Richard Clarke: All Major U.S. Firms Hacked By China 311
bdking writes "Former White House cybersecurity advisor Richard Clarke says state-sanctioned Chinese hackers are stealing R&D from U.S. companies, threatening the long-term competitiveness of the nation. He said, 'The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments. There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China. The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing [many believe that Chinese hackers gave Boeing secrets to Airbus]. We don’t hack our way into a Chinese computer company like Huawei and provide the secrets of Huawei technology to their American competitor Cisco. [He believes Microsoft, too, was a victim of a Chinese cyber con game.] We don’t do that. ... We hack our way into foreign governments and collect the information off their networks. The same kind of information a CIA agent in the old days would try to buy from a spy. ... Diplomatic, military stuff but not commercial competitor stuff.'"
You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy [wikipedia.org]
Re:You don't say... (Score:4, Insightful)
yes but the US government is the good guys. Haven't you heard?
Everyone else is the bad guys.
And if we have to lie a bit to make the US government look better, then it's for a good cause.
Now shut the fuck up before your ass is NDAAed
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean they're lying to get elected. Yes I am aware of that possibility; especially since both men have a history of flip-flopping. No need for the insult against my intelligence.
And Obama has already demo'd that he is as bomb happy. Continue the Irag/Afghan War even though he promised to end them by Dec 31, 2009. And then start new wars: Bomb Yemen. Bomb Libya. Bomb Iran is next (unless somebody stops him).
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about saying they "changed their mind", or "made a different decision" instead of "flip-flopping"? Why is it bad that somebody in a position of authority changes their mind in light of new information? Don't you want them to do that? Or do you think that if someone thought that something is bad 4 years ago, they should do everything they can to end it today, even if they now believe it's a bad decision?
You have to learn and adapt as you go along to be successful. We should be looking for that in leaders, instead of calling them "flip-floppers".
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about saying "they lied to get elected" since that is the most likely scenario.
Re:You don't say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that brings up the question: How does /. reconcile its popularly held belief that people are by and large lazy/stupid/ignorant with its other popularly held belief that people deserve the truth from politicians and a say in policy?
Re: (Score:3)
Now that brings up the question: How does /. reconcile its popularly held belief that people are by and large lazy/stupid/ignorant with its other popularly held belief that people deserve the truth from politicians and a say in policy?
The two are not contradictory. Even if the people are by and large lazy, stupid, and ignorant, they still deserve to hear the truth from their elected officials, and as long as this is still nominally a democracy, they are still entitled to a say in policy. Don't like it? You could try North Korea for a while, see if you like it better over there...
Re:You don't say... (Score:4, Informative)
A good leader never lets reality interfere with politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it bad that somebody in a position of authority changes their mind in light of new information?
It becomes flip-flopping when the "new information" is the composition of your audience. Romney and Obama are both notorious for saying what their audience wants to hear.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is when those opinions aren't followed through on because of private or corporate interests.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they key is it you change your mind on major policy plank you ought to be able to explain what brought you around to this new way of thinking. A new fact that was discovered, an experience you had, something of substance. Adults ( people who have formed their opinions) don't just change your mind one day about phisophical and ethical issues like individual liberties or abortion. Something happens.
With politicians that something all to often is wining the election, and deciding they don't need to
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes but changing your mind is a slow process, not something that happens in less than a year.
If a president can't change his mind about something in less than a year, he was not qualified to be president. The chief executive needs to be able to respond to changes, not be blindly attached to an existing policy in the face of new information.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about a major policy change, like deciding to be anti-abortion and flipping to pro-abortion. Or anti-GM Bailouts to pro-GM bailouts. That's not a trivial change that happens in less then 12 months.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not? 12 month is a lot of freakin' time... Maybe GM had a very shitty plan on what to do with the bailout, and then 10 months later they came up with a much better plan.
I would argue that one should be able to change their mind, *especially* on major policies. They have the biggest impact, so make damn sure that you're doing the right thing.
Re:You don't say... (Score:4, Informative)
And Obama has already demo'd that he is as bomb happy. Continue the Irag/Afghan War even though he promised to end them by Dec 31, 2009.
You are mistaken. He did not promise to end the war in Afghanistan. In fact, it was just the opposite. He promised to wind down the war in Iraq and ramp up the war in Afghanistan. That's what happened.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/ [politifact.com]
You have this habit of just making up shit. Try doing some fact checking before you post.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Given the level of understanding you displayed, it'd probably be best to not vote until you've spent more time understanding politics
Juvenile. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." Time to put-away the insults.
Aw, darn you. You beat me to it. (Score:2)
Well done for pointing that one out, though. :D
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, were it not for western industrial espionage against China, we wouldn't have paper or porcelain or tea.
The US doesn't steal commercial know-how because they already have plenty. China is decades behind (in some areas), and can benefit a lot from acquiring foreign IP.
In fact, China's subsidies of industrial inputs (land, energy, water, steel, etc) are there to drag in foreign manufacturing. Want to guess why they want everything made in China? It's so they can figure out how to make it themselves.
It's a hell of a lot better than invading resource-rich countries to try to build up your industrial base. And if no-one ever stole secrets, we'd still all be in the dark ages.
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese haven't privatized their companies in the sense that they are separate from the state: a lot of companies are part of the state and the army actually runs many companies since they have to create their own budget (and food). A self sufficient army is a big tenet of the Chinese strategy. That's what makes this a bit more unpleasant than otherwise because normally, there would be an independent arbiter reigning in the companies. No such thing in China. The arbiter is playing too.
Re: (Score:2)
China is decades behind (in some areas), and can benefit a lot from acquiring foreign IP.
So... stealing IP from the US and giving it to China is some kind of Robin Hood Move?
Re: (Score:3)
Glad to see the "Hey I'm done stealing so you all need to stop too" defense is alive and kicking too.
Let's just say that the biggest thief on the block is hardly a fit epitome of moral outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You don't say... (Score:4, Informative)
I want access to all the X-Files!
You can probably view them ask on Hulu and/or Netflx.
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it bother anybody else that the source in question is as bad as it is?
I looked at the source for the claim that the US has engaged in industrial espionage, which points to a 194 page report from a European commission and which the person who made the claim is clearly hoping was too long for anybody to read.
The only point relevant to the claim is this:
In other words, the industrial espionage they know about is something they aren't even willing to criticize.
Further along, under a big heading "Is ECHELON suitable for industrial espionage?" they go on to explain that if it finds any, it was an accident.
(their emphasis)
In other words, they took two paragraphs and three bullet points to say "no, they wouldn't bother using ECHELON for this."
It is followed by a chart of cases of industrial espionage (with no explanation as to how they arrived at any of the entries), and the only entry that may relate to ECHELON (rather than using an agent or taking photographs) is a 1994 NSA action where they intercepted calls and faxes related to how Airbus was bribing Saudi Arabian officials to win a contract. Those dastardly Americans! It's so rude to use spy on the competition when they're just trying to bribe somebody. Gosh! And yet still, I'm just supposing this entry is in any way related to ECHELON since it makes no such claim.
I am not claiming the US does not engage in this kind of behavior; they probably do, and for all I know they've been caught red-handed at it too. But this report is not proof of that, even if we were to take Wikipedia as a great source of anything to begin with.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not claiming the US does not engage in this kind of behavior; they probably do, and for all I know they've been caught red-handed at it too. But this report is not proof of that, even if we were to take Wikipedia as a great source of anything to begin with.
Masterfully put.
In fact, there is no proof the US does not engage in this kind of behavior. Since the general presumption is that they do engage in these types of activities, to point out equivalent Chinese activities and call it "unlawful" or in someway try to take the high moral ground in regard to the issue is what we know of as hypocrisy.
Whether or not such activities are negative, as far as the human race is concerned, is questionable. Especially if you observe US and Chinese activities from a cult
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it is not as though the US uses its own signals intelligence agency to spy on foreign businesses and pass R&D secrets to domestic firms...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy [wikipedia.org]
So the two big claims are one of uncovering a bribery ring (hard to say that it is nefarious to report a crime) and one of passing along secrets about wind power despite the company in question filing a patent for said technology some two years before they were "gifted" this information?
Sounds *just like* the endless parade of reports about china-based attackers specifically breaking in to US and international firms in search of IP. /sarcasm
It's not as though US executives don't hand over (Score:3)
Processes, secrets, entire facilities wholesale to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will take China's tactic of hacking the US's tacit of assassination (character or literal) and overthrowing any day.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The U.S. government tapped phones of Japanese car makers to pass information to U.S. unions for bargaining. They stole manufacturing secrets from a German wind turbine company to give to a U.S. competitor. They stole data and passed on trade secrets to U.S. call phone companies.
This Richard Clarke is either incredibly naive or a bold liar. I would say the latter, since it seems to be a standard practice in Washington D.C.
Having worked for a few firms... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having worked for a few firms in the IT division, I can say this isn't surprising...at all. Between clueless management and the inability to grasp IT's value and contribution to a company, it'd have been news if they HADN'T been cracked wide open.
When you mix in outsourcing, the argument can almost be made that this is exactly what these firms WANT to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
*is, not isn't. It's one of those days.
Re:Having worked for a few firms... (Score:5, Informative)
The accountants have a point.
Sales make money. You cost money.
Which would you maximize and which would you minimize? A cost center or a profit center? That is business 101.
I always advice IT people to work in a technology company. Otherwise you will always be undervalued and underpaid. Same is true if you are a financial wizard. You can make a good upper middle class salary at a regular company. However, working at a bank you will be a multi millionaire instead with that background because you add value and contribution to your company MUCH more.
In the past we were once valued as profit centers and assets as great productivity gains were realized switching to computers then desktops, then spreadsheets, email, and so on and so on. Today, a nerd is not someone who can turn on a PC and use a formula in a spreadsheet. Everyone can do this. Therefore, we do not offer anything of important value except when something blows up.
Anyway the risk is well worth the effort of massively increased sales and low cost labor. As long as the share price goes up and the CFO and CEO can get their bonuses from the cost savings and profit center increases then all is good even if it does get hacked.
Re: (Score:2)
True, 100% true. I wish I still had mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
In the past we were once valued as profit centers and assets as great productivity gains were realized switching to computers then desktops, then spreadsheets, email, and so on and so on. Today, a nerd is not someone who can turn on a PC and use a formula in a spreadsheet. Everyone can do this. Therefore, we do not offer anything of important value except when something blows up.
This is precisely the attitude I was talking about; management and bean counters fail to appreciate just how important IT is. You
Re: (Score:2)
It's a valid point, however I feel the difference between our argument is that of scale; I accept the highlighted behavior as the norm. I certainly don't expect to ever get to a place where I can't think of a single thing that needs money spent on it.
However, what I've seen in the firms I've worked for has been the kind of cost cutting that leaves you one power outage from catastrophe. There are HOSTS of servers that no one knows how to manage because the experience and training necessary won't be budgete
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's IT's job; no one else understands both the requirements and the technology, nor it's implementation and the implications.
As far as my importance; seeing as I contract with several of my former employers, I think my impact is significant to the various businesses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is electricity a cost or an asset? It is a cost. Yes, without it you can't do much but cheap electricity is no different than expensive electricity. Why pay? The less electricity you need the less valuable it is.
Now if you were Amazon and needed your own hydroelectric plant for your cloud then it is more valuable and it is more of an asset and it would even make you money bordering a profit center.
If you work for a company making fish sticks (example), having contractors part time during the harvest and may
Temporary labor is the problem, not the solution. (Score:2)
Work at Microsoft however, and you will get paid very handsomely if you make great contributions to the bottom line. Sorry, but I only am the messenger here. The .com days are over and its time to move on. Go work in an I.T. company or even a contracting company doing consulting if you have your experience and you will be paid well. Otherwise you are a cost there to make sure nothing breaks. Unless you can think of a magical way companies can increase their sales or cut their cost from your ideas? Have any?
Contract/consulting only makes the problem worse, since they pit the providers of indirect labor & the requesting company against the worker. Such an arrangement is largely for the mistrust of the person doing the work, such that it distorts the wages below their actual costs. The solution is to make anything but FTE a very expensive option, not the other way around.
You don't need magic, just regulations that keep business from being screwy with workers.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to mod you up, but I want to add to and reinforce what you said.
Now if you were Amazon and needed your own hydroelectric plant for your cloud then it is more valuable and it is more of an asset and it would even make you money bordering a profit center.
On the Planet Money podcast last year (title was "When Money got Weird") they spoke to a finance guy who worked for an airline. The CEO came to him and told him to figure out how to save money and keep the airline in business. He did two things. The first was some basic accounting "tricks" to reclassify costs, liabilities etc. The second was to start hedging on things like fuel. He ended up turning his accounting department int
Re:Having worked for a few firms... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a professional bean counter. I think you're not only wrong about failing to see the bigger picture, I think you're way off on the value of IT.
IT doesn't drive product. It doesn't drive sales. It supports those functions, just as HR or Finance does. IT is not an asset... it is a cost center than maintains an asset.
Regardless of the role and scope of a team (such as IT), you set your targets for what you need and what you want, and then you try to get those things done with maximum bang for your buck. Sometimes that means reducing costs, sometimes that means increasing value -- it is management's call on how to maximize cost-benefit (which is what us bean counters help management do).
What some "big picture" guys (such as you make yourself out to be) miss is that the "big picture" is made up of little pieces, and if you want to affect the big picture, you need to affect the little pieces. The devil is in the details, and if you don't understand that, I don't think I'd want you in my org.
Riiiiight. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government routinely shares information with its defense contractors. Where that information comes from? The corporation does not ask.
We are spying but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You say this jokingly, but it is in a very real way true. It is always in the best interest of a government to be well informed, and for their, uh, "friends" (the quotation marks are not optional in this case) to not be. Which means it is perfectly consistent for a government to protest foreign intelligence gathering, while conducting their own. It is hypocritical, in a way, but in another way it isn't.
Same holds true of nearly every kind of advantage (economic, military, or political). A country wants itse
Food for thought (Score:2, Informative)
What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did he just admit that his government hacks into other governments computer systems to steal diplomatic and military secrets? Did obama not say that cyber warfare like that is testimount to an act of war? If it's not and its ok for them to do it why are they trying to get that uk civilian hacker Gary Mckinnon for doing the same thing to them and saying its wrong and illegal when he did it to them but not when they do it themselves?
Re: (Score:3)
testimount
, given that's not even a word.
No, we just overthrow elected governments (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
sue them (Score:2)
I'm wondering when/if a U.S. company is going to sue China and go after their assets. Namely the Chinese government's stake in U.S. debt.
Economic Espionage (Score:2)
Clarke is either wrong or lying. It is documented that the CIA spies on Airbus to help Boeing get contracts.
Re:Economic Espionage (Score:5, Informative)
There is one documented instance where the CIA 'spied on airbus.'
The CIA actually was spying on Saudi Arabia. What they found was that Airbus was bribing saudi arabia to get a big contract. So the NSA spilled the beans, the corruption was rooted out, and Boeing ended up getting the contract.
Do you call that industrial espionage?
I should also note that in the US, it is illegal to bribe foreign governments. This law is enforced, and executives have gone to jail for it...
Re: (Score:3)
"Do you call that industrial espionage?"
Yes. Is it right? I don't know. Is it state-sanctioned/conducted industrial espionage? Absolutely.
"I should also note that in the US, it is illegal to bribe foreign governments."
That doesn't have anything at all to do with it. US laws don't apply except in the US. If American companies don't like those laws, or can't compete under them, they can try to have them changed.
Re:Economic Espionage (Score:4, Informative)
US laws don't apply except in the US.
Not entirely true. Here's but one web page describing laws that restrict individual and corporate action outside the US:
http://www.bu.edu/globalprograms/global-toolkit/getting-established/us-laws-abroad/ [bu.edu]
Also, certain parts of the IRS code apply to US citizens with foreign income, even if they are no longer US residents.
And, various laws regarding sex with underage minors, even when legal in the foreign country, still apply to US citizens when abroad.
Not surprisingly, children born to US citizens while abroad are eligible for US citizenship, by US law.
Here's another link with a more scholarly discussion of extra-territorial juristiction:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcorporatecompliance.org%2FContent%2FNavigationMenu%2FResources%2FLibrarymembersonly%2FUS_JurisdictionAbroad.pdf&ei=YyJyT4idOaT20gH-zom2AQ&usg=AFQjCNGOlnjQJ6uhrNRE243R7iDhYXy3FA [google.com]
Here's a preview of another scholarly article:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2203461?uid=3739696&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47698810512577 [jstor.org]
My lay understanding is that generally, US laws do not apply abroad, but that should not be taken as a 100% certainty. Moreover, there are certain US laws which have been written that specifically claim extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Re:Economic Espionage (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't steal technological information from China because right now, they don't have anything we don't already have. We haven't been solidly behind another nation on that one since the mid 19th century. Tied, maybe; behind, no.
And in the mid-19th century, we didn't have the slightest qualm about using industrial espionage against British companies to give our domestic industry a leg up. And why should we, for that matter?
What a load of US-centic jingoism!
What about jet engines? You had to borrow them from Britain first and then needed Germans to build them in the US (Gerhard Neumann [wikipedia.org]). What about rockets? Same thing here (von Braun and his team [wikipedia.org]). Even such mundane things like butter production were revolutionized after the US learned about all the German technology after 1945.
I am sure there are some technological gems in some corners in China which are already superior to all US tech. And they get bigger and more numerous, not least because of an attitude like yours.
"we don't do that".... (Score:2, Insightful)
Those are the words of somebody who is feeling more than just a tad defensive, and trying to justify their own actions because of how they know it would look.
I'm not saying he was lying, but from where I sit, it sure looked like he was just trying to make excuses.
It just seems to scream points #7, #9, and #14 from this list [ethicsscoreboard.com], and raises some red flags, at least.
Unfortunately, national security trumps "ethics". (Score:2)
When you are dealing with such a subject of industrial espionage, the first obligation is to defend the country. While you might be able to use some random site's recommendations to make a case against it, national security will trump them every time. Whether it is some offshoring lobby, industrial espionage, or some other group that wants to attack the US, the author is correct to say how bad it is.
But don't let facts get in the way of your anti-American beliefs.
Over-globalization is the problem here. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what we get when we get too friendly with nations that are still despotic in nature, reserving freedom for the few businesses and not the many. They are used to take away freedom from people under the canard of "competitiveness", something that is only used to wash the blood from indefensible actions.
Shame we can't have a national security directive to kill offshoring - since it is about the only thing that can kill this for good. It may not be the cleanest answer, but it is the one that cuts the lobbyists out of the equation. If we want offshoring, it cannot be in the current form - a form that is only used as retribution for successes and security gained by First World citizens. It must be in a form that clearly prioritizes citizens of all skill levels first for hiring and training (to get rid of the skill-level complaints) for long-term & direct hire jobs (to obliterate the permatemp culture); it cannot be simply a way to exact concessions in the name of Ricardian economics.
He said (Score:3)
'The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments. There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China.
Kinda like
'The U.S. government is involved in torture against non US citizens There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of torture the United States government does and China.
In other news... (Score:3)
the grass is green and the sky is blue.
<gripe> I mean really, what else do you expect. Don't outsource design and manufacturing to China like so many US companies have done. Cylon kill switches anyone?
</gripe>
Conflict of Interest? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Conflict of Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
While it is true he makes more money the bigger the frenzy, keep in mind that doesn't necessarily mean he is incorrect or acting immorally. If he believes there is a problem, thinks there is a market for fixing it, and is attempting to raise awareness of the problem he may way be acting in a correct manner. In short conflict of interest is not proof of incorrectness.
So yes by all means take him him with a grain of salt, but also actually look at the evidence he presents.
it's all the same ol.... (Score:2)
....bull shit, upon bull shit upon ....repeat to infinity.... spy vs. spy idiocy as seen in MAD mag.
Re: (Score:2)
It's turds all the way down!
Or bull patties or some other shit.
Why Hack When We Give It Away (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want access to China's market, you have to build in China. And if you are building in China, China is figuring out how you build things.
Re: (Score:2)
The more reason to abandon China. (Score:2)
While you might have 1 billion people, the longterm cost is that you get industrial espionage.
The better thing is to abandon China through large tariffs and develop from the US and western EU. Then do something to silence the inevitable and incorrect "but you're attacking yourself" responses.
Re: (Score:2)
What good is it? (Score:3)
Oy Vey! (Score:5, Insightful)
"The U.S. government is involved in espionage against other governments. There’s a big difference, however, between the kind of cyberespionage the United States government does and China. The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing [many believe that Chinese hackers gave Boeing secrets to Airbus]. "
Here is a hint: start doing it, you dumbasses. Im no expert in chinese culture, but i've been studying their story with reverse engineering and the way they've built their home industry to come to the conclusion that, to the chinese, this is business as usual.
You may be appalled by it, you may cringe with moral sentiment (and stubborn western-european hypocrisy), but you don't just stand there. Have a strategy to take a blow-by-blow approach to this and counterattack.... and maybe then you will realize all your strict IP laws and magical thinking make no sense at all in this brave new world.
Snap out of it NOW!
Yet More Proof of my Theory... (Score:2)
"Communist" China is no more. China is state run capitalism.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
A high horse "We don’t do that. ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU, US, and others need to get off our high Pre-WWI moralistic espionage horse. Cyber-espionage is a pre-WWIII essential to national security and may be the only way to prevent WWIII nation-devastation.
A tit-4-tat cyber-cold-war is the best way to keep the government of CN from perceiving US, EU, and RU as virtual-tigers, and/or having foolish corporate interest politicians enter into a vintage pre-WWII "Appeasement Peace Conference" with CN.
We need to start state cyber-espionage to obtain all domestic, diplomatic, economic, corporate, and military information and appropriately share with US, EU, and RU ... countries and companies.
As they have exploited US and EU, so must we exploit CN. Do it now or regret it later.
Its war (Score:5, Insightful)
The West was on top. So its a target. Its values are oppsed by the enemy.
War comes in multiple forms. There isn't any requirement for someone to fight you directly. The lessons of this are available through history. The problem is that in general, the population is cretinously stupid. In the west, in america, and prevelent on Slashdot.
The chinese long ago choose war with the west. And yes, this white house commentry is correct. Its years late to the party though. The chinese choose to make information and IP collection a military grade target, and applied military level resources to the task in hand.
In exchange for taking all your information, IP and data, they then went back to said companies and said - we can do what you do, at a 10th of the price.
Que economic damage doubled.
At no point have I see anything - anywhere thats showing any willingness to even begin to face up to this challenge.
Cutting to the chase, they do not have to use bombs and direct weapons to eliminate your factories, to commit economic damage, to diminish your state, lower your standard of living, and damage your way of life. If the end justifies the result - then its a valid technical stragetic aim. Its been and remains a highly effective strategic application of a militaristic and political plan.
Assuming nothing is done, and its simply allowed to continue, then you will simply see a spiralling issue of damage here, and benefit there. A zero sum game that favours only one side.
And there is no simple answer. In the west, we're so stupid, over payed, flabby, lazy and ill led that it will be a long time before an equalisation of fundamentals allows a reverse of the flow. American or Euro workers will still be paid many times the cost of a chinese worker. Even if you steal back the tech at a later date, the damage is largely done because you can't undercut enough to make stuff at the same cost level. But your structure will still have to pay out multiple times the cost to the now millions of unemployed. Que strike 3 of the cost of the enemy strategic plan.
And how will you defend yourselves?
With windows based networks that are an unholy security mess?
With a military thats suffering the same windows based security mess?
With open source software bases that however anyone might paint it, has enough security issues that its not a trivial issue?
All of these are treated like a play ground by the enemy. A proverbial open door.
Security worsens every day, and in the west IT is in most places simply treated as a red headed step child and an overhead people would like to eradicate if they could.
Until companies and governments get serious, its only going to worsen. And while this is the state of play - with no penalty for the chinese - its well worth playing to a very full extent. At the end of the day, in the west, as the unemployed grow, eventually your customers will dwindle. The fact you get your shit made in the enemy factory now won't help you find exhausted customers in your home lands, and you are not going to outsell Lenovo in china to make up the now drastic shortfall. In the end, binning your own workers in exchange for cheap goods made in china has a culmative effect in you losing your own customers. The unemployed can't really buy from you, and that will turn to bite sooner or later.
It could be ended tommorow assuming some spine can be found.
A singular threat of complete bans on any chinese imports - on scale and across the western would would have sobering affect on the chinese. And at the same time reparations and damages should gained. And some spine should be found, because everyone basically knows this is going on, and has been for an extended period.
China does not give a shit about you, or the west. It will under cut you, subsidise fuel to its operations, steal your data, rob you of your intellectual property, and take your job or life away from you. Its operating on the correct directive which is self interest. The nations and people's
Corporate espionage in the USA (Score:2)
is done by corporations against each other.
China, as it emerges from communism and state enterprises, has retained the espionage function at the government level.
Natural suspicion between Chinese firms will take care of this evolutionary holdback.
Hacking vs murder (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of refreshing really, when compared to western countries who send in tanks, warheads and troops and murder innocent civilians.
Ok, well then (Score:2)
I'm not saying we should go out and steal foreign companies' IP, but our government really does need to step up and start protecting its citizens jobs and creating an environment where businesses don't have an incentive to move production, profits, taxes, and jobs overseas.
Ha! Joke's on them:) We outsourced R&D years a (Score:2)
Where's the +0 "Sadly true" moderation?
Look on the bright side: (Score:3, Funny)
free offsite backups
Airbus? So who told Boeing the amount of bribes? (Score:3)
"The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing"
That is a good one. Who then told Boeing of the bribes Airbus gave to some middle-eastern officials, so Boeing could match up? I can't find it anymore, but I think it was in the late nineties. And the information about the bribes DID come from US secret services.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think if we were at war with China, somebody would have told us by now.
Re:Bah (Score:5, Funny)
We've always been at war with China. Err, Russia, Err, Drugs.
Hell, we're always at war with somebody! Even if it's just cancer.
USA! USA! USA!
Re: (Score:2)
*golf clap*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you.
Is that like cyber-sex, where you only end up diddling yourself?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing
Total bullshit. The US officially steals corporate information on an industrial scale by examinating the laptop of corporate travellers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it's a speculation on your part; have any info that supports you theory? they don't selectively screen just business laptops, they screen everyone, also there is a difference screening a laptop and hacking a network in another country to get secrets, so the only BS is your post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In truth go Google Department of Commerce hacked?
The US government did not, but the Chinese government cracked corporate laptops and infected them with malware at customs. Today they have a no laptop policy when traveling out of the country as the hacking did not start with even their termostats and printers using Chinese IP addresses until one of their executives flew to China for a conference.
If I were doing business in China, I would buy my routers here and fly them and use only US contractors to install
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. government doesn’t hack its way into Airbus and give Airbus the secrets to Boeing
Actually, I don't see why anyone would hack into Airbus to give them secrets from Boeing. I'd hack into Boeing and then just openly give them to Airbus. Hacking into Airbus to give them secrets just seems redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
You can fix that by putting your tinfoil hat over your laptop!
Re:US at it too (Score:4, Interesting)
US state Industrial espionage is certainly not new, but one would
be naive to imagine it would receive domestic press coverage.
Those of us that read French publications originating in France
know that the practice has been documented for many decades.
Wise up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage
~Cwix
Re:US at it too (Score:4, Insightful)
It's speculation that US intelligence was involved, not confirmed fact.
Yep, just like the main article is nothing but speculation with no confirmed fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Shame that the NSA hasn't used this to kill the offshoring lobby given how influential the NSA's information can be. They'd be actually doing their job and repelling countries like China as well.
He's way ahead of you. (Score:4, Informative)
Clarke is currently Chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, a strategic planning and corporate risk management firm;
Nothing like spreading FUD when your dayjob is selling "risk management".
Re: (Score:2)
FUD to you, but reality to corporations who want to protect their assets. The big difference between the hackers now and competing companies in "the old days" is that these allegedly Chinese hackers are getting more assets in far larger quantities than corporate espionage has seen before.