Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Suspected of Hacking Organizations Involved in South China Sea Dispute (japantimes.co.jp)

Posted by msmash on from the security-blues dept.

Jesse Johnson, writing for The Japan Times: The ongoing dispute over the South China Sea has apparently spilled over into cyberspace recently, as hackers believed to be from China have attacked government and private-sector organizations linked to the row over the key waterway, a new analysis has found. Using malicious software, hackers have tried to swipe sensitive information from the Philippines and other targets, according to a report released last week by Finnish cybersecurity firm F-Secure. Notable targets included the Philippines Department of Justice, the organizers of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit and an unidentified major international law firm involved in last month's landmark South China Sea arbitration decision at The Hague, the report said. The Department of Justice played a key role in the case and reports ahead of a November 2015 APEC event in the Philippines had said leaders attending the summit would discuss the South China Sea issue.

29 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. Dear Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wish USA's Dear Leader had the balls to do something about it.

    Being an independent who voted for Obama twice, his foreign policy is simply the worst. Most of the world's problems with everyone running us over in some cases, literally, is the worst. This is another clear example of such a terrible policy.

    1. Re:Dear Leader by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This is not a joke -- other countries is one thing, but the high seas must remain free and open to trade according to international treaty and convention and laws of the sea.

      And that means sailing inside the 12 mile military limits on these artificial islands, which are expressly not recognized as granting economic or military exclusion.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Dear Leader by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      " literally, is the worst"

      No it isn't. It may not be ideal, but it isn't the worst. It's been a bit of a trade off. Obama has been in power for 8 years and managed to not get us into any major wars in that time. On the downside, a few of our rivals have been able to bully us and our bungling of Iraq has led to establishment of ISIS.

      Sure, we've done some bombing runs here and there but no major wars of too big of a threat to us. Libby has probably been Obama's "biggest war"- which is pretty impressive for almost a decade in power. There has been a few terror attacks around the world, but as tragic as Boston and the gay night club shootings were- on the grand scale they were fairly small attacks. (and the night club shootings is probably better attributed to hate crime than terrorism).

      So all in all- it's been 8 years of relative peace. Which is good. The flip side to this administration is that we've let Russia bully us and essentially been out-manovered by them and are overwhelmed by them on NATO's eastern border. Half of Eastern Europe could be in Russia's hands before we were able to have enough troops positioned to significantly slow them. China has sensed our weakness and started bullying everyone in SE Asia with an 18th Century imperialistic attitude. They know we're not going to do much to stop them. They've quickly erected islands in disputed territory to establish bases whilst we have a pacifist in office.

      All in all, I suspect Republicans will call Obama weak and spineless and Democrats will call him a peaceful and idyllic. Truth be told it is subjective. One thing it definitely isn't though is "the worst".

      There have been far worse presidential foreign policies (both Republican and Democrat).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Dear Leader by npslider · · Score: 1

      Swimming laps in Rio.

    4. Re:Dear Leader by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Russia that allows the Russians to build as many as they like, while requiring the USA to unilaterally decrease their stockpile?

      Citation needed.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    5. Re:Dear Leader by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Our 'Dear Leader' is projecting Naval power in that area even as we speak and working with diplomatic partners in the area.

      That's what you would expect a rational nation to do.

      Don't worry, just vote for Trump and you'll see what the irrational actors do, which is start a trade war (or a real one). Have fun!

    6. Re:Dear Leader by swb · · Score: 1

      Would you buy degraded status quo?

      Maybe to his favor, Obama hasn't gotten into any new conflicts, but it seems kind of funny to judge what he hasn't done as an affirmative accomplishment. By that standard, you could judge him by other things he hasn't done, too, and many of them could be negative, failure-to-accomplish-anything kinds of changes. I didn't commit mass murder at lunch, but nobody's giving me a peace prize for what i didn't do.

      Maybe I underestimate the power of doing nothing (although God knows I've managed to make a career out of it), but it seems to me when doing nothing is used as a standard of a positive accomplishment it usually feels like an excuse for not doing anything.

      I can't tell if Libya is a gross failure. Maybe we've just gotten lucky, and the proximity of kinda-stable Algeria and Egypt and the fucking Sahara desert have kept what is a an objective disaster from being an active, horrible nightly news disaster, or whether there's some way to spin it into on the cusp of stabilizing, although I think I recently read we're doing a little close air support there lately.

      Syria is a train wreck which Obama's do-nothing work ethic seems to have done nothing positive to improve. Obviously not an easy place to make positive contributions, but something tells me we might not be any worse off had we managed to displace Assad. I don't think ISIS has the mettle to take and hold the entire country and it might be argued that had Assad been pushed out early on, the stalemate its turned into might not have developed, leaving them with less free space to maneuver in.

      And you can go on and on about lots of places where the do-nothing work ethic maybe hasn't positively contributed to making things worse, but where they sure seem like nearly anything would have been better.

    7. Re:Dear Leader by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      This is not a joke -- other countries is one thing, but the high seas must remain free and open to trade according to international treaty and convention and laws of the sea.

      And that means sailing inside the 12 mile military limits on these artificial islands, which are expressly not recognized as granting economic or military exclusion.

      You are assuming they will respect international law. Bad assumption.

    8. Re:Dear Leader by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're both a coward AND bad at pretending you don't understand.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Dear Leader by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      you'll see what the irrational actors do, which is start a trade war

      We're in, and losing, a trade war right now. How are you not clear on this?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re: Dear Leader by orlanz · · Score: 1

      How are we in and losing a trade war?

    11. Re: Dear Leader by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      When those rocks are loaded with military and are between you and important ports? You mean those rocks?

    12. Re: Dear Leader by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      How are we in and losing a trade war?

      We are honoring our end of international trade agreements that other signatory countries disregard, and we are trading with countries that are doing some significantly damaging currency manipulation. Which you know, so that can't be a surprise. Was that a rhetorical question?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re: Dear Leader by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself so to address other two replies. The US also does their fair share of market protection, ones that have been found to be in the wrong by the international trade bodies. We also do a lot of currency manipulation (quantitative easing, low interest rates, various insurance schemes, etc) but not to the extent of others nor the types that impact the global confidence in our currency.

      China/India/Japan/etc devaluing their currency is in effect stealing from their people's labor value and giving it to the buyer as a discount. They also continue to give us loans at extremely low interest rates that essentially amount to giving us free money at the cost to their people's earned labor. Additionally, most global commodities are actually traded in dollars which essentially gives the US a discount no one else has and solidifies the buying power of the dollar.

      We aren't anywhere near a trade war with anyone. Most of the world still fights each other to access the US and EU markets. And unlike the US, the EU is also in competition with itself and still lacks a fair amount of fiscal discipline within their member states.

      We certainly are not on the losing side. Every other player essentially bends over backwards to stay in the "sell to the US" game. Sure, our companies maybe having a little bit of a hard time, but it has never been better for the US consumer.

      Normally, yes this can't be maintained and eventually the others' buying power exceeds ours and we net produce rather than consume. But the other players are relatively worse off than us and it will be decades before they get the discipline (that's what's really lacking) to really match the US economic engine.

    14. Re:Dear Leader by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      If you actually think this is a trade war now you've lost all sense of reality. I mean that's literally the only way to frame the 'arm chair' presidents in this country.

      It's akin to somebody who served stateside during Vietnam saying they've 'seen the horrors of war'. It's that level of asinine.

    15. Re: Dear Leader by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Ships are more mobile than the bases on those rocks, so they are easier to remove from a given area. The recent utilization of those rocks in a military fashion by the Chinese communicate a different intent and make doing belligerent things more efficient and can be used as leverage. Until you have more fully explored the ramifications of the argument no one will see how potentially stupid the argument might be, so come back once you've actually given the subject some serious thought.

    16. Re:Dear Leader by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. After you vote for Hillary, her foreign policy will be twice as effective.

  2. Dear Leader likes his china phone and non us h-1b' by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Dear Leader likes his china phone and non us h-1b's workers at apple.

  3. Re:China by npslider · · Score: 1

    I'm in the recognizing a good long term stratagem when I see one camp.

    Where are you?

  4. Isn't Everyone? by ranton · · Score: 2

    When are we going to stop pretending any technologically capable countries aren't actively spying on governments and companies whenever it suits their interests?

    The answers to the following two questions should always be assumed to be the same:
    1) Can the country benefit from hacking [insert organization]?
    2) Is the country hacking [insert organization]?

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  5. Re:They say never start a land war in Asia by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

    The USA has a pretty good track record with naval warfare in the East Asia/Pacific region in the past century or so - 2W-0L (Spanish-American War, WW2). Land wars, not so much (0W-0L-2T).

  6. Re:A lot of deleted comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nobody deleted any comments. Learn how the site works or go play in traffic somewhere.

  7. Re:China by npslider · · Score: 1

    Me too! Are you my neighbor?

  8. Surprised? by dunkindave · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I would have been a lot more surprised if they weren't discovered trying to hack their perceived opposition. Based on history, it is the first thing I expect them to do after they make their veiled public threats.

  9. Re:They say never start a land war in Asia by dunkindave · · Score: 1

    Um, the Spanish-American war was 118 years ago. It wasn't even in the 1900's. I think the "or so" is a stretch.

    I know the dates since my grandfather fought in the Spanish-American war. I guess I'm showing my age.

  10. Re:China by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you're in the "Trump should be dictator for life" camp?

    I'm guessing you're in the "I want a royal appointment from the Clinton Dynasty" camp? Thought so.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Re:China by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Just start the war already. It's been planned for a long time now. Look up AirSea War.

    America is not going to war with a nuclear power over some semi-submerged rocks in the South China Sea. The other countries cannot stand up to China without American support. So if China really wants the islands, they will get them, but they will pay a heavy price. Their belligerence has pushed Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. into closer military cooperation with America. In the entire world, China only has one reliable ally: Cambodia, one of the world's poorest countries.

  12. Re:China by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Sigh. You're allowed to dislike both of these choices.

  13. Re: China by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I just made a how cool is it that China is building islands post in the consumed resources day summary. They are also making forays into engineering the weather. My brother married a Chinese woman, but that's beside the point and more of a full disclosure issue. But anyways, I believe along with Jefferson that the Constitution is largely a bad thing and we all need to have a time out and sit down and discuss what form of governance in the world will best serve all our purposes. We may end up with a class of citizens above the Amish but below the technocrats and protected in their ignorance the way Chinese farmers are.