The Forum › Everything Else FileCabi.net Forum (2007–2008)

China's Cyber-attack on Google

1. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive24 Mar 2010, 14:56
   If you want to read for yourself: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/24/cyber-att… Summary: A white house representative told the Washington Times that we're fairly certain that the Chinese government is responsible for cyber-attacks on google, and several other US firms. An Obama administration official said the U.S. government was able, with some confidence, to link the attack, first discovered last summer, to Chinese government organs. However, the official declined to provide details to avoid making future Chinese cyber-attack identification more difficult.
2. JooXSalvaged from archive24 Mar 2010, 15:04
   to Chinese government organs[sic] ZOMFG :omg:
3. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive25 Mar 2010, 15:59
   Good article HB. In the name of accuracy, China's attack was against Chinese dissidents not against Google per se: Even though Google is throwing away eff nose how many billions by ending their Oriental foray, this loss is a blip in shareholders' accounts, thus nothing when compared to Chinese people being arbitrarily jailed, gulaged or executed. :( It's interesting to note that the attacks exploited a back door access feature in Gmail that was implemented to comply with US law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hac… Any tin hatters that would assert the thin edge of the wedge argument against government spying on their own citizens are correct in doing so only if they ignore the extant judicial procedure affording due process to those accused and convicted on the basis of evidence gathered by such means: The devil is in the details. Part of living in a free country is accepting that one may not violate others' freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rather, in doing so one forfeits one's own liberty and rightly so. China is so different to the USA -less so to Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/25/2856178.htm… regarding freedom of speech that I can't really understand the nuances involved: Heaven forbid but maybe certain elements of an authoritarian dictatorship are essential to maintain security in such a vast, heterogenous nation... but no, fuck 'em until they stop executing at least.
4. mousewallratSalvaged from archive25 Mar 2010, 17:11
   Good article HB. In the name of accuracy, China's attack was against Chinese dissidents not against Google per se: Even though Google is throwing away eff nose how many billions by ending their Oriental foray, this loss is a blip in shareholders' accounts, thus nothing when compared to Chinese people being arbitrarily jailed, gulaged or executed. :( It's interesting to note that the attacks exploited a back door access feature in Gmail that was implemented to comply with US law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hac… Any tin hatters that would assert the thin edge of the wedge argument against government spying on their own citizens are correct in doing so only if they ignore the extant judicial procedure affording due process to those accused and convicted on the basis of evidence gathered by such means: The devil is in the details. Part of living in a free country is accepting that one may not violate others' freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rather, in doing so one forfeits one's own liberty and rightly so. China is so different to the USA -less so to Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/25/2856178.htm… regarding freedom of speech that I can't really understand the nuances involved: Heaven forbid but maybe certain elements of an authoritarian dictatorship are essential to maintain security in such a vast, heterogenous nation... but no, fuck 'em until they stop executing at least. I unnerstood mosta them four dollar werds, but this one here? Cant decide if it means you like men or not. Watizit?
5. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive25 Mar 2010, 17:57
   Whoops, better make that word heterogeneous (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/heterogeneous) and no, it wasn't a typo on my part. I blame milk cartons for the mistake. :p It means not all the same, in this case in relation to a group members of which are variously Uighur, Han, Tibetan, Mongolian, 'Korean' (not sure what that distinct cultural group is called) and so on.
6. loadrunnerSalvaged from archive25 Mar 2010, 19:52
   Google was offline for 10 seconds... woot great atack
7. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive26 Mar 2010, 11:16
   Good article HB. In the name of accuracy, China's attack was against Chinese dissidents not against Google per se: Even though Google is throwing away eff nose how many billions by ending their Oriental foray, this loss is a blip in shareholders' accounts, thus nothing when compared to Chinese people being arbitrarily jailed, gulaged or executed. :( It's interesting to note that the attacks exploited a back door access feature in Gmail that was implemented to comply with US law (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hac… Any tin hatters that would assert the thin edge of the wedge argument against government spying on their own citizens are correct in doing so only if they ignore the extant judicial procedure affording due process to those accused and convicted on the basis of evidence gathered by such means: The devil is in the details. Part of living in a free country is accepting that one may not violate others' freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rather, in doing so one forfeits one's own liberty and rightly so. China is so different to the USA -less so to Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/25/2856178.htm… regarding freedom of speech that I can't really understand the nuances involved: Heaven forbid but maybe certain elements of an authoritarian dictatorship are essential to maintain security in such a vast, heterogenous nation... but no, fuck 'em until they stop executing at least. Heh heh...again, our government throws a regulation at private industry, and causes more problems than it solves. I swear. For every miracle the government tries to create, it creates five disasters.
8. MontysDoubleSalvaged from archive26 Mar 2010, 12:07
   Heh heh...again, our government throws a regulation at private industry, and causes more problems than it solves. I swear. For every miracle the government tries to create, it creates five disasters.Wait a second; by requiring wiretapping-like access to communications the US govt was trying to create a miracle? That's not how I'd characterise it. Granted, bad result when the practice is implemented in a supressive, totalitarian country like China but IMHO that says more about Chinese govt abuses than US govt failings. Granted, the difference between your and my opinion rests on apportioning blame HB: In this case I blame China's govt for its lack of due process, while you blame the US govt for... um... failing to foresee the results of their action due to illegal (but all too foreseeable) actions on China's part? Meddling where they should have no authoritah? I reckon both our perspectives are valid re their shared area of criticism: Govts can't and shouldn't be implicitly trusted with un-oversighted power. Agree to disagree. :thumb:
9. HeyBuddySalvaged from archive26 Mar 2010, 14:32
   Wait a second; by requiring wiretapping-like access to communications the US govt was trying to create a miracle? That's not how I'd characterise it. Granted, bad result when the practice is implemented in a supressive, totalitarian country like China but IMHO that says more about Chinese govt abuses than US govt failings. Granted, the difference between your and my opinion rests on apportioning blame HB: In this case I blame China's govt for its lack of due process, while you blame the US govt for... um... failing to foresee the results of their action due to illegal (but all too foreseeable) actions on China's part? Meddling where they should have no authoritah? I reckon both our perspectives are valid re their shared area of criticism: Govts can't and shouldn't be implicitly trusted with un-oversighted power. Agree to disagree. :thumb: I still blame China, but why was our government telling Google how to run e-mail service? They seriously thought it was necessary for there to be backdoor access to e-mail servers for the Federal Government? They seriously did this so they could obtain information to "protect" the American people, and they didn't think that somebody else might find the backdoor and try to "harm" American people. The word "door" says it all. You don't add doors to your house to make it more secure. They serve one purpose, and that is access. Just this week they were scrambling patch and fix a bill they passed over the weekend that has been debated for a year. Every time they try to fix anything, they break something else.
10. Josh85Salvaged from archive27 Mar 2010, 08:28
    Boys have penises Girls have vaginas

Reply

Sign in or create an account to reply to this old topic.

Want your old post taken down? Get in touch.