Slashdot Mirror
Hundreds of Millions of Chinese Chat Logs Leak Online (ft.com)
Hundreds of millions of private chat logs from Chinese users have been left exposed on the internet, a researcher has found, in another worrying case of weak data protection in China. Financial Times reports: Victor Gevers, a security researcher at the cyber-security organisation GDI Foundation, said that he had found a database of 364m records [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source.], containing social media profiles and chat logs linked to names and identity card numbers.
The database was freely accessible online to anyone who searched for its IP address, and user profiles were stored together with photographs, addresses and locations, said Mr Gevers. The main database was piping data to 17 other servers depending on which area the data came from, Mr Gevers said. [...] A large number of the records had the names and addresses of web cafes on them. Chinese cyber-security experts have long warned that web cafes collect vast amounts of customer data.
The database was freely accessible online to anyone who searched for its IP address, and user profiles were stored together with photographs, addresses and locations, said Mr Gevers. The main database was piping data to 17 other servers depending on which area the data came from, Mr Gevers said. [...] A large number of the records had the names and addresses of web cafes on them. Chinese cyber-security experts have long warned that web cafes collect vast amounts of customer data.
6 billion people can't read it, it's in Chinese.
You are worrying about "weak data protection" but not about fact that data is collected!? Stop collecting then you will not have to worry!
Hi, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker maintain a metered paywall, allowing users to read a certain number of articles at no cost. Once you have read the "free/sample" articles, you are required to pay for the subscription. The reason why we mention a link might be paywalled is because there is a chance that some readers won't be asked to pay for it when they click on the source link. [More context: Some outlets let you read an article for free if you visit their links in incognito mode, or if you tapped their link on Twitter or other platform. Disclaimer: Like other news aggregators that rely on news from a number of sources, we don't condone breaking paywall of a news outlet. We use an excerpt or two from their stories, and in return, send them some traffic.] This is in contrast to some other news outlets like say The Information, which has a hard paywall, that requires you to absolutely pay for content if you want to read an article there. If we link to The Information, we will 100 percent mention that the link is paywalled. And if you look at some of the stories we have covered that The Information broke, you will see that we have instead linked to other news outlets that rewrote The Information's stories. We try not to link to any paywalled outlet unless there is no alternative source available, in which case we have limited choice. Sometimes an alternative source is available but the story might be riddled with factual errors or too many grammatical mistakes, in which case, we again resort to the paywalled outlet. In any case, we try to link to an alternative source as well, which would not charge readers whenever that is possible.
C'mon. It IS paywalled. Just because you pay to get through the paywall doesn't mean it isn't paywalled. It just means that you have paid to get through the wall.
This is true of every. single. article. you link that is also paywalled.
This is Slashdot.
You're not supposed to actually read the article.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
That's the difference between the crypto-dictatorial regimes in communist China and in capitalist America: in the former, sites are police-firewalled. In the latter, they're paywalled. In both cases, there's a fucking wall.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Every Chinese corporation (Huawei being a big one) with an internationally-facing department - most especially those that handle information transfer - are part of the government's data-collection system. It's the law there. To think they're not collecting and reporting is the height of naivete.
This is not limited to Chinese companies. All companies pperating in Chine falls under Chinese laws that require access to the data.
Huawei is not an exception. Naming them does not add anything.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
A million lines of, "Oh Wei, I love you long time!"
Table-ized A.I.
Freishutz: Hello, Chinese Government/Communist Party?
CG/CP: Yes.
Freishutz: We here on Slashdot would like hard proof that Huawei either is or is not providing you with information. Please post it here.
CG/CP: Sure thing, Boss, we gonna get right on that...errrmm...just as soon as we have another Party Congress and can establish its place in a new 5 year plan. The new 5 year plan should be available in around 15 years. Can you wait?
Freishutz: Yup, sure, we trust you.
It may not be unreasonable to you, but I really don't care about what you find reasonable or not. Really, I don't give a whit. I am not at trial, I am expressing an opinion and therefore am under no obligation to prove or disprove anything, all of which is still legal in the US at this time. I provide no link to any "right-wing blog" yet you make a point of accusing me of such; sounds like you're the one with a prejudice/censorship problem. So perhaps you can absorb that the opinions expressed by the posters are theirs and do not indicate anything other than their opinions; perhaps not. One thing I know for sure, I don't have to "prove" anything to you.
How about find all of the Huawei employees logged and add a few things. Like chatting about the Tienanmen square massacre and that they're organizing a protest about it. In fact, with all the other breaches it'd be fun to add things like that for a random selection of party members. Free Tibet, party takeover plans etc.
be sure to liberally spread "Winnie the Pooh" throughout the logs...
It may not be unreasonable to you, but I really don't care about what you find reasonable or not. Really, I don't give a whit. I am not at trial, I am expressing an opinion and therefore am under no obligation to prove or disprove anything, all of which is still legal in the US at this time. I provide no link to any "right-wing blog" yet you make a point of accusing me of such; sounds like you're the one with a prejudice/censorship problem. So perhaps you can absorb that the opinions expressed by the posters are theirs and do not indicate anything other than their opinions; perhaps not. One thing I know for sure, I don't have to "prove" anything to you.
So, where is your proof? Having trouble finding any? Because your entire post contained only this: https://youtu.be/hsPtqjwcMx
... so pony yup or shut up.
I really don't care what accusations you pull out of your rectum and hurl around like an angry chimp until you can prove them
Freishutz: Hello, Chinese Government/Communist Party?
CG/CP: Yes.
Freishutz: We here on Slashdot would like hard proof that Huawei either is or is not providing you with information. Please post it here.
CG/CP: Sure thing, Boss, we gonna get right on that...errrmm...just as soon as we have another Party Congress and can establish its place in a new 5 year plan. The new 5 year plan should be available in around 15 years. Can you wait?
Freishutz: Yup, sure, we trust you.
Oh, my, you accused me of being a communist ... *thud* ... *thud* ... *thud* ... your words, given weight by your awesome wit and oratory skill, pierce my should like arrows.
It is most likely that this system is only for tracking gamers as most of the sample dialogs appears to be about this subject.
Can someone, maybe from China, come up with a good explanation why they seem to have such a particular interest in gamers?
HAHAHAHA. You REALLY don't understand how this stuff works, do you? I will say again, I don't have to prove anything to you. And I'll be damned if I'll click a malware link presented to me by a troglodyte. Go suck your thumb and pound sand, little man. You and your "My way or the highway" attitude gets you nowhere around here.
You are ... not really playing with a full deck of cards, are you?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-china-tech-titans-wrestle-over-user-data-1501757738
It's not even a question anymore that Huawei is trying to do whatever it can to become the top cellphone maker in the world (the above is just an example of its practices in China).
If you think western companies are bad at tricking people into giving up their data, it is nothing compared to what Huawei does.
Firstly that site is paywalled and linking to it is downright rude. Secondly what little the paywall didn't hide is:
To build its AI capability—so that its phones can, say, make restaurant suggestions based on a user’s text messages—Huawei Technologies Co. is collecting user-activity information on its advanced Honor Magic smartphone. Among the information captured: text messages sent using the popular WeChat social-media app.
That is a pretty accurate description of what Google, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and a whole legion of US sites are doing as well. We all know this and have known for a long time, it is standard practice in the US so why should it not be standard practice in China. However, this still does not constitute proof that Huawei is spying on its customers on behalf of the Chinese Government. In fact a number of European countries just sent their intelligence services off to investigate whether Huawei is spying for the Chinese government and they came up with **ZIP**, but do try again if you think you can out do them. Again, I am perfectly open to the eventuality that Huawei is spying on behalf of the Chinese Govt. and thereby risking complete ruin and bankruptcy that fact gets out but please provide us with more proof of this than just an opinion you pulled out of your ass.
Once you have read the "free/sample" articles, you are required to pay for the subscription.
I think AC's point is that WSJ has zero "'free/sample' articles".