141–150 of 470 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It's not that nobody cares, it's that nobody can do anything about it.
So if the cannon is created using the great firewall, how does the Chinese government establish any sort of plausible argument that this isn't state-sponsored activity? Do they just not care? Some day soon a war will not be started with an assassins bullet but with a tool like this. I wonder when we start looking at them the same way?
0 - Peace 1 - Trade War 2 - Financial War 3 - Electronic War 4 - Shooting War
Note that 1 & 2 are different types of Economic war, and could be grouped together. The steps occur in order, but steps can be skipped.
From a US-centric point of view, North Korea and Iran seem to be at #3. China & Russia are at a limited version of #2.
Chinese/HK seem to be at #3 with each other.Given how invisible Electronic War can be, it's possible that they are deep in #3. It's also possible that #4 might be initially fought with HK Police forces as a proxy. Think of that as "4a".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I agree, but given I pay United States taxes, how about the Iraq war with 600,000 dead? I know it's displacing a dictator and it was under the guise of freedom, weapons, and democracy. But if your family died, does it matter? What's the China propaganda say? Unity, equality, efficiency? Why is our murder better?
We need to weane ourself off a dependency on China for cheap goods. We need to decide that we value human life over a cheap phone.
China gets away with what it does because it feeds our need for shiney new trinkets. Frankly, it's disgusting. The world could stand up to China and say it doesn't want it as a trading partner. Maybe that wouldn't even help, but do we really want to be doing trade with a country that operates like China does?
Where are our values?
So if the cannon is created using the great firewall, how does the Chinese government establish any sort of plausible argument that this isn't state-sponsored activity? Do they just not care? Some day soon a war will not be started with an assassins bullet but with a tool like this. I wonder when we start looking at them the same way?
War seems to progress as follows: 0 - Peace 1 - Trade War 2 - Financial War 3 - Electronic War 4 - Shooting War Note that 1 & 2 are different types of Economic war, and could be grouped together. The steps occur in order, but steps can be skipped. From a US-centric point of view, North Korea and Iran seem to be at #3. China & Russia are at a limited version of #2. Chinese/HK seem to be at #3 with each other.Given how…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
War seems to progress as follows: 0 - Peace 1 - Trade War 2 - Financial War 3 - Electronic War 4 - Shooting War Note that 1 & 2 are different types of Economic war, and could be grouped together. The steps occur in order, but steps can be skipped. From a US-centric point of view, North Korea and Iran seem to be at #3. China & Russia are at a limited version of #2. Chinese/HK seem to be at #3 with each other.Given how…
Pretty sure that this is only recent at most
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I agree, but given I pay United States taxes, how about the Iraq war with 600,000 dead? I know it's displacing a dictator and it was under the guise of freedom, weapons, and democracy. But if your family died, does it matter? What's the China propaganda say? Unity, equality, efficiency? Why is our murder better?
So, maybe firewall off China for a couple of days? Sure, it would hurt on both sides but at least it would be clear that abuse at this scale leads to being blackholed.
This doesn’t work. The DDoS requests actually come from outside China when oversea visitors are hit by the malicious js while browsing Chinese websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of the cyber attacks where the source is proven.
We all know who the attacker is here, but it's not literally "proven" to the standard of evidence that would be required in a US court. The attacker still has plausible deniability.
This is important for public discourse at least, because if it's technically undeniable that Chinese authorities are behind this attack then you can immediately assume than anybody saying that China has nothing to do with it is either acting in bad faith or is largely uninformed.
As we've seen multiple times in the past the existence or non-existence of conclusive proof is largely irrelevant when it comes to international policy anyway so the opinion of US courts is frankly besides the point.