12 ms·
Why "PRC-Linked" and not "Chinese"? They don't seem to hesitate to use demonyms -- they do use 'Japanese' for example (https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/
by achrono 3y ago
Why "PRC-Linked" and not "Chinese"?
They don't seem to hesitate to use demonyms -- they do use 'Japanese' for example (https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2023/09/27/nsa-fbi-cisa-and-japanese-partners-release-advisory-prc-linked-cyber-actors https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2023/09/27/nsa-fbi-c...).
- millzlane 3y agoFTA: People’s Republic of China (PRC)-linked cyber actors known as BlackTech I think that is the lingua franca used when referring to China.
- achrono 3y agoIf it were part of the lingua franca, "PRC" would be as easily recognizable as saying "US" or even "NZ" -- on the street or in the boardroom. Do you really think that is the case?
- QuarterReptile 3y agoI think PRC is more easily recognizable than NZ, yes, but I'm willing to surmise that NZ means New Zealand.
- jlund-molfese 3y agoOne simple reason is that there are 2 Chinas, but only 1 Japan. The specificity adds clarity, especially with a global audience. It’s very hard to misinterpret “PRC”, while “Chinese” is more ambiguous. And obviously you want to be more careful with negative statements like “Chinese Hackers” than positive ones like “Japanese (state) Partners.
- achrono 3y ago1. What are the 2 Chinas? 2. Re being more careful with negative statements -- they are clearly unable to do so consistently, see below: [1] Look at the very clear headlines featuring "Iranian Government-Sponsored APT Actors" in https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa22-320a https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... and "Iranian State Actor" in https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa22-264a https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... [2] Again, look at the very clear headlines featuring "Russian State-Sponsored" in https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa22-110a https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa... Why are they not equally 'careful' here? Why are they not using the country's "official" names such as IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) or RF (Russian Federation)? Note that I'm not even going into the rabbit hole of "PRC-Linked" vs "Iranian Government-Sponsored" -- although that is perfectly worth questioning also, because if you go into the actual article on Iran, they weasel out by saying "likely Iranian government-sponsored APT", whereas here it's only "PRC-linked" because we do not know for sure.
- eindiran 3y ago> 1. What are the 2 Chinas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan > Republic of China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China > People's Republic of China
- irfwashere 3y ago"The United States has a longstanding one China policy, which is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, the three U.S.-China Joint Communiques, and the Six Assurances." https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/
- loeg 3y agoI suppose to distinguish between the state and the people, although you're right they're not consistent about it.
- n3v3r3v3r 3y agoCompletely uneducated here but it would make most sense if there’s a press line running for separating out the PRC from other “Chinas” out there which are better aligned with American geopolitical interests. (Or, at least, to illustrate such a perspective to the public at large)