backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by Min Jia.. on Nov 26 at 9:44 PM

The number of attacks and severity of attacks by Chinese hackers continues to increase

A congressional advisory panel has said China is perfecting its ability to engage in cyber warfare and other computer espionage against the United States and its allies.

Congress also warned that China is working on better engaging in cyber warfare that could lead to the delay and disruption of U.S. military deployment anywhere in the world.  Specifically, the Chinese are using cyber warfare to gain access to classified military documents, along with viewing documents from American corporations that work with the government.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission was founded eight years ago in an effort to help learn about and give advice regarding U.S.-China relations.  The overall threat of cyber attacks grows year after year, with 5 million computers in the United States last year the target of 43,880 incidents of attacks and other suspicious activity.  

The top 10 largest U.S. defense contractor companies all suffered computer espionage from foreign-based attackers, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.

Chinese ability to attack is "so sophisticated that the US may be unable to counteract or even detect the efforts" of the attacks, according to the report.

The six Democrats and six Republicans who make up the panel said China's wide scale military modernization and "impressive but disturbing" computer and space warfare abilities "suggest China is intent on expanding its sphere of control even at the expense of its Asian neighbors and the United States."

There was no official word back from Chinese officials about the report.

President-elect Obama and his new staff will have to deal with cyber warfare and similar issues related to China once he takes office in January.  

Obama will face pressure from lawmakers who seek to acquire additional funding for programs aimed at monitoring Chinese cyber attacks and help protect government and defense computers.

Another situation Obama has to consider is with the Chinese space program, which is "steadily increasing the vulnerability of US assets," with a better ability to locate US warships deployed in the Pacific Ocean.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Give it up
By onelittleindian on 11/24/2008 9:29:24 AM , Rating: -1
In 20 years, China is going to be top dog and the US just another has been like most of Europe. 8 years of Obama raping the economy and gutting the military will just speed up the process.




RE: Give it up
By Bateluer on 11/24/2008 9:40:55 AM , Rating: 4
Wait, you're saying that Obama's administration will do worse then President Bush's administration? Last I checked, the economy under Republican leadership has been 'raped'.


RE: Give it up
By Gzus666 on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 10:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
On correction...
quote:

I think he is referring to the usual Democrat agenda which is increase stupid social ist programs, tax businesses and cut military spending. All of which are terrible ideas at this point.


Might also be referring to that fact that Obama actually said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry. Or just about any of the plans he has actually talked about.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 10:22:07 AM , Rating: 1
OMG - stop parroting Fox news. If you actually watch the entire recorded interview you would know the context of that comment. And that McCain ACTUALLY INTRODUCED legislature that expressed what Obama was saying. Basically, under the proposed Cap and Trade law, newly built old fashion coal plants is economically not viable. Current plants would get subsidized to upgrade their plants in order to conform - even make money out of it. So LEARN TO READ and THINK for yourself.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 10:31:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you actually watch the entire recorded interview you would know the context of that comment.
Total BS. Here's the actual interview with Obama, about a minute and a half in. You can't deny what he said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo5vAB10H8o


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 10:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
The interview is more than half hour - try again.
Like I said watch the entire interview and look at the McCain Cap and Trade proposed law which is EXACTLY what Obama was talking about.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 11:13:22 AM , Rating: 1
Why is it Obama supporters know less about his policies than anyone else? Obama's cap and trade plan would have put over 9 times the cost on coal power plants as the Warner-Lieberman plan (which McCain supported). Obama himself even said his plan was the most stringent ever proposed.

Its a moot point anyway. Even our Democratic congress isn't stupid enough to try to pass such a foolhardy bill.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 11:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama's cap and trade plan would have put over 9 times the cost on coal power plants as the Warner-Lieberman plan (which McCain supported). Obama himself even said his plan was the most stringent ever proposed.


Uhm - McCains proposal also made it economically not viable to create new plants using old technology. Both plans proposed is forcing "clean coal".


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 12:42:15 PM , Rating: 1
Stop playing stupid. "Clean coal" still produces CO2, coal plants, clean or not, are still hit exactly the same by cap and trade legislation.

Obama is the only politician who said he would "bankrupt" anyone who tried to build new coal power plants.


RE: Give it up
By masher2 (blog) on 11/24/2008 12:50:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "Obama is the only politician who said he would "bankrupt" anyone who tried to build new coal power plants. "

Well, what Obama said actually varied according to who he was speaking to. He told plenty of coal-producing states that he was for clean-coal technology. It was only in places like San Francisco that he came out against new coal plants entirely.

I think it's safe to say that, now that he's elected, we'll see that fiery anti-coal rhetoric moderated somewhat.


RE: Give it up
By rcc on 11/24/2008 4:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
Depending, of course, on who he needs a backscratch from.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 2:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
You are an idiot. Do you know what " " means?
No one is arguing about legitimacy of "clean coal". The discussion is about support for such policy and how you implement it. Obama and McCains fundemental support is EXACTLY the same. That is the point. No one is discussing what 'clean coal' is actually. And BTW - "clean coal" is the coal industry's own term.

Yes he said the word bankrupt because McCain and others did not have the balls to actually say it - without revision on old plants, these plants would be unable to pay for their pollution under McCains supported plan. That is fact. That is the point of the legistlation - to make old plant financially not viable while helping older plants.


RE: Give it up
By dflynchimp on 11/24/2008 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 1
Obama won, get over it.


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 1
Ya really, your bitterness is not going to change anything..
Believe me, we would know after 8 years of Bush...


RE: Give it up
By InvertMe on 11/24/2008 1:07:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
by dflynchimp on November 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Obama won, get over it.


If you didn't vote for him you can bitch all you want. You "get over it" and welcome to the internet.


RE: Give it up
By johnadams on 11/24/2008 1:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
OK You know what?

1. Watch it
2. Rewind
3. and watch it again.
4. Repeat step 1 until you drink from the kool-aid.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 2:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Or you can stop watching the 3 minute youtube video and watch the entire 30+ minute video to get the full scope. And while you are at it, Google McCain's own Cap and Trade policy. But that means you have to do your own research (aka Primary source) and come to your own conclusion instead of using pundits. Kool-aid comes in blue and red flavors.


RE: Give it up
By eyebeeemmpawn on 11/24/2008 10:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wake up! In America we live in a system of socialism for the rich and cut throat capitalism for the rest of us. The election is over, your name suits you.


RE: Give it up
By FITCamaro on 11/24/2008 12:11:22 PM , Rating: 1
How do the rich live in a system of socialism? Socialism's mantra is "take from the haves and give to the have nots". What are the rich taking from anyone? They earn their money through investments, high paying jobs, and running businesses (you know those things that give others jobs). They are rewarded for their success by being demonized by liberal politicians (despite said politicians also being rich) and paying higher taxes to fund government programs that they never use.


RE: Give it up
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2008 12:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he is referring to the bailouts that all the major businesses keep begging for, then we give it to them. Tax money going to businesses effectively does what he was saying. Once a business gets big enough, they seem to get bailouts to save them if they ever mess up.


RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 6:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
SO becuase I was a fan of white zombie and used the nick zombiexl for the last 15 years or so (starting back on IRC) I must be mindless.

Thats wonderful. I didnt realize a nick / login was supposed to tell the world all about you. I guess you must be retarded or a jailbird making license plates based on your name?


RE: Give it up
By Ammohunt on 11/24/2008 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
Everything was fine until 2006


RE: Give it up
By dsx724 on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 10:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
Socialst?

Which part of the republican plan is not socialist? The $700 Billion bailout? The proposed mortgage bailout of BAD mortgage? Republican Theodore Roosevelt progressive income tax we currently use?
When McCain in 2000 running for president said its fair to tax the wealthy? Or Alaska's taxing of oil corporation and 'spreading the wealth' to every citizen of Alaska for just living in Alaska. That is right - Alaska gives you $3000+ check every year, straight from corporate tax, just for living there.
That must not be socialist?

Socialism was a catch phrase by the extreme right to label Obama something during the campaign. It has no credibility whatsoever.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 10:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which part of the republican plan is not socialist? The $700 Billion bailout?
Get your facts straight. The bailout plan was proposed and passed by the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate. The first version of it was shot down by Republicans, and Republicans still managed to block the second version.

MOST (not all) Republicans were AGAINST the bailout. ALMOST ALL Democratics were FOR it.

quote:
That is right - Alaska gives you $3000+ check every year, straight from corporate tax, just for living there.
Ah, so it's Palin's fault for a policy that was put in place before she was even born? Good logic there.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 11:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
[quote]Get your facts straight. The bailout plan was proposed and passed by the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate. The first version of it was shot down by Republicans, and Republicans still managed to block the second version.[/quote]

Which was originally created and introduced by president Bush, which needed 91 Republican House Rep voted for (172 Dems) and 30 Rep Senators (40 Dems) voted for.
of course they are not socialist. And nice try on dodging the other facts.

[quote]Ah, so it's Palin's fault for a policy that was put in place before she was even born? Good logic there. [/quote]

Which she is a BIG supporter of. In fact she introduced and got it to pass new law. Revising the tax code, thus increasing the rebate.
So she obviously think its not fair. She made it more fair by spreading more wealth.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 11:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What Bush proposed was a 3-page bill. What got passed by the Democratic congress was over 400 pages, with a much higher price tag too.

So you are going to ignore Bush wanted a bailout plan and some Republican House and Senate voted for it? That is like arguing you only went 70 MPH in a 55 MPH while everyone else was doing 80 MPH.

quote:
She phased out a few loopholes that prevented oil producers from having to pay royalties for oil drilled on public land. That's common sense, not "spreading the wealth".

Nice try. Under Palin ACES revision of late 2007, the tax went up by an additional 1.5% on oil revenues and the rebate went up.

the point is - she made no attempts to revise to lower the tax - let alone remove what is obviously a wealth distribution tax code.

BTW - I love when Palin does the wealth spreading it is 'common sense'. When everyone else does it, it is 'socialist'.


RE: Give it up
By grenableu on 11/24/2008 12:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you are going to ignore Bush wanted a bailout plan
So are you going to ignore the fact that most Republicans were against the plan, and most Democrats for it? And ignore the fact that the bailout Bush wanted was 1/100 the size of what the Democrats delivered?


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 1:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And ignore the fact that the bailout Bush wanted was 1/100 the size of what the Democrats delivered?
Really?
quote:
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson proposed a plan under which the U.S. Treasury would acquire up to $700 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities.[22] The plan was immediately backed by President George W. Bush and negotiations began with leaders in the U.S. Congress to draft appropriate legislation."
quote:
On September 23, the plan was presented by Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke to the Senate Banking Committee who rejected it as unacceptable.[31]
(This was rejected by a sizable amount too, and the senate was basically divided 50/50, so many democrats must have voted against it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_St...


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you are going to ignore Bush wanted a bailout plan and some Republican House and Senate voted for it? That is like arguing you only went 70 MPH in a 55 MPH while everyone else was doing 80 MPH.
I find it funny he even mentions this, does this mean that every bill proposed by Bush/Clinton can be accredited to the other party?(Repub dominated house during Clinton reign, and vice-versa during the Democrat house reign?) Bush proposed the Bill, and McCain almost didn't show up to the debate so that he could 'speed things up', but of course its the democrats who are to blame..

Both parties had their proponents and their opponents, it was not merely one party that decided the bills fate, so don't try to make it out as though it was a single party's 'fault'.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 2:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both parties had their proponents and their opponents, it was not merely one party that decided the bills fate, so don't try to make it out as though it was a single party's 'fault'.

That is exactly my point!!!!
Socialist tagging for Obama's policy has no credibility since Repubs senaors, presidents, governors are as bad of an offender as their Democrat counterparts. Look at my post - I even give you how many Dems voted for it. I was not trying to hide.


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 2:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was agreeing with you :) My statements were aimed at the poster you were replying too.


RE: Give it up
By masher2 (blog) on 11/24/2008 12:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "Under Palin ACES revision of late 2007, the tax went up by an additional 1.5% on oil revenues"

Oops! Under ACES, the tax actually rose by 2.5% (22.5% - 25%) -- but only on North Slope oil...oil on land owned by the Alaskan citizens themselves.


RE: Give it up
By blueman12 on 11/24/2008 5:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Democrat Woodrow Wilson implemented the federal income tax via the 16th amendment.

The 700 billion dollar bailout plan was actually proposed by treasury secretary Paulson, not any one party.

Please get your facts straight.


RE: Give it up
By MPE on 11/24/2008 5:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, Democrat Woodrow Wilson implemented the federal income tax via the 16th amendment.


I was referring to progressive income tax not the flat tax.

quote:
The 700 billion dollar bailout plan was actually proposed by treasury secretary Paulson, not any one party.


Uhm... Treasury Secretary is a appointed position in the Executive Branch. That is not the same a Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Meaning, any policy from Treasury Secretary office IS the policy of the president.

So it seems you do not know your facts.


RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 6:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
I never said that most republicans were any better. All politicians are full of....

How can you say he’s not a socialist? His comments almost mirrored karl marx exactly.

By the way, let me preemptively tell you that I don’t follow fox news. I know when you people who think everything should be given to you don’t agree with a point you mention fox news.


RE: Give it up
By arazok on 11/24/2008 10:02:19 AM , Rating: 2
I’m always intrigued by the perceptions people have of China. If anyone thinks a quasi-capitalist, communist run country is ever going to approach the US economy, I have a bridge to sell you.

China might be on the upswing, but don’t think for a second they aren’t going to totally screw it up at some point down the road.


RE: Give it up
By Gzus666 on 11/24/2008 10:14:03 AM , Rating: 2
They technically aren't communist at all. They can call themselves whatever they want, they follow none of the ideals of communism. Egalitarianism is surely not followed in China and this is one of the base ideals of communism. If anything they are an imperialistic government and even then, that isn't correct. They are quite literally run by their military.


RE: Give it up
By nah on 11/24/2008 10:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
I did some research in 2000, and (if i remember correctly)--China's GDP/capita will equal America's at around 2235 AD--IF China grows at a constant 5.5 % and the USA at a constant 2.5 %-- over the next 235 years

Of course China's population would be three times bigger then--so it's total GDP would be x3 larger


RE: Give it up
By masher2 (blog) on 11/24/2008 10:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "If anyone thinks a quasi-capitalist, communist run country is ever going to approach the US economy, I have a bridge to sell you..."

China GDP: $10T
US GDP: $13T

China is already "approaching" the US economy in terms of total size. In terms of per-capita GDI, it very well may never equal the US...but total GDP is the more important factor when it comes to factors like military and economic impact.

By the way, to the poster who projected China's growth, its current GDP growth rate is more like 10%, rather than 5%.


RE: Give it up
By arazok on 11/24/2008 10:51:18 AM , Rating: 3
That’s Google's result on GDP. I don’t know their source, but it seems suspect.

The IMF, World Bank, and CIA put China’s GDP at a more realistic 3 trillion, well behind the EU, USA, and Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...


RE: Give it up
By arazok on 11/24/2008 11:07:34 AM , Rating: 2
I just checked Google's GDP estimate again, and I see it links to the CIA world fact book as a source. Checking there, it lists China’s GDP (PPP) at 7 trillion, and GDP (OER) at 3.2 trillion.

I'm favoring the OER as the correct source for comparing economies.


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
Although.. GDP is pretty much useless when comparing China vs the states, mainly because of the huge parity between cost of living.

GDP (PPP) is much more useful as only a few items such as oil are calculated based on exchange rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...

All GDP(PPP) sources put the U.S at around 14 million and China at 7 million (with China still having around 10% year over year increase.)


RE: Give it up
By nah on 11/24/2008 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way, to the poster who projected China's growth, its current GDP growth rate is more like 10%, rather than 5%.


That's been true for most of the last 30 years--but can that rate be sustained for the next 200 +--that's the big question

You're comparing GDPs by PPP-compare it by the Atlas method--it's easier to grow from a very low base very quickly--snags hit when you cross the USD 6000 per capita mark--and then continue --problems of sustainability, R&D investments that actually keep your cutting edge--intellectual property development becomes a big issue--of course, if they keep on stealing our secrets--they've already saved on most of their R&D costs


RE: Give it up
By omnicronx on 11/24/2008 12:12:45 PM , Rating: 3
In 20 years, if China keeps this up, they will be running on their own internet. If they continue to allow these hackers to thrive, other governments will have no choice but to block out China completely.

P.S The U.S only has 300 million people, it is only a matter of time before other nations catch up and the U.S and their dominance starts to fade. Don't be surprised to see the U.S dollar no longer being the base world currency, regardless of what Obama does. And blaming Obama before he is in office is very childish. Bush is to blame for the current state of the US, whose non socialist/pro-military style of government you seem to agree with. Obviously that did not work and the majority of the population does not agree with you, so how about you give him a chance, it can't be any worse than what we have lived through the past eight years.


RE: Give it up
By InvertMe on 11/24/2008 4:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bush is to blame for the current state of the US


If you believe one person affected the ecconomy so drasticly you really need to increase your education of how our government and economy work.

I personally think Ombama is a scumbag and is NOT what this country needs in any way shape or form but I am not concerned in the slighest that he got elected because he is just one person and even being the president can only affect the country so much.


RE: Give it up
By zombiexl on 11/24/2008 6:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually about the last 35 years of government have set up this current state of affairs. At least with the mortgage issues.

Well that and the complete lack of personal responsibility. For example when I bought my current home I was told I could buy something 4x more expensive than what I bought. I decided that it was more responsible to buy what I needed. If all those borrowers had used some common sense this wouldnt even be an issue.


RE: Give it up
By Noya on 11/25/2008 4:30:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If all those borrowers had used some common sense this wouldnt even be an issue.


And I bet 30% of them barely spoke English and over 50% of them didn't even graduate high school. Let's not forget our entire economy is based on an ever increasing credit market.

When an auto dealership dupes some stupid people, the car gets repoed. When the entire US mortgage sector dupes people, then re-sells the loans across the globe a few times, the world economy gets screwed. The quasi capitalist system we use is shite without lots of regulations (look at Enron).


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki