Is this legal speak for saying, "They're using our backdoors without our permission."?
Is this legal speak for saying, "They're using our backdoors without our permission."?
I also wonder if information about similar attacks from US allies will be detailed in the coming days, or if the exploits were just limited to our specific back doors (as has been reported in the previous weeks).
China will have convenient amnesia during their next communications lamenting the West’s unprovoked aggression.
It's possible that isolated attacks could pop off now and again, but hacking to-and-from China is strictly state controlled.
It's like we're on the $500,000 question and my Phone-a-Friend still has Snowden on the line.
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_...
I wouldn't worry too much.
Us unAmericans in the rest of the world don't have any constitutional guarantees to save us from the US spooks (nor from each other), and you don't have any constitutional guarantees to save you from the rest of the world, either.
So the flimsy guarantees that would in theory save you from your own spooks are really just a drop in the bucket.
Even just being rational, if we have no qualms spying on our European allies, it seems a safe bet to assume we would be doing that and much more to China too.
The Tao or Dao is the natural way of the universe, primarily as conceived in East Asian philosophy and religion. This seeing of life cannot be grasped as a concept. Rather, it is seen through actual living experience of one's everyday being. The concept is represented by the Chinese character 道, which has meanings including 'way', 'path', 'road', and sometimes 'doctrine' or 'principle'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaoThe data offers a fairly comprehensive and interesting perspective on China's research priorities and organization, I can't speak to the effectiveness of the programs themselves, but it does make me concerned that we are falling far behind in many areas, including cyber security.
[0] https://www.misp-project.org/
[1] https://raw.githubusercontent.com/MISP/misp-galaxy/refs/head...
[2] https://www.layer8.org/8541dd18-ff05-4720-aac7-1bd59d3921dd/
Conflating the two is even easier when the backdoor is morally questionable i.e. When someone purposefully installs a wooden backdoor on a bankvault and says it's so that we don't need to go through the whole rigmarole of opening the main vault-door. Yes it allows them to do their job of checking what's in safety deposit boxes easier but the door itself is an evil.
Like the WestWorld S3 “RICO crime app”.
In terms of quantity and quality of talent, I don't think the western world would fall behind China, especially with their strict control of information. Most people there will have difficulty independently learning about cybersecurity.
The difference is that most talent is captured by the private sector with higher compensation or bounties. Meanwhile, China can very easily compel anyone they need into the government so the % utilization on outward attacks is probably higher.
[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2159.Confessions_of_an_E...
This book was on of my favorite books to site in extemporaneous speaking events.
Speaking from my own limited anecdata, but since the 90s in order to use the internet in China you basically had to be somewhat proficient in "cybersecurity" just because of all the required hoops to jump through. There were definitely a lot of script kiddies, but the Chinese exploit scene (amateur and professional) has always been bustling. And just personally speaking, the most truly awe-inspiring and resourceful hackers I've ever known have been Russian, or Chinese. Like actual 10x engineers who think that walls put in place for other people don't exist for them.
I'm puzzled by this assertion. I know quite a few self-taught infosec folks who grew up there. China is not North Korea. The government, by and large, doesn't monitor what you're doing day-to-day, unless you're a political activist or some other "undesirable". The Great Firewall doesn't stop you from accessing infosec content; and in any case, the use of VPNs is prevalent among techies.
To be fair, the parent's claim that China is "ahead" in infosec also feels like fearmongering. The one thing that's true for China is that their government has far fewer qualms about hacking Western infrastructure to get dirt on dissidents, steal IP, and so on. But that's a matter of ethics and law, not tech.
Western infrastructure by comparison is very vulnerable to distribution of connectivity, attacks on deep sea cables can cause a lot of damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2...
It's seems there's a semantic schism on "the point in software where security is weak enough (either purposefully or unkowingly) for 3rd party access by a 3rd party" and "the point in software where security is purposefully weakened for 3rd party access by the legal requirement of a 3rd party" there's definitely a distinction but I generally conflate the two, perhaps incorrectly, under the word backdoor.
If you've got another more appropos word for this purposeful and legal weakining of security for non primary user/provider access I'd love to know it because sadly I feel I'd use it fairly often in the coming years.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
Remember, way back when, AT&T just gave the NSA full access to their network.
I have worked with people in Chinese tech companies and in Chinese tech ministries, and I don't think this statement is true, any more than in the US. In the US, there are talented techies who work for FAANG, startups, Palantir, NSA, etc etc. Similarly in China.
Former CEO of Qwest Communications Joe Nachio claims he fought the NSA's initial requests for these backdoors, and was rewarded with being taken to court for insider trading. Remember no one at the top of these companies got there without breaking some rules along the way.
If anything I'd expect ordinary people to be far too trusting that the authorities are reasonable and friendly. They must have real problems with earnest, motivated and well meaning people wandering off the approved parts of the internet into censored topics and getting confused by whatever happens next.
As opposed to the DoD, which strictly fights for freedom, liberty, and democracy?
The problem is not whether the backdoor was legally mandated or not, and whether legal authorities are misusing them or not, the problem is that it exists. And the existence by itself is enough to let someone ignore any legal mandates and view the comms.
All China ever did was exploit capitalism. And if we punished companies for exploiting capitalism then America wouldn't have modern businesses at all.
I'll also add that ironically those who don't oppose these bills are unwittingly doing the bidding of strategic adversaries as demonstrated quite adequately by the PRC here.
China is different. Not quite as focused in terms of sheer government directive, but just think of the Chinese people you do know and extrapolate out the level of effort and talent. Being overconfident seems like a mistake.
At the very least China is generally gonna have everyone else beat on quantity of people involved in quite a lot of things.
Better than tier1(China), where most of the research happens - the salaries in China are easily beating Japan and significant portion of the EU "centers" on top of having significantly lower cost of living on most of the relevant dimensions.
It kinda feels like you understand China as a thought experiment and not a real place.
Anyway, when are you there? It looks you are talking in 2010.
> Mallaby said that Perkins' conception of international finance is "largely a dream" and that his "basic contentions are flat wrong" because "the poor don't always lose" when developing countries borrow money.
It's not exactly an uncommon take to center conceptions neocolonialism around the World Bank and the IMF. This just seems like a Steven Pinker blunt rotation picking on the work.
I've heard China also has many more personnel working in this space.
Anyway, in China I heard that if you go to hospital in a different household registration, you have to pay the full medical costs. It sounds the cost of living in China is expensive.
It's annoying that sometimes people thinks there has to be basic mutual intelligibility between Chinese and Japanese languages against the reality that there's none, but this is not about that at all. Chill.
When talking about paying such full medical costs, let me share some concrete numbers with you, all numbers are from tier 1 cities like Shanghai -
Chest CT scan is 170-200 RMB, or 25-30 USD MRI scan is 260-460 RMB, or 35-65 USD Ultrasound is 20-170 RMB, or 3-25 USD PET CT is 6500 RMB, or 900 USD
https://ybj.sh.gov.cn/cmsres/9b/9baabfec6f6c4e3fa03d6289f5e7...
Ambulance cost is shockingly low, 30 RMB per call plus 7 RMB per KM, that is 4 USD per call plus 1 USD per KM.
https://wx.sh120.sh.cn/mobjsp/helpinfo/FeeScale.jsp?communit...
when you can't afford those tests in the west or facing a stupidly long waiting period, don't be sad, just jump onto an airplane to get yourself checked & treated in Shanghai. You'd still save heap of money saved after such extra travel costs.
how many people would seriously believe that EU or Japan can possibly compete with China on its own in terms of quality for those above mentioned sectors.
just looking at those low quality & high pollution Japanese & European cars.
https://rt-solar.ru/solar-4rays/blog/4861/
Likely an attack done by US intelligence.
There has been quite a few of these with a lot of details released by Russian techies - this is just the latest one I know of.
If you’re talking about innovation and mass EV manufacturing, sure the US and China are leading, but the European Volkswagen and BMW Groups are still competitive. Japan is admittedly a laggard in the EV market, but largely because EVs are still a luxury good and Japanese brands are primarily mainstream.
such hard earned experience is no longer relevant in the era of EV.
> but the European Volkswagen and BMW Groups are still competitive
none of them is even capably of designing self driven cars on their own. same for the AI based infotainment systems fitted on EVs. they are just Canon in 2024/2025.
> EVs are still a luxury good
I wouldn't call it luxury. It is the cheapest option to own a car in Shanghai, BYD Seagull is being offered for $9k USD.
> Japanese brands are primarily mainstream
they have already lost the battle. if EV makers can't build their own self driving systems and those AI based infotainment systems, then they are in the wrong business. Batteries is another story that can not be ignored, Japan and the EU do not have any meaningful control on that.
I don't see any chance how European or Japanese car makers can survive in mid term.
1) While being a fantastic resource to get a first impression of what's out there, the Defense Universities Tracker has not been updated since about 2019. So it is starting to be outdated and anyone using it should be well aware of it. It seems that an update is in an early stage.
2) In order to assess the actual risks, the sources that are provided at each institution's page are crucial. These are ommitted in your version. Please consider linking back to each institutions page under https://unitracker.aspi.org.au/
The question: What is the value added of your page over the official page https://unitracker.aspi.org.au/ ? I only see the map. Am I missing something?
I've also added the references to the individual institution at the unitracker site as well.
To answer your question, the visualization is just a simple cross-filter. I guess the differences are the categorized and topic-based breakdowns/filtering, filtering by description and it includes a map. I did consider adding a network graph, but my focus isn't really visualization.
So? It kinds sounds like you're making an excuse, but excuses don't do anything to address the capability difference caused by the larger number of personnel.
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.
Yes, the whataboutism is unwarranted here. The US government is no angel, but is far more constrained in this regard. The bar to become "the enemy of the state" is much higher - for example, your comment won't get you in trouble here. The US government also wouldn't, say, hack Spotify and snoop on their business plans to prop up a competing US startup - something that is commonplace with the Chinese intelligence apparatus.
Their name suggests they are a public agency—in fact, though sponsored by the AUS defence ministry, they are non-governmental and funded in part by weapons manufacturers and foreign governments.
Their project [0] describes numerous civilian universities as “very high risk,” unnecessarily raising fears that ordinary Chinese students and researchers are dangerous.
Especially since students uni choices are heavily determined by gaokao scores, I don’t think placing labels on people based on their undergrad uni as if they handpicked them for whatever defense connections they may have makes any sense.
This is what the US is doing with Proclamation 10043 under both Trump I and Biden. Steven Miller, who will be returning to a similar role in Trump II, recently suggested banning all Chinese citizens from student visas in the US, demonstrating this irresponsible rhetorics effect.
Moreover, Australia is basically a vassal state of the US for intelligence matters—-see the debate about whether the CIA ousted the only prime minister to question the NSA’s Pine Gap facility on Australian soil. [1]
[0] https://unitracker.aspi.org.au/universities/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the...
I think you're drastically overestimating the effect of being sarcastic about jingoistic rhetoric on the chinese internet. I imagine China, much like the DoD, is quite proud of their ability to penetrate systems and cause havoc.
> The US government also wouldn't, say, hack Spotify and snoop on their business plans to prop up a competing US startup - something that is commonplace with the Chinese intelligence apparatus.
I can't imagine there's much worth taking from Spotify. Meanwhile, if you think the US won't steal technology from China when there's something worth stealing, you're a massive fool.
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, noting that one reason China may be ahead in infosec is because it may have many more people working in that area was to rebut claims that "China is ahead in infosec" was "fearmongering."
In short, China having a larger population may be one reason why they're ahead, but that why is not very relevant to decisions about what to do about it.
But that is not relevant to point that Chinese state media (which is in a way all their media, like becoming in Russia now) is wrong and lies regularly but will never undermine the cult of personality at the top of the government that owns it by admitting the lies.
To deny that you need to go all tinfoil on me and say most instances where they lied is made up by the West. Like idk Tiananmen didn't happen or whatever. If you believe that then sure.
It's not just that they added Greek officials phones to the monitoring list alongside legitimate suspects, but the whole program itself was hidden. Nor is it clear how the US could have forwarded any legitimate threats captured without admitting the whole program.
The whole Olympics rationale is a bit weird too. Yes, it is a big event and there have been a few terrorist attacks in its history, but relatively few considering its huge scale. Also, almost every state actor is participating and thus unlikely to cause any major trouble. It's a big propaganda thing for most of the US-order enemies. It doesn't really make sense why the NSA would have been authorized such extensive access, to the exclusion of the host country's own personnel, instead of requesting help from neighboring EU countries that already presumably cooperate on law enforcement.
That sounds like a cover story the US made up to change it from "act of war" level to "oops we forgot to ask if this was okay."
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?
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.
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.
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