What a nice bunch of people....

[mcrit]

Google reports China-based attack, says pullout possible
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/12/ ... ef=edition

Don't like what the internet has to say about you? Just hack it.

[North Shore]

And a big thumbs up to Google for being the first major company to tell China to stuff it..

[sky's the limit]

And a big thumbs up to Google for being the first major company to tell China to stuff it..

You mean stuff it AFTER they capitulated to censorship last year.... Not exactly the moral high ground. You open the box, you may find you don't like what's inside...

stl

[mcrit]

You mean stuff it AFTER they capitulated to censorship last year.... Not exactly the moral high ground. You open the box, you may find you don't like what's inside...

Hmmmm......they make a compromise to try and work with this wonderful government.....then that government turns around and attacks them.......and we somehow blame Google for this? Good thing STL never went in for being a victims' services councilor.

[sky's the limit]

You mean stuff it AFTER they capitulated to censorship last year.... Not exactly the moral high ground. You open the box, you may find you don't like what's inside...

Hmmmm......they make a compromise to try and work with this wonderful government.....then that government turns around and attacks them.......and we somehow blame Google for this? Good thing STL never went in for being a victims' services councilor.

LMAO!

"Compromise?" Are you serious? Man, you get funnier with age, really. They bent over for access to the biggest potential cash cow there is, then got bit. I have ZERO sympathy for them.

For you to suggest they are "victims" at least stays constant with your line, I'll give you that. The folks in Haiti are "victims...." Google, not so much.

stl

[Icebound]

..

They aren't so much concerned about the censorship.... or even the email hacking...

It is the piracy of their own code which bothers them.


...

[sky's the limit]

..

They aren't so much concerned about the censorship.... or even the email hacking...

It is the piracy of their own code which bothers them.


...

Exactly.

stl

[mcrit]

"Compromise?" Are you serious?

Filtering out results that the CHICOMs don't like......yeah.....that's a compromise.

Man, you get funnier with age,

Glad you feel that way, you on the other hand are the same tedious and predictable left wing apologist that you've always been.

[sky's the limit]

Glad you feel that way, you on the other hand are the same tedious and predictable left wing apologist that you've always been.

Still with you head in the sand eh? How's the view down there?

You going to get any new material anytime soon, or just keep repeating yourself.... speaking of tedious.

"Left wing apologist?" LOL, you don't even bother to read do you? Of course not... that would take time and some effort, and there's every possibility you might actually learn something. The good news is, nobody expects anything else from you, so please do carry on, it's always good for a giggle.

Please, tell us how wronged the Mighty Google is in all of this? You must be a shareholder...

Your biggest fan,

stl

[sky's the limit]

The Google Press release.

I particularly like the part in blue. To paraphrase between the lines, "in 2006 we saw limitless market expansion in China, accepted that some of our nation's supposed core principals and ethics would be compromised, but we decided to go ahead and risk it. Unfortunately we got exactly what we suspected we would get, the best case scenario did not play out as we had hoped, and we are now trying desperately to retreat behind the guise of "human rights" which we think will play well in the press."

Uh huh. It's all about money.

A new approach to China
1/12/2010 03:00:00 PM
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.

We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this report (PDF) by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, as well as a related analysis (PDF) prepared for the Commission, Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China."

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Update: Added a link to another referenced report in paragraph 5.

Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

[mcrit]

I particularly like the part in blue. To paraphrase between the lines, "in 2006 we saw limitless market expansion in China, accepted that some of our nation's supposed core principals and ethics would be compromised, but we decided to go ahead and risk it.

Yep......that paraphrase does read like it came right out of the blue, it sure doesn't bear much resemblance to the original press release.

Gee.......how reprehensible of those Google types.......wanting to make money and expecting that the rule of law would be upheld. I mean after all profit is evil and trying to bring the people of China greater access to information is really just vile and evil and vile. We wouldn't want to poison them against their benevolent government.

[sky's the limit]

Ah yes, the "rule of law."

Just like the "rule of law" that they are trying so hard to establish in Afghanistan. The question as always is, who's law? Last time I check the Chinese gov't run China, not the Americans. Their sandbox, their rules - Google knows that, don't think for a second they didn't. It's about making as much money as possible, ethics, or law be damned.

My paraphrase is I think much closer to the truth than many - you included - would like to admit, regardless how tongue in cheek it may have been.


stl

[mcrit]

Just like the "rule of law" that they are trying so hard to establish in Afghanistan. The question as always is, who's law?

You don't seem to get the concept of 'rule of law'. It means that the government must act within the bounds of it's own laws. When the CHICOMs launched a covert attack on Google's servers they were acting outside their own law (if they were legally entitled to have the e-mail addresses of their critics then all they would have had to do is show up at Google's door with a warrant). In fact they were doing exactly the same thing that you like to crawl all over the Americans for doing (with the small exception that no one has been blowing up CHICOM airliners or declaring a Jihad on the Maoists).

My paraphrase is I think much closer to the truth than many - you included - would like to admit, regardless how tongue in cheek it may have been.

I think that you should reread your own post about seeing both sides of a story, because is you think that that was an accurate paraphrase your metacognitive skills need some sharpening.

[sky's the limit]

Dear Mcrit,

Can I ask what the "buy-in" costs?

Anyway, I'm off, tonnes to do today. Have a good weekend. Thanks for the "alluded" catch btw... I'm surprised you haven't weighed in on that one yet?

stl

[BoostedNihilist]

It's obvious google is trying to leverage the Chinese.

Unfortunately, for google, china doesn't need them.

p.s. @#$! google anyways.

[rottentomatoes]

(with the small exception that no one has been blowing up CHICOM airliners or declaring a Jihad on the Maoists).

Seriously, is this what you want to see: someone blows up Chinese airliners and hopefully kills a whole bunch of Chinese? Look, I understand you dislike the government for what they did, but there is no need to write hate message here.

[mcrit]

Seriously, is this what you want to see: someone blows up Chinese airliners and hopefully kills a whole bunch of Chinese?

Nope. Got nothing against the Chinese, just pointing out that some on here hold different governments to different standards of conduct.

[mcrit]

Anyway, I'm off, tonnes to do today. Have a good weekend. Thanks for the "alluded" catch btw... I'm surprised you haven't weighed in on that one yet?

You're quite welcome. I've stayed out of that thread because I've never flown medivac.

[reality check]

Anyway, I'm off, tonnes to do today. Have a good weekend. Thanks for the "alluded" catch btw... I'm surprised you haven't weighed in on that one yet?

You're quite welcome. I've stayed out of that thread because I've never flown medivac.

So I take it you've done business with the "CHICOMS" then?

[mcrit]

So I take it you've done business with the "CHICOMS" then?

I've read enough about how the mainland Chinese government operates to be worried. Have you made a study of them? If you should like to might I suggest starting with http://cryptome.org/cuw01.htm. If you want a deeper background try the Little Red Book or the Analects. Again, my concern is with the way the government there thinks and does bussiness. I have no beef with the general population and certainly no beef with people that decided to get out of that country and adopt a new one.

[sky's the limit]

I've read enough about how the mainland Chinese government operates to be worried.

Perhaps you should read enough about the American government to be worried - there is no shortage of material. Or perhaps the British government, or maybe even our own Canadian government of late, there's a rather disturbing trend, why limit yourself to the Chinese?

You don't seem to get the concept of 'rule of law'. It means that the government must act within the bounds of it's own laws.

As to this gem, I think you'll find my understanding of the "rule of law" is rather well developed, but unlike you, I take a step back to look at the concept in a larger picture and apply it to happenings we witness every day. A picture that includes the manipulation of a generally agreeable concept, and the dissemination of that manipulated concept to people who are serial compartmentalists. People who like to believe things are neat and tidy, good and evil are cut and dry, and there is a right way to look at things - generally our way. Hence my topic on the Danger of One Story.

When the CHICOMs launched a covert attack on Google's servers they were acting outside their own law

And we've never seen that particular scene play out anywhere before.....?

There's no question you are a reasonably intelligent person, but over the years of these little back and forth discussions you managed to display very little penchant for questioning what you take to be right, which is fatal, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you. It's really too bad, for a while there I thought we could have a number of rather fascinating conversations as you are obviously well-read, but unfortunately you see what you want to see, whether that be in articles like you posted, books you read, or posts I write. Can you honestly sit there and write that last quote without making the obvious links?

I have learned that there's nothing I can do to make you challenge things a bit more, if you want to one day, you will.

Until then.

stl

[reality check]

So I take it you've done business with the "CHICOMS" then?

I've read enough about how the mainland Chinese government operates to be worried. Have you made a study of them? If you should like to might I suggest starting with http://cryptome.org/cuw01.htm. If you want a deeper background try the Little Red Book or the Analects. Again, my concern is with the way the government there thinks and does bussiness. I have no beef with the general population and certainly no beef with people that decided to get out of that country and adopt a new one.

Some interesting bits in there.

I've actually spent a good bit of time in China, have you?

i like this one:

To assess why people fight is not so easy today, however. In former times, the ideal of "exporting revolution" and the slogan of "checking the expansion of communism" were calls to action that elicited countless responses. But especially after the conclusion of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain running all along the divide between the two great camps suddenly collapsed, these calls have lost their effectiveness. The times of clearly drawn sides are over.

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? These used to be the paramount questions in regard to revolution and counterrevolution. Suddenly the answers have become complicated, confusing and hard to get hold of.

Apart from the translation not being the best, pretty relevant stuff.

[BibleMonkey]

Some interesting bits in there.

I've actually spent a good bit of time in China, have you?

i like this one:

To assess why people fight is not so easy today, however. In former times, the ideal of "exporting revolution" and the slogan of "checking the expansion of communism" were calls to action that elicited countless responses. But especially after the conclusion of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain running all along the divide between the two great camps suddenly collapsed, these calls have lost their effectiveness. The times of clearly drawn sides are over.

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? These used to be the paramount questions in regard to revolution and counterrevolution. Suddenly the answers have become complicated, confusing and hard to get hold of.

Apart from the translation not being the best, pretty relevant stuff

I thought that the similarity between the Chinese document to the ( last U.S ) Quadrennial Defense review more interesting than were any differences.
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf


Is it 2010 -time for the new QDR -already? Where does the time go?.....(:

=====

Of course, I think that the Chinese government , if they thought it necessary, could order every Chinese civilian to landfill his computer-fill enormous landfill holes with mountains of computers-and there would be obedience, they could get away with it.

Whereas in North America-no way .We couldn't/can't comprehend the reality of that powerful of a government that those billion live under.

As their "Slow Rise " progresses.......

[rotorfloat]

The Chinese Government does capitulate...sometimes.

...But even PC makers ran into a roadblock last summer when the government suddenly demanded all new computers sold in China be preloaded with the so-called "Green Dam" Web-filtering software that would block both pornography and banned political sites. After a global and domestic uproar, the government indefinitely set aside the requirement.

link

China persuades Google to stay back

It's not censorship. The search giant just couldn't compete with Baidu.

Googles history in China

[mcrit]

Perhaps you should read enough about the American government to be worried - there is no shortage of material.

Ah, but that's your niche here on Avcanada. You keep tabs on the Americans, (as an aside I see that they have a timetable for getting out of Iraq, have you seen Beijing's timetable for getting out of Tibet?) and I'll keep tabs on our friends in the far east.

As to this gem, I think you'll find my understanding of the "rule of law" is rather well developed,....snip...... Hence my topic on the Danger of One Story

Nice dancing, you should be a politician; lots of talking without saying anything. Big picture view of rule of law is the the government follows its own laws. By launching a cyberattack the CHICOMs didn't.

I have learned that there's nothing I can do to make you challenge things a bit more, if you want to one day, you will.

Hmmmm, I was thinking the same about you.