China suspected of breaching U.S. Postal Service computer networks(washingtonpost.com) |
China suspected of breaching U.S. Postal Service computer networks(washingtonpost.com) |
Stewart Baker making himself look foolish again! Last time he popped up on HN:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8559454
I really wonder how someone can come out with stuff like this. I doubt the PRC feels one iota of embarrassment for even one split second, and if senior US officials really bring up Chinese state sponsored hacking "every time they meet with their counterparts in Beijing" then the US Government is living up to its reputation as plumbing the depths of hypocrisy. They embarrass only themselves.
Before Snowden I actually bought into this whole 'the Chinese are hacking us' refrain. I don't see how they can keep up with it with a straight face anymore.
I think the US has zero credibility pointing the finger here. Spend 1/10th as much on defense as offense and then maybe complain your system protected by default passwords and zero encryption got "hacked".
The US complaining about their hacking just proves to them how effective it is.
Now, the US engages in strategic espionage for different reasons (just as China actually engages in strategic espionage, which the US doesn't complain about in public). But US representatives should be embarrassed here just because their whining proves the point to the PRC.
> voted
Might be the first time I've ever seen those two words together in a sentence.
And you're saying it's somehow a different class of ethical conundrum to engage in espionage to kill people, or to engage in it for economic advantage, and killing people is more ethical?
I am not surprised the state-capitalist Chinese see it differently, and are okay with both.
It's too late for "gentlemen do not read each other's mail".
"It is also possible that the Chinese were after other types of data, analysts said. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, at the request of law enforcement officials, takes pictures of all addressing information from envelopes and parcels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mai...
I agree that espionage is over-emphasized -- everyone does it. Also I agree that some like to imagine enemies; it fits their narratives. That doesn't make every enemy imaginary.
The USSR was a real enemy. Many Chinese leaders openly proclaim themselves our enemy and they take aggressive actions against us; among the public, aggressive nationalism is at least somewhat popular. Hopefully the relationship doesn't turn out that way, but it's a real risk that I don't think we should ignore.
[who?] [citation needed]
"It is also possible that the Chinese were after other types of data, analysts said. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, at the request of law enforcement officials, takes pictures of all addressing information from envelopes and parcels. [1]"
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mai...
This statement really confuses me
State-owned? That is true. "has vast amount of data on its citizens"? Please do some homework before speaking.
Edit: I've read more than enough articles where the agent or actor is NOT a member of the government, yet still referred to as "China" or "America". However, even in situations where it is a member of the government or of a company, I still think the connotations conveyed by imprecisely labeling the actors totally throw off expectations and perceptions.
Nevertheless, I liked this excerpt by the NSA's general counsel:
> Still, “it’s perfectly appropriate for us to do everything we can to embarrass and punish the Chinese if they’re in our systems, whether or not we’re in theirs,” said former National Security Agency general counsel Stewart A. Baker. “It’s the case that the U.S. and Russia and other countries are much more cautious about getting caught because they think there are going to be consequences. It’s only the Chinese that think there are no consequences to getting caught.”
I think it's accurate to describe NSA instrusion sets as the work of agents of the United States.
Or does it change context when it's an organization you don't like (NSA) ?
It's much easier to have people embedded in the system, long term, extracting data... than it is to exfiltrate data remotely from China via hacking.
The data these people have access to is quite an important intelligence asset:
> the Chinese may be assuming that the U.S. Postal Service is more like theirs — a state-owned entity that has vast amounts of data on its citizens, said James A. Lewis, a cyber-policy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Second, he said, the trend in intelligence is the same as in the commercial sector: amass big sets of data that can be analyzed for previously unknown links or insights.
My question would be why it took them so long to go after the postal service if they've thought it was such a high value target??
For example, if a small organization such as a gym or school makes copies of all customer/user driver's licenses: They end up creating a small pile of gold that they can't afford to protect.
Also, I don't think there's a world of difference between saying the CIA launched a drone strike and America launching a drone strike. I know the general public would like to believe they are not personally responsible for what our country does but as citizens, we collectively share in what we as a whole have decided to do or what those we've put in charge have decided to do.
Try searching for 'kill a chicken to scare the monkeys'. A popular meme (at least popular enough that I've encountered it many times) is that China suffered a "century of humiliation" at the West's hands, that China is ascending and the U.S. is in decline, and now China will take what it wants as the great power of the world, including control of their region and territory from their neighbors (some of whom have security guarantees from the U.S.).
As far as actions, for example the Chinese military actively have harassed U.S. and allied nations' ships and planes, including causing a few serious collisions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-turns-up-...
I can't find that information in the article.
I forget the name of that project, but the Wikipedia page's reference are all terrible. Not a single one stands up to scrutiny.
As to the ethical dilemma, I'm only noting a difference.
The NYT says it's a "fine line"
> But the government does not deny it routinely spies to advance American economic advantage, which is part of its broad definition of how it protects American national security. In short, the officials say, while the N.S.A. cannot spy on Airbus and give the results to Boeing, it is free to spy on European or Asian trade negotiators and use the results to help American trade officials — and, by extension, the American industries and workers they are trying to bolster.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/business/us-snooping-on-co...
And I think fine lines are important lines.