Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–157 of 157 posts

Re: PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

#151

Post by talldayo »

sailfast wrote: post #18
toomuchtodo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they leveraging CALEA mandated infrastructure. https://www.techdirt.com/2024/10/16/wyden-calea-hack-proves-... https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_letter_to_f... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_...

Can you imagine if the proponents of the Clipper Chip had actually won the argument? Yeesh. This is inexcusable.

> Can you imagine if the proponents of the Clipper Chip had actually won the argument?

Given that 90% of smartphone hardware comes from 2-3 manufacturers, I actually can imagine it pretty well...

Re: PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

#152

Post by talldayo »

0dayz wrote: post #105
talldayo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, you could look at that as a mistake on the West's half for letting themselves become so addicted to a foreign power they are ideologically at-odds with. We could have learned this mistake when we sold Pakistan weapons they used to genocide people, or again when we gave Iran weapons they would turn around and use for terrorism, or yet again when we furnish weapons to Israel pitting one ugly nationalist the…

USA never gave weapons beyond required (hostage crisis) to Iran. And China is doing a lot more than exploiting capitalism. They are pushing neo imperialism just like Russia.

> USA never gave weapons beyond required (hostage crisis) to Iran.

Same can't be said about Iraq, can it?

> And China is doing a lot more than exploiting capitalism. They are pushing neo imperialism just like Russia.

Oh, absolutely. But none of that mattered to us when China was a fair-weather trade partner, so I frankly find it hilarious that people want to act suddenly offended by Chinese ambition. What, 40 years of trade reliance didn't give you the insight into Xi Jinping you needed?

Re: PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

#153

Post by tivert »

medo-bear wrote: post #149
tivert wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Your comment doesn't really address anything relevant regarding the US's goals and positioning to achieve them. For instance, if the US wants to to secure its networks and be able to respond effectively to hacking threats from its geopolitical rivals, it may have to invest proportionally more of its human resources in infosec to remain competitive. I see no good reason why it can't do that. Also, n…

Im just offering you an explanation about evolution of powers in the world, and human resources is a huge factor. Already in his last mandate Trump was constantly talking about the power of US military, much like Russia does about its nukes. These sort of things are done out of weakness, not strength

> Im just offering you an explanation about evolution of powers in the world, and human resources is a huge factor.

Sorry, that wasn't an explanation that was needed nor asked for.

And its sounds like weird sort of demographic determinism, which is kinda so oversimple to be obviously not true.

Re: PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

#154

Post by 0dayz »

talldayo wrote: post #152
0dayz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA never gave weapons beyond required (hostage crisis) to Iran. And China is doing a lot more than exploiting capitalism. They are pushing neo imperialism just like Russia.

> USA never gave weapons beyond required (hostage crisis) to Iran. Same can't be said about Iraq, can it? > And China is doing a lot more than exploiting capitalism. They are pushing neo imperialism just like Russia. Oh, absolutely. But none of that mattered to us when China was a fair-weather trade partner, so I frankly find it hilarious that people want to act suddenly offended by Chinese ambition. What, 40 years o…

>Same can't be said about Iraq, can it?

Iraq got most of the weapons from the USSR.

If you mean it's WMD, that was done by tricking the west by proclaiming that Iraq was going to be using chemicals used in WMD for non WMD uses.

>What, 40 years of trade reliance didn't give you the insight into Xi Jinping you needed?

You are correct that the west took a blind eye to the geopolitical goals and ambitions of China, however it started as a strategy in the cold war (counter balance to the USSR) to the naive view that trade of libertarians that free trade makes geopolitical interest go away and peace comes in.

Re: PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

#155

Post by 0dayz »

coretx wrote: post #147
0dayz wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friends are a form of interest, so why try and separate the two?

Because nation states are socio/psycho-paths.

So by definition every state is this?

How exactly would we know this?

Re: PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

#156

Post by 0dayz »

cyp0633 wrote: post #141
0dayz wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be true even with private actors, at the end of the day it's whoever has concrete evidence of something taking place. If the FBI is going to make the broad statement that China is hacking the USA, it'll have to back that statement up by evidence presented in court against individuals the FBI has investigated for hacking into US companies/government orgs.

Seems that you just don't believe the other side has done some investigation and therefore did not search for it. I'm not saying that either incident is fake but you've just proved my point of view.

I don't believe any side who doesn't present in a good evidence based way, in other words verifiable and or replicable data.

On that front China has a far worse track record and institutions that uses evidence based truth telling.

Re: PRC Targeting of Commercial Telecommunications Infrastructure

#157

Post by medo-bear »

tivert wrote: post #153
medo-bear wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im just offering you an explanation about evolution of powers in the world, and human resources is a huge factor. Already in his last mandate Trump was constantly talking about the power of US military, much like Russia does about its nukes. These sort of things are done out of weakness, not strength

> Im just offering you an explanation about evolution of powers in the world, and human resources is a huge factor. Sorry, that wasn't an explanation that was needed nor asked for. And its sounds like weird sort of demographic determinism, which is kinda so oversimple to be obviously not true.

I'm sorry I didnt realise you think Im only allowed to respond in the way you find appropriate.

If you do not want to take into account China's huge and relatively well educated and quite capable working class that is your issue

Post reply on HN