Most active commenters
  • toxik(6)
  • systemvoltage(5)
  • mwcampbell(5)
  • xwolfi(4)
  • wyager(3)
  • yesenadam(3)

←back to thread

980 points nkcmr | 70 comments | | HN request time: 1.254s | source | bottom
1. toxik ◴[] No.27415754[source]
Chinese originated spam and abuse is so outrageously widespread, I don’t understand why there isn’t a conversation going on about cutting them off from the wider internet. They blocked most of it anyway.
replies(8): >>27415770 #>>27415797 #>>27415801 #>>27416273 #>>27416375 #>>27416773 #>>27416937 #>>27417395 #
2. wyager ◴[] No.27415770[source]
I would rather have a global network with marginally more spam than a regional network with marginally less.
replies(3): >>27415826 #>>27415879 #>>27416080 #
3. ◴[] No.27415797[source]
4. croes ◴[] No.27415801[source]
Maybe that is the plan, that we cut them off, so they don't have to
5. systemvoltage ◴[] No.27415826[source]
I believe in reciprocity. China has blocked a lot of the western traffic. So, the west should block China. If they open up, we should welcome them with open arms. Similar spirit as some open source licenses - reciprocity creates fairness and increases collaboration, prevents hawks in a population of doves and improves stability.

We are already doing this with trade. The amount of leeway and free lunch China has gotten from the west is insane. I don’t blame China, I blame the west and the rest of the world for not preventing it. Asymmetrical policies are often exploited by capitalism and governments have been caught off guard.

I’m not an Anti-China lunatic. It’s just common sense.

replies(5): >>27415887 #>>27416359 #>>27416704 #>>27417204 #>>27417330 #
6. jjeaff ◴[] No.27415879[source]
I don't think every country in the world minus one or two would be "regional".
7. yarcob ◴[] No.27415887{3}[source]
I really don't think blocks and embargoes are going to help anyone. They just suck for all the affected people, but I don't think they are very effective at convincing foreign governments to open up.
replies(1): >>27415980 #
8. systemvoltage ◴[] No.27415980{4}[source]
We're talking about blocking IPs originating from China. How would that hurt the affected people outside of China?

In regards to trade war, HN has discussed this ad-nauseum, I think we should restrict the discussion to internet traffic even though I brought it up as an analogy about asymmetric response from the west in general: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=trade+war

replies(1): >>27416384 #
9. kortilla ◴[] No.27416080[source]
This false dichotomy is impressive. A single country accounting for for 50+% sets up the choice to be, “a global network with a lot less spam and a regional island with a lot of spam” vs “a global network with a ton of spam barely connected to a regional network that much of the spam originates from”.
replies(1): >>27416708 #
10. jmartrican ◴[] No.27416273[source]
The other trending article on HN today is about Chinese fishing boats abusing the world's oceans. Its ok, we'll learn to get used to it.
replies(2): >>27416632 #>>27416890 #
11. dvfjsdhgfv ◴[] No.27416359{3}[source]
The lives of people in China trying to use Internet services outside are already miserable; let's not make it worse and alienate others. We should treat them just like the rest: if extensive malicious traffic arrives, we drop it, but we don't ban the entire country.
replies(1): >>27416503 #
12. egypturnash ◴[] No.27416375[source]
China currently makes some absurdly large percentage of the world's consumer goods, and the discussions about producing them are probably being had over the internet. Cut them off of the internet and we have to rebuild manufacturing capacity everywhere else.

Which might not be a bad thing overall, but it's sure not gonna make any transnational corporation's bottom line happy over the next few quarters, so they'll be waving a lot of money at politicians to make this not happen.

replies(1): >>27416467 #
13. yarcob ◴[] No.27416384{5}[source]
> We're talking about blocking IPs originating from China. How would that hurt the affected people outside of China?

Most of the affected people would obviously be inside China.

14. ALittleLight ◴[] No.27416467[source]
China is an oppressive authoritarian state currently engaged in ethnic cleansing. How is enabling them indefinitely an option?
replies(3): >>27416571 #>>27417287 #>>27424285 #
15. toxik ◴[] No.27416503{4}[source]
The internet is built on institutional trust. You can’t have a properly functioning network when a sizable part is just not giving a shit about its users abusing your users.

It very much echoes the problems of intellectual property theft in China.

replies(2): >>27416709 #>>27417210 #
16. julianlam ◴[] No.27416571{3}[source]
Because doing so would essentially push China towards a China-only internet, which they're already halfway towards.

The benefits of gobalization and the spread of democracy (or even just alternative governance models) via exposure to other cultures cannot be understated

replies(4): >>27416653 #>>27416813 #>>27416911 #>>27418046 #
17. swinglock ◴[] No.27416632[source]
Wouldn't want to be rude.
18. theli0nheart ◴[] No.27416653{4}[source]
Not a strong reason. I would be shocked if the average Internet user has heard of any of the top ten most visited websites in China. Their entire infrastructure, from the technological layer to the bureaucratic layer, has ensured that the average Chinese Internet user knows very little about the outside world that hasn’t been pre-vetted or filtered out completely by the GFW.
replies(1): >>27417523 #
19. snowwrestler ◴[] No.27416704{3}[source]
The Chinese government operates their Internet blocks (the “Great Firewall”). But overwhelmingly, it is the Chinese people who are trying to access information on the public Internet.

Blocking the entire country will do little to hurt the government (who can employ state resources to get whatever information they want) and do quite a bit more to harm the Chinese people by reducing whatever level of information independence they still have.

If there is going to be significant change in China, it will have to come from the Chinese people. Cutting them off from the Internet vindictively does not advance that goal.

There are specific people in China doing specific bad things with specific computing resources. It would be far better for the U.S. government to dedicate more resources to finding and partnering with orgs and projects (like icanhazip or Cloudflare) to find the info they need to apply targeted mitigations.

“China does it, so we should do it too” only makes sense as a strategy if our goal is to become exactly like China is today. I don’t think that should be our goal.

replies(1): >>27416831 #
20. npteljes ◴[] No.27416708{3}[source]
That "single country" is of 1.4B people.
replies(1): >>27419195 #
21. crumbshot ◴[] No.27416709{5}[source]
This supposed 'intellectual property theft' is mostly just reverse engineering of technology.

It's not really a problem anyway. If some capitalists in the US and Europe don't get to skim off a slice of profit from another country's manufacturing output, then so what?

22. jedberg ◴[] No.27416773[source]
It's not even a new trend either. Back in 2003 when I worked at eBay and PayPal doing security, the bulk of the attempts came from China and Romania (Romania at the time had one ISP for the whole country that was fast but didn't care about abuse at all).
23. Arubis ◴[] No.27416813{4}[source]
I liked this hypothesis overall—that exposure to democracy through trade is sufficient to breed democracy in China. It’s a confident and peaceful approach, and I’m glad that we tested it. However, in this case, I believe we’ve disproven the hypothesis; continuing to run the same experiment unmodified and expecting improving results is signing up for disappointment.
replies(2): >>27417335 #>>27417566 #
24. systemvoltage ◴[] No.27416831{4}[source]
> “China does it, so we should do it too” only makes sense as a strategy if our goal is to become exactly like China is today. I don’t think that should be our goal.

I very strongly disagree. An eye for an eye is exactly what needs to be done and should have been done from the beginning. Unfortunately, it is too late. 1989 massacre should have been condemned more solidly and trade restrictions should have been placed in the 90's. The bet that western alliances made is that China would open up in the 2000s leading into 2010s. That has gone horribly wrong.

The west is finally waking up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Parliamentary_Alliance_o...

25. corndoge ◴[] No.27416890[source]
Any criticism of China can be construed as being pro-US and we can't have that. Criticism of Chinese traditional medicine, which is a forcing function for the endangering and extinction of species across the globe, is also unacceptable since criticism of any aspect of a culture is just racism (unless it's the one culture that's okay to criticize).

As long as the truth doesn't match what the preferred narrative is we'll continue to suffer the consequences, which is true of so many things beyond just attitudes towards China.

replies(2): >>27417173 #>>27417356 #
26. baud147258 ◴[] No.27416911{4}[source]
Is it really working, though? Has there been a push in China (or other country connected to the global internet) for more democracy?
27. mwcampbell ◴[] No.27416937[source]
It stands to reason that an especially large volume of abuse will originate from the most populous country in the world. I don't think that's a reason to cut them off from the global Internet. If it's true that their government is already oppressing their own people (I don't know what's truth and what's propaganda), then the rest of us shouldn't make it worse for those people by cutting off whatever outside connections they manage to have.

Also, I'm generally bothered by comments like this one that stir up the general human tendency toward xenophobia. We should be fighting that tendency within ourselves, not fighting the out group. Whichever group of people we want to demonize, we should remember that they're people just like us. We shouldn't punish the majority of them for what a minority are doing to us.

replies(5): >>27416963 #>>27416985 #>>27417367 #>>27419050 #>>27422039 #
28. toxik ◴[] No.27416963[source]
They are not the most connected country, but a long shot. Why isn’t India no. 2 by your logic? Stop apologizing for unacceptable behavior from a country that openly purports to become “the superpower of the world”.
replies(3): >>27417087 #>>27417339 #>>27419876 #
29. Aeolun ◴[] No.27416985[source]
I mean, if their government doesn’t stop, and often even encourages the behavior, what are we supposed to do? Just roll over and show them the other cheek?

I agree you don’t want to cut them off, but on the other hand, I don’t want 90% of all global malicious traffic to originate from a specific country.

replies(1): >>27417051 #
30. mwcampbell ◴[] No.27417051{3}[source]
> I don’t want 90% of all global malicious traffic to originate from a specific country.

Is that actually true? I guess I'm inclined to believe that claims like that are more likely to be propaganda from western governments and/or western-owned companies.

If it is true, I wonder why their government isn't stopping it. They must realize that it's giving them a bad reputation in the wider world.

replies(4): >>27417320 #>>27417402 #>>27417633 #>>27417701 #
31. mwcampbell ◴[] No.27417087{3}[source]
I'm not apologizing for anyone's bad behavior; I just don't want us to escalate an already tense situation. "The only winning move is not to play", right?
replies(1): >>27420126 #
32. mwcampbell ◴[] No.27417173{3}[source]
> the one culture that's okay to criticize

That would be one's own culture, whichever one that is.

33. wyager ◴[] No.27417204{3}[source]
I’m very glad that my government is probably not allowed to prevent me from accessing content from China. That’s why I live here and not in China.
replies(1): >>27417515 #
34. wyager ◴[] No.27417210{5}[source]
> The internet is built on institutional trust.

No it’s not. What is this even supposed to mean?

replies(1): >>27418753 #
35. interactivecode ◴[] No.27417287{3}[source]
How is keeping the USA online (which by the way actively destabilizes other countries and seeks out war outside its own soil) any different?
36. H8crilA ◴[] No.27417320{4}[source]
No it's not true, the GP just lied out of spite. Also, the OP blog post wrote about Chinese AS' out of spite too /s
37. yesenadam ◴[] No.27417330{3}[source]
> I believe in reciprocity. China has blocked a lot of the western traffic. So, the west should block China. If they open up, we should welcome them with open arms.

This sounds like a couple of people I've met, who have a philosophy of "treating people the way they treat me". And what if the other person/side also "believes in reciprocity", what happens then? This seems to rely on other people being nice first, and then always treating them how they treated you, imitating their behaviour, like Tit-for-tat[0]—except Tit-for-tat begins by being nice. It's not easy to put my finger on what seems fishy about that strategy, but it doesn't at all seem the easy solution to being fair and just (or whatever word you most prefer here) its proponents seem to think it is.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat (See particularly "Problems" and the next section)

replies(1): >>27418433 #
38. mwcampbell ◴[] No.27417335{5}[source]
> continuing to run the same experiment unmodified and expecting improving results is signing up for disappointment.

Maybe that's an acceptable price to pay for not being the ones to take the next step toward war. If war is a game in which "the only winning move is not to play", then maybe it's also true that when it comes to doing the peaceful thing, the only winning move is to keep on playing, even if it hurts us.

replies(1): >>27417755 #
39. xwolfi ◴[] No.27417339{3}[source]
But that's fair they become it. After all they're 20% of humanity...
40. xwolfi ◴[] No.27417356{3}[source]
Many of us in China are absolutely saying Chinese Traditional Medicine is garbage and there s no "western medicine", just medicine.

It's not racist in China to say the truth, why is it where you are ? You probably live in an oppressive political regime with a biparty dictating what you can think ? :P

replies(2): >>27418034 #>>27418779 #
41. liveoneggs ◴[] No.27417367[source]
sorry but this opinion is ridiculous on its face. Blaming china because of population is a complete joke. China (by a large margin), Russia, and poorly configured proxies are 95% of all malicious traffic targeting US-based businesses. It's not even a question.

If you run a small-medium sized business in the US blocking all of countries you can't do business with anyway will save a ton of trouble.

replies(1): >>27423418 #
42. liveoneggs ◴[] No.27417395[source]
15+ or so years ago I worked in the NOC of the 3rd or so largest ISP in the US and a random network engineer did this one evening. We got a big influx of customers complaining about email not working to their family, etc, until I finally figured it out.

That network guy (classic long hair "security" guy) was a lazy asshole for doing it then and the internet needs to have the technology to deal with bad actors beyond AS/geo-level blocking now.

43. andai ◴[] No.27417402{4}[source]
To put it rather mildly, I don't really think they care.
44. Ir0nMan ◴[] No.27417515{4}[source]
To be fair, I think OP's suggestion was more like blocking "incoming" traffic from China.
replies(1): >>27418539 #
45. xwolfi ◴[] No.27417523{5}[source]
Im in China and met a Xinhua journalist once. At day she would edit propaganda stories that she knew were complete horseshit, at night her and her colleagues would go to their boss watch netflix together because he had a working VPN.

Even if just one port is left open, people will be curious enough to find it and use it. Chinese people are humans too :D

46. xwolfi ◴[] No.27417566{5}[source]
I disagree: I m not sure what's making you say it's not working but from a Chinese point of view, this was also an experiment, to try and open up a little.

Are you sure you're doing your part of the bilateral exchange? It cant just be China changing, the US must learn too to adapt and accept a larger, more powerful country, with a widely different model.

Living in China, I can tell you the american model is known, and not particularly impressive to them. They care a lot less about freedom of speech, maybe because they never had it, than they care qbout order, unity and crime rate for instance. And what I always hear is that throwing themselves at the communists in revolt to get the same shitty system as the US is not so seductive.

Maybe become a role model and people will beg to ressemble you ? I have a hard time convincing them voting for their government is gonna work better because "if even idiots can vote, look at who they elect" :s

47. Aeolun ◴[] No.27417633{4}[source]
It was true (well, in the same ballpark, don’t remember exact numbers) for the website I was in a position to see it for. It may be different for others, but like 98% of the malicious traffic comes from 3 or 4 countries.
48. cdirkx ◴[] No.27417701{4}[source]
It is sometimes explicitly used by the government to bring down sites: see the "Great Cannon of China"[1]

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Cannon

49. AussieWog93 ◴[] No.27417755{6}[source]
Many British people made similar statements back in the early 1930s.

When do we accept the fact that Xi's ambitions extend far beyond the borders of Mainland China and pose a threat to the very idea of human dignity?

Is it when he invades Taiwan? Floods the Uyghur camps with gas? Bombs Japan? Lands an army at the port of Darwin?

50. peteretep ◴[] No.27418034{4}[source]
> It's not racist in China to say the truth

mmm, I have had a number of Chinese people explain to me the “truth” about people of various races over the years

51. peteretep ◴[] No.27418046{4}[source]
Yeah, just imagine if Chinese internet users were prevented from accessing websites that exposed them to a diversity of opinions
52. systemvoltage ◴[] No.27418433{4}[source]
One can have a tit-for-tat policies on a geopolitical scale but also excercise forgiveness in most situations in life. I think Tit-for-tat is a terrible strategy on the whole and agree with your philosophical stance - I hope you didn't mean it on the personal level.
replies(1): >>27418780 #
53. TchoBeer ◴[] No.27418539{5}[source]
I don't see how that's any different than what GP was talking about
54. posguy ◴[] No.27418753{6}[source]
Autonomous system (AS) operators should not act in bad faith towards other AS networks they peer with. BGP hijacking is an example of abuse of this institutional trust, same for DNS hijacking.

If this trust is repeatedly broken, peering networks may be forced to depeer the AS as a result, like what happened to McColo when they were depeered.

55. yourapostasy ◴[] No.27418779{4}[source]
> Many of us in China are absolutely saying Chinese Traditional Medicine is garbage and there s no "western medicine", just medicine.

I sure hope that "just medicine" extends to Po Chai pills. So welcome for treating diarrhea symptoms (despite my initial skepticism) when loperamide wasn't available while I was traveling in China!

56. yesenadam ◴[] No.27418780{5}[source]
Sorry—you hope I didn't mean what on the personal level?
replies(1): >>27418929 #
57. systemvoltage ◴[] No.27418929{6}[source]
Apologies, I was hoping you didn't mean to judge my personal character from a single data point on China's policy. I think I am pretty forgiving and excercise tolerance because I know when these things are difficult is exactly when it matters the most. Tolerance is the price we pay for freedom and liberty.
replies(1): >>27419844 #
58. wilsonthewhale ◴[] No.27419050[source]
yup. toxik's comment disgusts me. So much for being against the government and the bad apples and not against the common citizen. Let's just cut off all the devs doing their jobs every day from accessing github, or let's just cut off everyone who was curious enough to bypass the GFW and look around on the outer internet, or let's just cut off someone simply trying to contact an international friend. The truth is: people like toxik could not care less about any person who happens to live inside the borders of "public enemy no. 1".

Sigh.

replies(1): >>27420144 #
59. sumedh ◴[] No.27419195{4}[source]
Why does that matter?
replies(1): >>27419291 #
60. alach11 ◴[] No.27419291{5}[source]
Calling China "a single country" minimizes the fact that it contains 18% of the world's people. It's hard to call something a "global network" if it leaves out that much of the world.
replies(1): >>27419573 #
61. sumedh ◴[] No.27419573{6}[source]
What is your definition of global then?

Why isnt 82% of the worlds's people global?

62. yesenadam ◴[] No.27419844{7}[source]
Hehe no, sorry to give you that impression. Thanks for explaining!
63. rakoo ◴[] No.27419876{3}[source]
Yes, they are the most connected country in number of users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...) and that's what matters: the more users there are, the more malicious activity there will be
replies(1): >>27420124 #
64. toxik ◴[] No.27420124{4}[source]
I don’t think number of people with internet access is a good measure of connectedness at all. Curiously, you dodged my question on why India isn’t the same when your list also shows they should be.
65. toxik ◴[] No.27420126{4}[source]
No, you can’t let somebody poke you with a stick and go “the only winning move is not to play” and pretend like it’s raining.
66. toxik ◴[] No.27420144{3}[source]
Your comment contains no information and only presents an extended ad hominem. Go read the site rules please. This isn’t the place for moral grandstanding.

Most Chinese internet users would not miss Western internet for a second, a fact you would be aware of if you actually had any insight into Chinese culture.

This attitude that you cannot give consequences to abuse because THINK OF THE POOR CHINESE is so utterly laughable.

replies(1): >>27423548 #
67. mschuster91 ◴[] No.27422039[source]
> Also, I'm generally bothered by comments like this one that stir up the general human tendency toward xenophobia.

Most countries cooperate internationally in getting bad actors from hackers over pirates to pedos booted off the Internet and into jail.

The exceptions are China and Russia who won't do anything against any bad actor and India which is a big base for phone scams (as is Turkey for the European Union, but even Erdogan's regime is cooperating with EU police in taking down scammers).

I agree, the line between demanding at least some sort of common decency standards and xenophobia is thin in these days, but we have to get everyone on board to protect everyone else from rampant abuse.

68. ketzu ◴[] No.27423418{3}[source]
> China (by a large margin), Russia, and poorly configured proxies are 95% of all malicious traffic targeting US-based businesses.

My reasoning for these kinds of stats is usually: Of course it makes sense to attack targets in jurisdictions which can't catch you or equally hide in a country which won't extradite you. (But I never looked into it to any depth, so it's baseless reasoning.)

69. wilsonthewhale ◴[] No.27423548{4}[source]
> if you actually had any insight into Chinese culture

Thanks for the blind assumption. I'm Chinese myself.

70. egypturnash ◴[] No.27424285{3}[source]
It's totally an option if you're in a country effectively ruled by soulless transnational corporations who rank "making lots of money" several orders of magnitude more important than "any kind of ethical concern".

It's probably totally an option if you want to work for one of those corporations, too.