Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Voices Concerns About China Cyber Law (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the security-watch dept.

The White House said on Thursday that it raised concerns about China's new cyber security law during a meeting with a Chinese official after the latest round of talks between the two countries on cyber crime. From a report on Reuters: U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice met with Chinese State Councilor Guo Shengkun to discuss the importance "of fully adhering" to an anti-hacking accord signed last year between the China and the United States, National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said. The deal, brokered during Chinese President Xi Jinping's state visit to Washington in 2015, included a pledge that neither country would knowingly carry out hacking for commercial advantages. Rice told Guo that the United States was concerned "about the potential impacts" of a law that China adopted in November aimed at combating hacking and terrorism.

19 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. commercial advantages by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... that neither country would knowingly carry out hacking for commercial advantages.

    So doing it for political or military advantages is fine?

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:commercial advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter they're not honorable. All it means is the US won't do it, while China continues to do what they've done all along. Hopefully Trump is smart enough to see through it.

      Maybe I am in the minority, but when I read about the congratulations call from Taiwan, I remembered why I voted for that man. Fuck China. They don't play fair, and we've been pussies about it for too long.

    2. Re: commercial advantages by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The same way Nazi Germany did. High unemployment, low faith in its leaders and a scapegoat to blame.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:commercial advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So doing it for political or military advantages is fine?

      Sure. Long as it's disavowed and neither side gets caught, and with luck no gigantic wars are started. Been like that for hundreds of years. It was the standard MO of the USSR, US, UK, Canada, etc. The only difference between "hacking" a target and requiring a warm body to do the stealing is the era it's happening in.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re: commercial advantages by sinij · · Score: 1

      The same way Nazi Germany did. High unemployment, low faith in its leaders and a scapegoat to blame.

      Germany had punitive WW1 repatriations to blame for hardships. US has what... oligarchic 1%?

      Unemployment, wealth inequality, disregard for social contract by well-off and low faith in its leaders are entirely home-made problem. Trump was entirely preventable, instead we have SJW twitter-storming outrage on largely irrelevant issues. I hope they will be happy when female labor participation rate reaches 50% in concentration camps.

    5. Re: commercial advantages by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Time to learn Chinese

      Congratulations; it's about time you learned a language.

    6. Re: commercial advantages by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Germany had its Jews, the US has its Mexicans. With the main difference that there are rather few Mexicans you can steal a lot from.

      And yes, a lot of the German problems that led up to the rise of the Nazis could be blamed on Clemenceau and his zeal to annihilate Germany with the peace conditions, but by no means all of it. Germany also had politicians that led right up to the point where people did have the feeling that these politicians are doing a crappy job, and yes, quite a few did. Not all of them, there were a few honest, hard working men that tried their best to rebuild the country, but far too many were simply looking out for themselves, and only themselves.

      And people will follow anyone who promises an end to that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Pretty vague story by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Is somebody worried that the US, a country that is in hardly any position to complain about restrictions and censorship, might have to hold up its end of the deal?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Pretty vague story by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Worrying about America upholding a treaty or deal is a reasonable concern.

  3. What happened to "carry a big stick"? by sinij · · Score: 2

    I think this administration is too much about speaking softly and not enough about carrying a big stick. China won't stop government-sponsored cyber espionage just because we ask them nicely.

    1. Re:What happened to "carry a big stick"? by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      What're you going to do? Bomb them?

    2. Re:What happened to "carry a big stick"? by sinij · · Score: 1

      So there absolutely no intermediate steps possible between "politely ask" and "nuclear strikes"?

      Fortunately, politics are not that binary.

    3. Re:What happened to "carry a big stick"? by sinij · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if "Bull in a China shop" is any better than do nothing. However remote, potential for a nuclear war is least preferable option all around.

  4. Keyword by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... that neither country would knowingly carry out hacking for commercial advantages.

    So doing it for political or military advantages is fine?

    No, the keyword here was knowingly,
    but you probably didn't manage to catch it over the noise of NSA and MSS both laughing their asses out together.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  5. Will Trump winning be blamed on China too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We just can't get enough fake news from the New York Times and the Washington Post as they cast about looking for why Trump won.

  6. Hahahaha by houghi · · Score: 1

    Sorry, Hahahahaha, Again sorry.

    neither country would knowingly carry out hacking for commercial advantages

    WTF did they thought was going to happen? It is also nice to see that it IS allowed to hack others knowingly, only if companies are involved you should not do it. At least not on purpose to make money. Otherwise? Totes ok!

    I also like the spin "You can not hack companies for gain because terrorism" or so it sounds.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  7. Time to spine up by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    I am all for Trump's get tough on China stance but 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union we should be applying the same model, rather than exporting our wealth to them via a trade deficit.

    The Chinese economy is radically unbalanced right now much more so than our own in fact. If we suddenly deprived them of the sink for all the consumer goods the produces we could probably turn the PRC into failed state! What we ought to do is trigger that and simultaneously lay the ground work for installing a friendly government over their that by simply say "You bet we have a one China policy, the lawful government is the ROC and the capital is Taipei"

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  8. Now write a strongly worded letter! by Idisagree · · Score: 1

    'It's totally worked for us' - UN

    1. Re:Now write a strongly worded letter! by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean get some papers to write an article which heavily implies they broke some agreement?

      China is requiring data for Chinese citizens to be stored in China and they wrote up some laws governing search and seizure which are nothing the US can't do with a national security letter, woopdefuckingdoo.