that. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The response against Russia has been so weak that I am completely shocked that today Putin gave the order to pull back from the Ukrainian border.

      Two things:

      1) No sign of troops moving, so this order may be a sham meant to distract.

      2) Putin has accomplished pretty much all his objectives already (he's annexed Crimea, he's pretty much annexed the eastern half of Ukraine, he's made it clear to Europe that HE controls their natural gas supply.

      And on top of that, he's made it clear to the rest of eastern Europe that NATO probably won't do anything other than bluster when he starts making more territorial demands. I'm predicting Latvia next - it's a toofer, in that he gets Latvia and cuts Estonia's land borders with everyone else....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Good luck with that. by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      No, 2016 will change something.

      It could easily be for the worse, and most likely won't be any better, but it will change.

      Most likely, there will be no significant change to speak of. Maybe some cosmetic tweaks. Certainly new promises which will be broken on day one. Almost definitely a populace who will continue to fail to demand real change.

      Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    10. Re:Good luck with that. by GTRacer · · Score: 1

      I'm so very disappointed it took this many posts to get to this one. I figured it for FP, myself.

      --
      Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
    11. Re:Good luck with that. by organgtool · · Score: 1

      No, 2016 will change something.

      The only thing that will change in 2016 is which person has a bunch of rich hands up their asshole controlling what comes out of their mouth. Everything else will remain exactly the same.

    12. Re:Good luck with that. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      That's why the only reasonable course of action is to develop nuclear power _and_ green energy FAST in Europe to STOP giving money and incentives to Russia (and the middle east). Other things are just peacock posturing.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    13. Re:Good luck with that. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      My biggest fear is being killed before I've had a chance to watch the fireworks on the news.. just wanna see a couple of mushies go up first, because I'll likely never see the one that erases me!

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    14. Re:Good luck with that. by pla · · Score: 1

      1. Ignore it and let the EU sort it out

      We have two and a half military forces on this planet worth considering in this discussion. Control of Europe matters only insofar as they give us friendly locations to stage military operations somewhat closer to Russia. And while the Mongol Horde may well erupt someday soon to conquer the entire planet, for now they seem content to pursue the American dream of owning the most disposable stuff.

      So yeah, option #1 makes the most sense, because we won't actually go with #3, and knowing that, Russia has no reason not to call us on #2, forcing us to back down and look pathetic.

      Interestingly, the fact that Putin appears to have deescalated a bit in the last couple days, in light of what I just said, one has to wonder what he really wanted in the first place - Because rest assured, he sure as hell didn't back down because of anything we did.

    15. Re:Good luck with that. by Trogre · · Score: 1

      What are you going to do about that? Isn't there some clause in your country's constitution that mandates you to fix situations like this?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    16. Re:Good luck with that. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      That's what they told Raegan.

      If military action is out of the question, then there isn't anything to stop Russia from simply taking over as much as it wants.

      Russia is avoiding stepping on the toes of any NATO nation (Ukraine, Georgia aren't NATO nations) so it doesn't initiate ... military action.

      In other words Russia respects ... military action.

      Peace through strength.

    17. Re:Good luck with that. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      And both Regan and his Russian counterparts were sensible enough not to start a war - they were just very concerned the other side might, so prepared regardless and put defenses on a hair-trigger.

      The cold war may be over, but Russia still has a decently impressive military, and the confidence that the most NATO will do is take back anywhere they invade. It'd be insane t actually try to invade Russia: The territory is inhospitable to anyone not extensively experienced, and if there is any prospect of them actually losing then Putin might be just desperate enough to fire off all those ICBMs he keeps around. All Russia would be risking is the cost of a war and some diplomatic fallout, both temporary problems. They have the strategic advantage here.

    18. Re:Good luck with that. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      OK. I see. You meant "military invasion" then instead of "military action".

      I agree, although there's not very many people clamoring to invade Russia right now (Napoleon and Hitler aside).

    19. Re:Good luck with that. by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      The response against Russia has been so weak that I am completely shocked that today Putin gave the order to pull back from the Ukrainian border.

      ... which only goes to show you don't understand the first thing about international politics and diplomacy and probably shouldn't be so eager to comment on it.

  8. Very Bad Precedent by HighOrbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except for the special cases of crimes against humanity and "non official cover" spies, soldiers and civil servents should not be held criminally liable for doing their jobs or executing policy set by their superiors. Since we don't want our own military and government employees charged with 'crimes' for carrying out their duties, this is a very bad idea because it sets the precedent.

    1. Re:Very Bad Precedent by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the contrary, every person should be held criminally liable for their actions regardless of instructions from "superiors". This would be an excellent precedent, let's get rid of the idea that a person can hide behind an organization or some other conspiracy and not be responsible for their own actions.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    2. Re:Very Bad Precedent by radja · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is already a precedent. German soldiers were tried and sentenced for carrying out orders in the concentration camps.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    3. Re:Very Bad Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This would be an excellent precedent

      ...That was set long ago. Nuremberg, anybody?

    4. Re:Very Bad Precedent by HighOrbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions of civil servants who carried out a policy you just disagree with. Again, there are special crimes against humanity that everybody gets held responsible for, but do you really want to prosecute a worker-bee at the IRS because you disagree with an 'unjust' tax policy?

    5. Re:Very Bad Precedent by mlyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it's unjust enough, yes.

      First, if we hold people immune/not morally responsible for whatever they do as part of misbehaving organizations, we've removed one of the final checks and balances from these organizations. We've effectively capitulated, saying that when you get enough people together they can turn into a crushing, evil leviathan, as long as there's not a blatantly clear organizational criminal conspiracy. People should be people, making (and held accountable for) moral judgments about the actions they take.

      My former boss made a mistake with the whole AMT thing. He exercised below market rate stock options and held the stock until the value went to 0. He made no actual money, but ended up with a tax liability and IRS employees systematically liquidating his assets. There are supposed to be things in the organization to protect against this-- an ombudsman, proscriptions against proceeding with such blatantly unfair and unaffordable collection practices, etc. He's in his late 60s and they just took everything. I think the people who didn't pull the organizational lever to stop the process, presumably because it wasn't helping them meet their collection targets, should be in prison.

    6. Re:Very Bad Precedent by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

      But it wasn't that simple.

      If they just had tried soldiers for carrying out orders, they would have had to hold the same measurements against their own soldiers (who of course were responsible for quite a number of civilian casualities, too) To escape that quandary, the "crimes against humanity" were invented. Which kept allied soldiers from prosecution for simply killing people, but allowed to sentence the leading german heads for industrial mass-killing.

      (To be fair: the allied forces concentrated on hanging the head honchos and turned a blind eye to the common grunts)

      --
      bickerdyke
    7. Re:Very Bad Precedent by qbast · · Score: 1

      Which kept allied soldiers from prosecution for simply killing people, but allowed to sentence the leading german heads for industrial mass-killing.

      (To be fair: the allied forces concentrated on hanging the head honchos and turned a blind eye to the common grunts)

      ... was simple fact that allies won and Germany lost.

    8. Re:Very Bad Precedent by wiredog · · Score: 1

      And when you get indicted for saying something which is perfectly legal to say where you are, but a capital offense in some other country?

    9. Re:Very Bad Precedent by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      "unjust" is totally a subjective concept. "Your racial equality is my reverse discrimination racism", etc.

    10. Re:Very Bad Precedent by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      This is a VERY GOOD precedent to set. As soon as "the people" can't hide behind "just following orders" they will start to affect change.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    11. Re:Very Bad Precedent by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Alas, the precedent was set a long time ago in Nuremberg. They established quite clearly that "just following orders" wasn't an acceptable excuse.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Very Bad Precedent by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      You realize that there is effectively no difference between a government-denied chinese hacker and a "non official cover" spy right?

      And if they aren't government-employed then this is the completely appropriate action.

      In either case, I 'd say its better to get this out in the open where the justice system can work it through rather than just finger pointing. If they're not government-sponsored (as the Chinese claim) then the Chinese should be willing to pony up and extradite them! (The fundamental issue here is really that the line between government and non-government is defined in a very different way in the US and China, both in law and in practice. China is still a single-party rule, which makes it often a matter of semantics what is government and what is not.)

    13. Re:Very Bad Precedent by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Probably.. but they had the basic decency to set up that construct instead of plain obvious victor's justice

      --
      bickerdyke
    14. Re:Very Bad Precedent by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      That opens the door to politically motivated prosecutions of civil servants who carried out a policy you just disagree with. Again, there are special crimes against humanity that everybody gets held responsible for, but do you really want to prosecute a worker-bee at the IRS because you disagree with an 'unjust' tax policy?

      Nonsense! We are not talking about if something is just or unjust, but whether it is criminal or not. If you perform a criminal act, you have performed a criminal act and will be treated as such. That you were acting under order does not change the criminal nature of your actions. At very best you can claim to have acted in good faith, but that will just give lenience, not change your guilt.

    15. Re:Very Bad Precedent by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      If the tax policy is a crime, then yes the worker bee should be prosecuted. Isn't this why we have laws? It would be a much better world if stupid laws could not be enacted because the worker bees would refuse to enforce them out for fear of being held personally liable. Do you think we would have vicious bully cops in the USA (and elsewhere) if they got criminal convictions instead of paid vacations as a consequence? If you work for the IRS and your boss orders you to beat somebody to death, aren't you still subject to prosecution? I don't see why other crimes should be any different.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    16. Re:Very Bad Precedent by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      What happens now? I am sure this isn't the first time a nation has indicted citizens of another one.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    17. Re:Very Bad Precedent by houghi · · Score: 1

      That is because they lost.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re:Very Bad Precedent by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There's no extradition treaty so nothing. Even with an extradition treaty I doubt that anything would happen. If this was a simple crime such as murder, the Chinese still would not extradite but might try the suspect in China. This is what happened when a Chinese national killed his girl friend in Vancouver (actually Burnaby) and ran home to China. The Chinese refused to extradite and tried him themselves, though they did promise not to use the death penalty.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re:Very Bad Precedent by mlyle · · Score: 1

      No, I think the rules are broken.

      The policy justification behind AMT was to force people to pay at least a certain minimum rate of tax on actual income. To catch some of the various tax avoidance strategies, it considers different timing for when gains are actually recognized.

      If you have 100,000 stock options for $0.01, and the stock is at $100.00, and you exercise those options-- you now hold stock worth $10,000,000 and paid $10,000. If the stock then goes to 0, you just missed out on $10,000,000 you could have had by selling earlier. You have a $10,000 capital loss. But the IRS will show up saying you owe $2,600,000. But hey, they're generous-- you can apply what you're able to pay against future years' taxes.

      On the other hand, if you buy 100,000 shares of stock for $0.01, and then the stock goes to $100.00 and then down to $0.00, you have a $10,000 capital loss.

    20. Re:Very Bad Precedent by mlyle · · Score: 1

      Substitute $1,000 for all $10,000 in the above post.

  9. Sanctions by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    Next up is sanctions against the individuals in question. No more iPhones for you !

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:Sanctions by pla · · Score: 4, Funny

      Next up is sanctions against the individuals in question. No more iPhones for you!

      I can hear the quote from Zhang Gaoli already: "After analyzing the sanctions against our military officers, I suggest to the USA to make their iPads using cardboard and trained fireflies".

      Oh, wait, China makes most of the world's cardboard, too. Hmm... Woven cat hairballs? I think we still have at least some domestic production of those, if Fluffy hasn't outsourced it to a Mexican Hairless (don't ask) yet...

    2. Re:Sanctions by sjames · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that, they make all the iPhones.

  10. These indictments are pure lip service. by Apharmd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How will the US enforce them? This will just make our government look weak.

  11. Re:1940/50's tech and cost/pricing data??? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    That was all the could find at least ;D

    "Hey, while browsing your processor design I saw it looked exactly like ours!"

  12. Interesting Strategy by diakka · · Score: 4, Informative

    Surely they're not going to get any cooperation from the Chinese government on this, but by naming these individuals, they could be limiting the future career choices of those individuals. Want to work at a foreign compa ny? might be tough. Want to travel to the US or country that has extradition with the US? Better think twice about that. Even if you want to work at a local Chinese company, you might not be able to command as high of a salary if you can't get competing offers from foreign companies. A high percentage of well moneyed and educated individuals in China have plans to emigrate to foreign countries with the growing pains China has on the horizon, and some talented folks might be dissuaded from this career path. How this will play out in the real world is hard to say, but If the US didn't think it would have some effect, I don't think they'd do it.

    --
    -- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
    1. Re:Interesting Strategy by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Quote the opposite I'd say, these people are likely to be lionised in China and have their careers furthered by being prosecuted. And if they really want to go abroad they can have new identities manufactured wholesale by their government. Global politics are a whole other level.

    2. Re:Interesting Strategy by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Diplomatic passport.

    3. Re:Interesting Strategy by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      A high percentage of well moneyed and educated individuals in China have plans to emigrate to foreign countries ...

      Yes, I've read this same thing many (or most) Chinese will emigrate given the opportunity. One reason is nobody can buy land in China (well maybe for top politburo members), you can lease but not like here in US where you can own it. Kind of like way back when in Europe only royals and nobles can buy land, and was motivator for commoners to take chances moving to the New World.

      Getting back to this theme "Chinese stealing our secrets," not really, mostly these were given away (outsourcing).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    4. Re:Interesting Strategy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No, there will be countries that would recognize the US having a right to extradite these people. You'ld need to study up on extradtion treaties before visiting any foreign country. Austrailia and New Zealand might be out, e.g. OTOH, Thailand, Viet Nam, Cambodia, etc. are probably safe. Don't know about India or Sri Lanka. Might want to take careful precautions before stepping outside of Russia in Europe. Etc. And that's for legal extradition. There have been occasions where "extradition" was a polite term for kidnapping.

      OTOH, China's a big place, and many of the near-by countries would not ignore its preferences. The accused are not exactly confined. And China could easily decide to make it the kind of issue that the US wouldn't want to confront. But they probably won't. These *are* low level actors.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Interesting Strategy by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Diplomatic credentials are granted by the country you travel to, not the country you came from. The US would not grant diplomatic credentials to somebody wanted for a crime.

      If it worked as you suggest, than countries would send in spies over the border unlawfully all the time and if they got caught they'd just be sent home to try again. The reason spies are sent in NOC is so that the country they're visiting doesn't know they're there, which also means that they can be arrested as they have no diplomatic immunity. Diplomats with immunity have to walk up to immigration and declare themselves like anybody else (though they may very well get a special line). Every country works this way.

  13. The US complains about spying... by cbreak · · Score: 1

    Now THAT is precious... Since when is spying illegal in the US? They even tamper with other people's hardware, suck up the data of whole countries, deploy MITM attacks on the backbone and more. Really, they should just shut up and at least not become a bunch of spineless hypocrites.

  14. China is hacking? There's a surprise by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm just going to have a heart attack and DIE from that surprise..

    This is SO STUPID. If you cannot get your hands on the hackers to arrest them, then why bother with saying anything? Just keep the honey pot in place and keep tracing where the attacks are coming from. Then, when you can get your hands on them it's special rendition time. This tell the public what happened only serves to notify everybody that you got hacked and then trying to take legal action to punish the hackers which has no hope of doing anything says you are inept and clueless too.

    You knew I would drink from the glass in front of me, so you switched the glasses so the one in front of me has the poison... BUT, you knew I would think that so CLEARLY the glass in front of you has the poison.... etc.. We are right at the "Never get in a land war in Asia.. " Line being spoken by this administration, only they are not wearing the mask.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  15. Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course, I didn't copy it before I submitted it but it went something like this:

    All I can say is:

    Go after those f*****s

    When China complains that the U.S. is spying also, it behooves them to remember that the U.S. has not (publicly) used what it knows to undermine China. If Snowden's revelations were only a tiny bit true, the NSA has an immense amount of data on the Chinese leadership. Maybe enough (if released publicly) to overthrow them.

    Consider this: the NSA recorded and retained EVERY phone conversation made in an ENTIRE country for 30 days. It hacked into Huawei and saw the source code for the routers networking China (no word on if they put in any backdoors). It obtained the e-mails of some of world leaders (sorry Merkel!), showing that even Germany's security, hardly a technological lightweight, wasn't good enough against them. It subverted critical worldwide security standards. It has put in hardware backdoors into critical networking and computer equipment.

    Remember that the Internet (as well as computers!) and its supporting technologies (Intel, Cisco, Facebook, Twitter, Apple and, of course, Google and Microsoft) are American inventions. Think of all the traps that may lay in wait for China. Every CPU every packet could be compromised.

    What sweetheart deals have been given to the families of China's steering committee? Who are their mistresses and where do they keep their money? What political assassinations (literal) have been executed? There is a digital trail that is there to be followed. The NSA can.

    If the Chinese were wise, they would stop attacking US and consider who would lose in an all out cyber-war.

    1. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by socode · · Score: 1

      Computers are not an American invention. You did well though to nab Germans to build rockets for you.

    2. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And in the real world, people would be asking, "Why is it OK for the US government to commit exactly those same crimes and get away with it?"

      You're a dope, and you make the rest of us Americans look bad. Please keep your stupidity to yourself.

    3. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      And in the real world, people would be asking, "Why is it OK for the US government to commit exactly those same crimes and get away with it?"

      It's quite simple, the USA is the World's watchdog and policeman. It keeps everyone else in line and tries to get rid of the worst of the bullies, barbarians and bandit lords. The USA may be a bit of a "jerk" itself, but who would you rather have running the world? The Five Eyes, or Russia or China. When push comes to shove, even the USA's critics would rather have the USA managing the show.

    4. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight: to encourage peace, you'd like us to ENGAGE in a policy of cyberwar in the hopes that a little drubbing from us will prove too much for them?

      Dream on. Global politics are MUCH more complicated than you might imagine

    5. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Computers are not an American invention. You did well though to nab Germans to build rockets for you.

      Well, it depends on what you call the first computer, I suppose. ENIAC seems to be a generally accepted candidate for the first modern computer, and it was designed and financed by the American army. I am aware this (as well as any other invention) is inspired by and a product of work that came before it, but I don't think the GP was wrong to call computers an American invention.

    6. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Babbage, if you're trying to find the invention.

      WRT Eniac, there were even earlier general purpose electronic computers, though they were basically toys and research tools (At least one of them was German.)

      P.S.: The IBM 7090 didn't use transistors. It used vacum tubes. And it was definitely a modern computer.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      When push comes to shove, even the USA's critics would rather have the USA managing the show.

      I'm in NZ so I'm going to have to agree with you - but only just. As for much of the rest of the world, you're probably going to get [citation needed] by way of response.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    8. Re:Just submitted a comment to NYTimes by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      As for much of the rest of the world, you're probably going to get [citation needed] by way of response.

      Yeah, they may grumble about the Five Eyes spying on absolutely everyone , but deep down they know what I said is true, even if they don't want to admit it.

  16. its not hacking. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    this is industrial espionage, which can sometimes include the act of hacking however is not necessarily hacking in and of itself.
    competent is an understatement when referring to a country thats manufactured twenty power plants and is in the process of creating another twenty eight. To think they would express any interest in reactor technology from a country that hasnt built a single reactor in more than 30 years is rather suspect. on the other hand, is entirely reasonable to suggest America is punishing china for failing to source their reactors and plants from say, General Electric. As exposed in cablegate, the US routinely becomes very litigious when faced with reluctant or recalcitrant markets that enjoy domestic manufacture of their heavy industry goods and services, especially in the case nuclear independence.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:its not hacking. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      the NSA reworking network shipped out of the country also is industrial espionage

  17. Net neutrality sucks by NMBob · · Score: 1

    The NSA was pissed, because all of the Chinese espionage traffic was slowing down their espionage traffic, and with everyone only getting an equal slice of the bandwidth...well Holder had to to something.

  18. Hilarity ensues by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For decades now we've treated the Internet like an open house with everybody welcome and everybody allowed to come in and browse. As more and more technologies/designs/secrets have been put into computer systems they've been linked via Intranets within organizations and more importantly, and stupidly, on the Internet in the name of saving time or they've just been exposed because the people who are supposed to protect that information are incompetent idiots. That's the root cause here, not protecting the information that's held in those systems. China and other governments have employed script kiddies and any other tactics like purchased vulnerabilities to dig in, but again it's up to the holders of that data to protect it and to know what kind of enemies they're up against. Industrial espionage is nothing new, it's been around for centuries so why are we all shocked that this is allowed to happen? The secrets of the A-Bomb were leaked out of Los Alamos by sympathetic spies and some were executed for it. The B-29 bomber, a program that cost more than the A-Bomb to develop, was completely reverse engineered from one aircraft that made an emergency landing in the Soviet Union. It was copied right down to the same overheating engine problem that destroyed many of the aircraft. Chinese spies have recently been sent to prison for espionage so why is this suddenly news?

    While I'm glad that the US Govt. is trying to do something about all of this it's a bit late and ultimately it's up to all the industries that have technology worth stealing to start taking steps to protect their IP and their confidential information. This also means protecting yourself from the US government because as we all know the NSA is also passively watching everything you do. My suggesting is that there should be sufficient air gaps between your R&D/Competitive information and Intranets/Internet for starters and also start employing a risk mitigation strategy in your data handling practices because chances are your sensitive information is probably already public knowledge somewhere.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  19. Re:China is hacking? There's a surprise by Amouth · · Score: 1

    Personally i always like seeding and feeding the honeypot very valuable information that looks legit but is actual wrong in a way that only lots of time and money spent trying to implement reveals..

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  20. Well well well by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Look who is calling who a thief....

    --
    bickerdyke
  21. Do you hear that? by jeff13 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do you here that? It's the sound of a billion people on the other side of the world loling.

    1. Re:Do you hear that? by MRe_nl · · Score: 1
      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    2. Re:Do you hear that? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Do you hear that?

      Do you here that?

      Did you really just spell that word two different ways in the space of two sentences????

      Not that I disagree with the sentiment. I think someone is trying for distraction from the NSA in the news, and also trying to get over looking like an idiot with regards to Russia, Syria, and Iran. Especially Syria. 160K dead so far, and the USA hasn't even been able to stop Assad from using chemical weapons.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  22. Re:say it aint so! by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 1

    This data is exactly how the Chinese put most of the US based solar panel makers out of business.

  23. Shocked! Shocked! by dlenmn · · Score: 1

    I am shocked! Shocked! to learn that the Chinese are hacking us! We would never do such a thing!

    1. Re:Shocked! Shocked! by NMBob · · Score: 1

      If only we could shut down Eric's like they did Rick's.

    2. Re:Shocked! Shocked! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Captain Renault: I am shocked to find that espionage occurs in this establishment.

      Minion: Here are your data, sir.

  24. Dave Aitel (CEO Immunity, Inc.) says it best by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

    @daveaitel All espionage is illegal in the country you do it against.

    And since everyone in the world in any country, especially banks (under FACTA) and foreign officials are under US jurisdiction, why not indict?

  25. Re:say it aint so! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    This data is exactly how the Chinese put most of the US based solar panel makers out of business.

    I figured they pulled that one off by not giving a shit about things like the environment or reasonable pay.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  26. Chinese official response by BradMajors · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Chinese official response (in Chinese): http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_ch...

  27. Re:Oblig frosty by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US?

    What a bunch of arrogant, hypocritical pricks. The whole NSA SHITHOUSE comes down around their ears, with backdoored network devices and eavesdropping on world leaders - then these paragons of fucking virtue blame "cyber war" on individuals in a foreign government?

    Why the fuck don't they haul meglomaniac Keith Alexander off of his fucking starship and drag his sorry arse, along with Elmer Fudd^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Michael Hayden, into the dock?

    China has a developed diplomatic culture. This type of International behavior from the US is pure "play at home" propaganda, with the diplomatic effect of a bull in a china-shop, so to speak. Offensive, ignorant, unnecessary, and duplicitous.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  28. Hypocrites by lbschenkel · · Score: 1

    One word: Petrobras.

  29. It's all completely legal by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 2

    President Obama is a constitutional scholar.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  30. Re:Sardaukar86, tell us by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    Hello again APK. Off-topic and stalking my posting history because you *really* didn't enjoy your well-deserved public flogging at my hands. Please, come back again when you've something to actually contribute. This website is not here to provide an avenue for your hate mail against other posters when your vagina gets all red and swollen.

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  31. Re:Sardaukar86, tell us by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

    Ok, then tell me again why your list is relevant? Oh that's right, it's because you don't understand basic statistics, got it.

    Could you really expect any other reply when this piss-weak 'argument' is all you've got?

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  32. Re:Oblig frosty by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    I'm more disposed to this particular view...

    You put your secrets on computers which are exposed to the internet? STUPID!

    I can't blame the Chinese or the Russians or some school kid in Vallejo, California, for prying in and having a look around, if companies are so damn stupid about erecting barriers between Trade Secrets hosting systems and an outside world. How about building an intranet, encrypting resources, creating VPNs which require a key, employing something like Kerberos to verify some user on a workstation should have access?

    All down to laziness and paying the executives too much for their massive blind spots.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  33. Re:Oblig frosty by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Yeah. I'm the 6-Foot, blue-eyed, bi-racial Chinese bloke. Get a nanker on your phelge.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  34. Re:Oblig frosty by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    China has a developed diplomatic culture.

    Totally. They have such fine upstanding practices as: o Harvesting organs from Falun Gong practictioners o Feeding melamine to babies o Executing alleged white-collar criminals o Repeatedly faking science

  35. Pot meet kettle by rezme · · Score: 1

    News flash, you're both black...