China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? 142
theodp writes "While Wikileaks itself is under a DoS attack, details about the US State Department cables obtained by WikiLeaks are starting to come out via the mainstream media. Among the most newsworthy, reports Techcrunch's Erick Schonfeld, is one set which deals with the massive computer attack on Google and other companies which was first revealed last January. According to the NY Times, some of the new leaked cables point directly at China's Politburo for instigating the original attacks, which should shed some more light on why the White House and State Department backed Google so vociferously at the time. Developing, as Drudge likes to say."
headline? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:headline? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the USA suppresses information that china's government engaged in illegal hacking, and the USA is behind the DDOS attack on wikileaks. Why can't China be behind it after a US agent tells a chinese agent what is happening.
I know because China is good and the USA is bad.
Just because the American government says it (Score:1, Insightful)
So this means that Wikileaks is an evil organization jeopardizing lives and setting back the cause of freedom and democracy, since that's what the American government been saying? Just like how Osama and the Taliban were freedom fighters against the "evil empire" Soviets and Saddam was a moderate secular leader who was the bulwark against the evil Iranian mullahs back in the 1980's?
Accepting this as truth is Western/American hypocrisy at its finest. As usual, people here will believe something they want to be true, because they hate China and hate the fact that it is no longer an impoverished third-world country but instead is an emerging power capable of competing against the Americans on many fronts, logical consistency be damned.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that hardly anyone is surprised that China's Politburo (a group of 24 people who oversee the Communist Party of China) was behind the hacking of the Chinese Google office computers. You can see the seriousness of the issue after reading Google's response to the hacking and their threat to pull out of China all together and also after reading the Department of the State's involvement in this issue. The Department of the State, and someone as high up as Hillary Clinton, getting involved in this issue shows how important this single hacking event was, and not just because Google is everyone's the current favorite company.
US asks China to explain Google hacking claims [guardian.co.uk]
And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes sense for a few reasons:
1. The Chinese government has already proven they're not above this.
2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.
3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.
There's also a good chance it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
Re:headline? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very surprised Julian Assange is still alive.
He is smart enough not to leak Russian secrets.
Re:China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is always someone who, after something is relieved, says "told you!" Well, one thing is to speculate, another is to have some [more or less] solid proof. Or are your speculations "good enough"?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:0, Insightful)
The only attention whore I see is you (don't think for a second you're writing this for a "greater good" ... the OP _loves_ to appear intelligent.
How the hell is this modded interesting? (Score:1, Insightful)
This post asserts one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Why would we engineer a DDoS to block release of AMERICAN GOVERNMENT documents, which no matter what it says, we can easily explain away by saying it's just American propaganda, because that's exactly what these documents are? State Department communications are American propaganda directed toward other countries essentially. We welcome the release of these documents, because they make the Americans look worse, and thus us look better, and the Americans are taking heavy handed actions against Wikileaks and Assange, which makes them hypocrites if they then try to complain about our actions against say the Falun Gong.
But no, it's always China's fault. China is the new bogeyman. I suppose it makes the simpletons here on Slashdot feel better.
Re:How the hell is this modded interesting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:3, Insightful)
it's another party or that WikiLeaks is just making it up b/c the guys are complete attention wh0res (don't think for a second they're doing it for a "greater good"... the founder _loves_ the spotlight.
Uh huh, and what exactly are you basing this on? Not saying it's not true, but I've seen this opinion on /. pretty much every time there's a wikileaks related article, and I'm just trying to figure out what I missed ('cause I don't recall any incident that'd justify such an opinion about Assange).
Re:China's Politburo Behind Google Cyber-Attack? (Score:3, Insightful)
And you take a single email (cable) referencing hearsay as "solid proof"?
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that he is still alive raises some questions, for me. WHY is he still alive if what he had to leak was as important as has been said? Was the information not as significant as we have been told? Is the CIA really off their game, and not capable of clandestine actions anymore?
The US government knows what Assange knows, they say him divulging it will endanger security, yet they don't stop him? Is he a necessary demon, needed for the future of their security theater? Something about this saga just doesn't add up.
Re:headline? (Score:2, Insightful)
To be perfectly honest, if you look at the flow of money and the financing and who has placed particular political groups in strategic positions of power around the globe, the mathematical conclusion is that, yes, the United States _is_ behind a good portion of the world's grief.
If, however, you do not like that option then you are free to conduct your own research and determine who is providing the United States with financial authority and pulling their strings to direct how that money is dispersed. Vicious cycle... yes. Do "we" know who is behind it? Well, that depends upon who you believe "we" to be. The people who are controlling the flow of world capital have a very logical interest in obscuring their play (and profit) from world conflicts and financial conquest of nations.
Re:headline? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US government has a known leaker who's talented at personally discrediting himself and deals primarily in proof of widely-known information that's humiliating (sometimes for our rivals rather than us, see this story!) but of low operational value. He also leaks to the public rather than foreign security services, and gives them a month or two for preemptive damage control.
I'm sure he's not exactly in great graces, but the terrible PR of him coming down with a sudden case of the dead would quite possibly outweigh that of everything he's leaked. And then who would they watch, and how would they be able to see leaks coming just by keeping a pet reporter or two at the Times and the Guardian?
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:4, Insightful)
The Chinese government has proven that they'll do anything to stop distribution of negative information about them.
the only difference in between the us government and chinese government, is how they approach the concept of 'doing anything' to stop distribution of negative information.
one does it directly, by arresting or killing those who distribute it, the other does it through underhanded, but improvable means.
Clashes with Europe over human rights: American officials sharply warned Germany in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in a bungled operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was mistakenly kidnapped and held for months in Afghanistan. A senior American diplomat told a German official “that our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp [nytimes.com]
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you really surprised that diplomatic cables between US diplomats express a "US world view"?
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be an act of war.
Killing a citizen is just espionage and will get you in a big of hot water.
assassination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be? If this happened to any of several dozen other countries Assange would be dead already, and there is no doubt that he would be dead if the CIA were ordered to make it so.
Actually, I'm surprised some other country hasn't had him killed just to place blame on the US.
credible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Troll mods (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Attention wh0re? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this tactic is known as 'running cover'. Assange knows that someone has to be the focal point for the ogranisation, to make contact with media reps and various others in order to ensure the responsible dissemination of the data. Doing so allows a great many others to work quietly, undisturbed in the background. Say what you like about his motivation, he's chosen that role. I'd argue that, as someone who believes more in daylight than shadows, he's using the spotlight to keep himself out of harm's way.
Sure. This actually is one of the largest leaks of information in modern history. It's sensational in its very essence. Given that wikileaks' reason for being is to disseminate leaked information as effectively as possible, advance press is perfectly understandable.
Great idea. How about sharing it quietly with a number of the most reputable media organisations in the Western world? How about giving them months of prep time, so they could conduct analysis. How about -shocking, I know- even telling the affected agencies what was about to be released and offering them the opportunity to assist in the redaction process? That's exactly what they did.
Now, there's no way a government could be seen to be negotiating with them, so this might be seen as grandstanding, but who knows what contacts might have been made behind the scenes? (Well, wikileaks, of course, but... you get what I'm saying.)
Indeed they are. And indeed they have.
You can characterise what they do as attention-whoring if you like. The fact is that their job is to get as much attention as possible on the data they're releasing. If you suffer from this process, you won't be glad about it. I can accept that.
I have friends who were directly affected by information divulged to wikileaks some years ago. While I'm still angry at those who so cynically used wikileaks to release context-free data that wrongly created some very nasty implications, I don't blame wikileaks for releasing the information. That's just what they do.
In fact, I'd rather see wikileaks do it than others. While they're occasionally guilty of editorialising about their data, at least they release all of it, providing others with the opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Most media organisations do not do this. They run with what they think will lead, and leave the rest by the roadside.
I don't always like the results of what wikileaks does, but at least they are exactly what the claim to be.
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:1, Insightful)
Yea right.
The U.S. and its allies have every reason to DDoS the site. It buys them time to try to clean up things diplomatically before the release and making it inaccessible will limit the excitement around it.
Re:assassination (Score:5, Insightful)
No, killing him would make him the message, and that would be worth something.
Re:headline? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Assange claims to be in regular contact with the US government and leaks lots of stuff of questionable value, there's a good chance that he's a total fraud. Supposedly this was all leaked by that army PFC... so the data have been sat on for months.
If you read magazines like the Economist or Foreign Affairs, you've already read paraphrased summaries of all of this stuff. My guess is that these leaks contain misinformation to misdirect folks like the Chinese who have already hacked State Department networks and probably have a limited collection of these already.
Think that sounds far-out? Just Google "Operation Mincemeat".
Back in the real world (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikileaks is China's friend. The PRC loves it, it does their work for them. The west's secrets are handed to them, what's easier. It does double duty besmirching the USAs reputation to their own Chinese people; no Chinese bureaucrats needed. Gravy all over.
Re:How the hell is this modded interesting? (Score:1, Insightful)
Since when in your united states did evidence against anyone mean anything exactly?
captcha: corrupts.....
wow.
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:headline? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or is the USA not as evil as everyone likes to make it out to be?
Hmm, is that the peevish whine of self-pity I hear there?
America has dispensed heavy-handed criticism out to just about everybody over the years; it is only fair that you guys get some back, I think. But it is not reasonable to say that "everybody hates America" every time a valid point of criticism is raised - in fact, I think it is the duty of a friend to tell you when you are getting things wrong. Your friends - and you have many - wish you well and expect you to do better than just scraping the bottom. In other words, have a some pride and show a bit of dignity.
Re:And a likely candidate for the current DDoS (Score:3, Insightful)
just suppressing it long enough that they can configure the "Great Firewall" to block it (content filters, etc).
You misunderstand the purpose of the GFW, and overestimate its level of sophistication
2. As inept as the US government can be I think they know they can't stop the spread of this information.
No, but they can slow it down until they've assess the content and created a narrative to counter the negative aspects.
3. To public knowledge, the US government hasn't initiated a DDoS. Why show your hand and capabilities on something like this? It's a waste.
And this is the least convincing of your statements. Do you think anyone, let alone the US gov, would execute a DDoS without covering their tracks? A DDoS can be executed by a child without getting caught. You don't think the US is also capable? jeez
Re:assassination (Score:2, Insightful)
Killing him would make him a martyr, and would likely create more supporters of the WikiLeaks organization, including other people now willing to be a figurehead, but probably better capable of hiding themselves (such as the owners of botnets which possess tremendous capacity to hide their origin).
Killing Assange would not halt the flow of information. WikiLeaks is a hydra, cut off its head, and two more will grow in its place. Killing him would likely increase the flow of information, and would legitimize it in the eyes of many.