backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by CuriousRock.. on Aug 28 at 10:13 PM

Despite "smoking gun" U.S. is unlikely to act as it has a long history of tolerating China's abuse

It seemed like just another Chinese propaganda video, designed to promote the fighting spirit of soldiers in China's People's Liberation Army and rouse anti-American sentiments.  The Chinese narrator boldly proclaimed, "America is the first country to propose the concept of a cyberwar, and the first country to implement it in a real war."

I. Proof of Chinese Government Cyber-Attacks

But, as first noted by TheEpochTimes, the Chinese government unwittingly dropped a bomb shell when it used a clip of what it must have thought was stock footage.

Between 12:57 and 13:05 in the video, the B-roll clip rolled, revealing what is most westerners' first glimpse at a live Chinese cyber-attack on the U.S.  Videographic proof that recent cyber-attacks were indeed the work of the Chinese government had never been found -- until now.

At the start of the clip the reflection of a PLA officer in uniform can be seen.  We're not sure what the text up top or below says, but if you speak Chinese please let us know...




The officer quickly leaves that screen, using a keyboard shortcut....



...and fires up an application whose creator is identified in GUI text as the Electrical Engineering University of China's People's Liberation Army.  The GUI panel contains the text "Choose Attack Target" and offers the user a choice of what reportedly are multiple Falun Gong websites (a forbidden Chinese spirtual movement) (feel free to chime in if you can read this...).



...more targets....



The text selected reads "Minghui.org" -- a major Falun Gong homepage -- and the IP address selected is a 138.26.x address, an IP block that belongs to the University of Alabama.  The particular IP in question, according to The Epoch Times has not been used since 2010, with IP staff recalling it may have been used to host the homepage of a Falun Gong practitioner, who hosted meetings on campus.



The "attack" button is pressed in the lower left-hand corner, and the video fades out, as presumably a distributed denial of service attack (possibly botnet assisted) is carried out.



So there it is -- straight from the horse's mouth, as they say, proof that China is indeed attacking entities in the U.S. online.

The video is available here, beware the rewind capability seems to be messed up, so just skip to around 10 minutes if you want to see the good part.

II. U.S. is Too Afraid to Stand up For Itself

We're guessing President Barack Obama's (D) response to this video will fall somewhere between "silence" and  "sweeping it under the rug".  After all, while the U.S. talked tough of physical retaliation for cyberattacks, it continues to let China bully it online.

China controls a great deal of U.S. debt and rare earth metals -- a critical component to high-performance electronic devices.  The U.S. also deeply depends on China for its manufacturing needs, having done away with its own capacity to produce most products decades ago.

Likewise there's a sort of grim complacency in the corporate world.  Google, Inc. (GOOG) claims to have its source code stolen by Chinese hackers, but has been forced into silence by the Chinese government.  The message is clear -- put up with abuse, or get out of the world's biggest market.

Similarly, antivirus firm McAfee last month aired a report on the world's largest series of cyber-attacks dubbed "ShadyRAT", which it said were perpetrated by a nation state.  However, when faced with the overwhelming public assumption that the attacker was China, McAfee equivocated refusing to confirm that the attacks came from China.

What reason would McAfee have for keeping the identity of the attacker in history's most financially damaging cyberattack a secret?  Well, its parent company, Intel Corp. (INTC) has invested much in research and development and production facilities in China -- facilities it doesn't want to lose by alienating the local government.

The few people and organizations who do speak out are largely ignored.  

Recent attacks on American advocacy site Change.org, who launched a campaign to free imprisoned Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, led to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonishing China.  But at the end of the day no decisive action was taken by the executive branch or Congress.

In short, China is reportedly gaining advanced intelligence on the U.S. military and its technological secrets; is infiltrating U.S. utilities; and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate secrets, but the U.S. has thus far kept its mouth shut.

For that reason we don't hold much hope that this "smoking gun" will change much of anything in the way U.S. business and the U.S. government bow down to their Chinese abusers.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 1:34:34 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
3. Massively cut the size and budget AND spending power of the Federal Government/Federal Reserve. And this time actually use the surplus on spending down the debt.


A rose by another name... Here you are simply taking option 2 and choosen to spend taxes and revenues on servicing the debt instead of other programs. The public still winds up paying via cessation of services and the people this will hurt the most are the poor and middle classes. Seeing that they make up the majority of the country so you'll have a fun time trying to force it upon them under the current democratic system.

quote:
4. Exporting and selling off (like China does) our abundant natural resources for a short time. Lots of countries would pay top dollar for our coil, as an example, which we use little of ourselves. We also have vast untapped natural gas reserves.


Revenues from resources for sale is included under the revenue aspect of number 2 that I already listed. However, to derive any meaningful revenue from this, you would need to cut out intermediary corporations (and I know how against that you would be) or add levies that would render the resource uncompetitive on the global market in the face of the glut it would produce. Not realistic, sorry.

I also find it humorous that you see things in such a mutually exclusive light. That you must cut spending OR raise taxes. Yet economists around the world advocate that the two should be done in conjunction to varying degrees and at different levels. How novel!


RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I also find it humorous that you never even suggested cuts.


Actually, there are quite a few things regularly suggest cutting and other things I would suggest cutting in the absence of sweeping changes.

A key example has been my argument that socialized medicine cannot work in the US so long as patented drug costs remain unchecked. If this isn't changed, federal prescription drug programs like Medicare simply aren't feasible. It's one thing to help your citizens, but it's silly to help them by essentially subsidizing gigantic profit margins on patented drugs.


RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2011 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
You say that now, but you only had two items on your list. Borrowing and taxation, correct? And you clearly said "the only ways".

But thank you for clearing that up. Bah who are we kidding anyway? There's no hope really. None at all.


RE: Bullying
By Iaiken on 8/23/2011 4:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You say that now, but you only had two items on your list. Borrowing and taxation, correct?


If I wasn't clear enough, then I am sorry. But when I said taxes\revenues I meant exactly that and putting tax money towards debt instead of a program that it previously funded doesn't change the fact that it was tax money in the first place.


RE: Bullying
By NellyFromMA on 8/23/2011 4:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, people aren't exactly talking about raising taxes. If you want to get huffy about accuracy, strive for it yourself.

What is being proposed, again, isn't a tax hike. It's actually allowing a tax BREAK to expire so that the level of taxation goes back to where it had been originally. BIG DIFFERENCE, even if you simplistically want to look at it as tax @ 2013 > 2011

And please, before you get into that whole 'rationale' (term used LOOSELY) you might want to be amply prepared because that's an excrutiatingly uphill battle. Since tax breaks have been in effect, private sector is responsible for virtually NO growth. They have no proportionately invested in US economies while they do so for other nations with their savings directly or indirectly.

It's important to note that taxing the rich 'just cuz' IS stupid. But it's not 'just cuz'. It's because it makes sense and there aren't enough lobby dollars in the world a company can throw at the general population to make me change my mind, and then I'd have another point... why are you spending millions trying to sway public opinion that the top echelon of America's fiscal elite don't 'deserve' to have their tax break taken away instead of investing it in jobs? K thanks!


RE: Bullying
By NellyFromMA on 8/23/2011 4:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's also equally important to realize letting the tax cuts expire doesn't even come close to addressing the problem at large. It's a huge ammount without respect to the debt, and certainly is a necessary (IMO) source to contribute towards balancing the budget, but it is nowhere near the be all end all solutions I think some people may be thinking. Still, the Tea Party and, maybe, Republicans as a whole would have you think you could cut the budget and not effectively raise their taxes a penny, and that's just about as out of touch as it gets. They ought not to whine about entitlement programs lest they get off the feeling of entitlement themselves.


RE: Bullying
By Reclaimer77 on 8/23/2011 6:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that Obama himself actually extended the cuts should clue you in at how disastrous it would be if they were to expire at this time. You clearly are one of those who believe all the cuts did were help the rich, but the list of what the Bush tax cuts did is far greater than that if you would choose to view them.

quote:
Since tax breaks have been in effect, private sector is responsible for virtually NO growth.


The 4 year period after the tax cuts, the IRS set all time records in revenue tax collection. Disproving the myth that the Bush tax cuts "cost" us money and that them expiring would only increase tax revenue. Now while it's true the cuts did not stop the recession, it's inversely true they did not cause it as well. But to say there was "no" growth isn't factual.

You are trying to put the tax breaks into a vacuum. Wars, recession, a housing/banking collapse, and Bush increasing the Federal Government by about 20% are all relevant factors that greatly impacted our economy and growth rates. We simply cannot deny this.

We have an over accumulation of capital and a massive debt problem. And I fail to see how that can ever be fixed via tax policy. In a three year span under Obama, our national debt has grown beyond the already outrageous debt level set under Bush's eight years. And it's growing daily at a frightening pace.

You post eloquently (besides that train wreck last paragraph), but ultimately I sense the same Progressive class warfare motivations behind your reasoning. We're in trouble so tax the rich until nobody is rich anymore, then we'll be saved.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














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