5 ms·

"Bully" is rather too weak a label for the perpetrator. This attack is criminal. If carried out by a sovereign nation, perhaps an act of war. We don't allow

by mckoss 12y ago

"Bully" is rather too weak a label for the perpetrator. This attack is criminal. If carried out by a sovereign nation, perhaps an act of war. We don't allow foreign raiding parties to enter our country to loot private businesses. Neither should we treat this attack as a simple act of "bullying". GitHub should get the full support of federal law enforcement, if not the military.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
It's become clear to me over the past 5-10 years or so that we're in some sort of weird undeclared war on the Internet. Nations are doing exactly what you describe, and it seems there is little to no repercussions for them doing so.
- cubano 12y ago
  I agree...it seems much more akin to sport than militaristic action. Since sport is pretty much a direct offshoot of war, I think the analogy works ok.
- frabcus 12y ago
  A long cold cyberwar http://www.flourish.org/2015/01/long-cold-cyberwar/ http://www.flourish.org/2015/01/long-cold-cyberwar/
teamhappy 12y ago
> perhaps an act of war > GitHub should get the full support of federal law enforcement, if not the military. Are you sure you wanna go there? Think it through ;) Don't let me stop you though. Den Haag is lovely this time of year and I have this thing I want to talk over with you guys anyway.
- dang 12y ago
  This goes well into flamewar territory. Please stay on topic and be civil.
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    Calling for military intervention is not flamewar territory, that's real war territory. I admit that I might have phrased the comment a little too sarcastic, but still, it's very much on topic (and civil.)
yazin 12y ago
The military?
Qantourisc 12y ago
We should never take up arms for a thread that has no human casualties, especially when there are alternatives. If your neighbour enter your home uninvited, because the door is not locked, the first thing you do is ask nicely not to do that. The next thing you do is lock the door. You don't start shooting at them first ...
- weberc2 12y ago
  This wouldn't be the first time China has hacked US-based organizations.
  - nilbot 12y ago
    Correct, 2011 Google
  - vacri 12y ago
    Do you think the reverse isn't happening?
    - weberc2 12y ago
      I was addressing the assertion that this is the first time China attacked the U.S. Whether or not the U.S. reciprocates is off-topic, but to answer your question: I don't know about any evidence that would suggest the U.S. reciprocates.
- trekky1700 12y ago
  They didn't just enter an unlocked door. They're smashing GitHub's windows, kicking GitHub's dog and flipping over furniture.
  - gtremper 12y ago
    I don't think they're breaking into their system at all. They're just abusing a public interface on their sight. A more apt analogy would be repeatedly calling their phone, or ringing their doorbell nonstop. Your analogy implies they are destroying GitHub's property, which they aren't.
srj 12y ago
I agree that it's criminal but that doesn't make it a terrible offense, and far from an "act of war". The damages to GitHub are probably minor in the long run. Nobody will have died or have even been injured. Any one violent crime would rank above this in severity imho.
- teknologist 12y ago
  Bandwidth don't come for free. That's a shit-ton of junk data battering their servers.
ufmace 12y ago
I hope that by "full support of federal law enforcement, if not the military" you mean whatever cyber defense and possibly offense forces they have. I really hope that nobody thinks this is worth starting a shooting war with a rival nuclear superpower over.
- shangxiao 12y ago
  PRC is not (yet) a superpower.
  - shangxiao 12y ago
    sigh go look up the definition
- mckoss 12y ago
  On further thought, you're right. I would not condone any sort of violent response. But a criminal investigation should be made, even if it leads to Chinese authorities. (Just as we should have criminal investigations over US surveillance programs...).
jacquesm 12y ago
I don't think this qualifies as an act of war, not by a long shot. But that does raise an interesting question: what would be considered (or rather should) an act of war in cyberspace? Should the target be a whole nation? Or maybe enough of it to affect their ability to function? How much commerce disruption equates an act of war, even if no shots are fired? You'd need some pretty good proof and how would you respond? With another cyber attack? Or escalate into a shooting war? Or by disconnecting the attacking country from the internet?
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  How much commerce disruption equates an act of war, even if no shots are fired? I'm pretty sure blockading ports (as in cities where ships go, not network ports) counts, so that's a starting point. But on the other hand, blockades do tend to be backed up by at least threats of actual physical violence, so.... ?
rmc 12y ago
> We don't allow foreign raiding parties to enter our country to loot private businesses. Really? The US government does just that, by mass spying of telecommunications.
- meowface 12y ago
  Both are unethical, but there is a difference between spying (sitting with some binoculars by a window, or snooping around inside the building) and destructive actions (blowing up the entrance with a constant stream of TNT so no one else can get in). US does the former, China does both.
  - rmc 12y ago
    The US does damaging unethical things. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9285146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9285146 They aren't just observing.
    - meowface 12y ago
      They do, but usually those actions are done against "belligerent" entities. And though it's certainly not a great defense, the router bricking was unintentional. The US generally does not engage in destructive actions with the intent of restricting the rights of their own citizens... just other country's citizens. China does both. Both are very bad, but I think the US still has a slight moral highground here.
  - isaacremuant 12y ago
    [Citation needed] We've been hearing propaganda for ages about China & Russia doing evil things in the cyberspace and USA promoting freedoms and such but the NSA revelations among other things have shown that USA is just as guilty of all the spying, attacks, weakening of hardware and software even if it hurts american companies, economic espionage (which was also a difference people here used to make with China and was proven false), etc. And I'm not even touching Stuxnet and Flame. > The US generally does not engage in destructive actions with the intent of restricting the rights of their own citizens... just other country's citizens. China does both. Both are very bad, but I think the US still has a slight moral highground here. If it does. It's not much higher. You're completely restricted in your rights to do anything that the government finds a matter of "national security". Even if it's not related to any official entity [1] It's time we stop thinking about Us vs Them and who is winning or has a moral high-ground and start thinking in terms of citizens of the world united against injustice. Opposing attacks like the Chinese against GitHub and the surveillance, propaganda and violence of all the other big powers. Feeling good about "our side" being slightly better (Subjective and irrational) won't change the fact that it's still unacceptable. [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/26/new-low-obama-doj-federal-courts-abusing-state-secrets-privilege/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/26/new-low-obama-...
isaacremuant 12y ago
If this is an act of war then most of the NSA revelations would mean that the rest of the world has eons of Casus Belli's against USA.
doktrin 12y ago
> GitHub should get the full support of federal law enforcement, if not the military. With a few exceptions, the US military has atrocious "cyber" readiness and capability. This isn't yet in their wheelhouse, and any public assistance they might provide would just be risking embarrassment.

by mckoss 12y ago

DanielBMarkham 12y ago

It's become clear to me over the past 5-10 years or so that we're in some sort of weird undeclared war on the Internet. Nations are doing exactly what you describe, and it seems there is little to no repercussions for them doing so.

cubano 12y ago
I agree...it seems much more akin to sport than militaristic action. Since sport is pretty much a direct offshoot of war, I think the analogy works ok.
frabcus 12y ago
A long cold cyberwar http://www.flourish.org/2015/01/long-cold-cyberwar/ http://www.flourish.org/2015/01/long-cold-cyberwar/

teamhappy 12y ago

> perhaps an act of war > GitHub should get the full support of federal law enforcement, if not the military. Are you sure you wanna go there? Think it through ;) Don't let me stop you though. Den Haag is lovely this time of year and I have this thing I want to talk over with you guys anyway.

dang 12y ago
This goes well into flamewar territory. Please stay on topic and be civil.
- teamhappy 12y ago
  Calling for military intervention is not flamewar territory, that's real war territory. I admit that I might have phrased the comment a little too sarcastic, but still, it's very much on topic (and civil.)

yazin 12y ago

The military?

Qantourisc 12y ago

We should never take up arms for a thread that has no human casualties, especially when there are alternatives. If your neighbour enter your home uninvited, because the door is not locked, the first thing you do is ask nicely not to do that. The next thing you do is lock the door. You don't start shooting at them first ...

weberc2 12y ago
This wouldn't be the first time China has hacked US-based organizations.
- nilbot 12y ago
  Correct, 2011 Google
- vacri 12y ago
  Do you think the reverse isn't happening?
  - weberc2 12y ago
    I was addressing the assertion that this is the first time China attacked the U.S. Whether or not the U.S. reciprocates is off-topic, but to answer your question: I don't know about any evidence that would suggest the U.S. reciprocates.
trekky1700 12y ago
They didn't just enter an unlocked door. They're smashing GitHub's windows, kicking GitHub's dog and flipping over furniture.
- gtremper 12y ago
  I don't think they're breaking into their system at all. They're just abusing a public interface on their sight. A more apt analogy would be repeatedly calling their phone, or ringing their doorbell nonstop. Your analogy implies they are destroying GitHub's property, which they aren't.

srj 12y ago

I agree that it's criminal but that doesn't make it a terrible offense, and far from an "act of war". The damages to GitHub are probably minor in the long run. Nobody will have died or have even been injured. Any one violent crime would rank above this in severity imho.

teknologist 12y ago
Bandwidth don't come for free. That's a shit-ton of junk data battering their servers.

ufmace 12y ago

I hope that by "full support of federal law enforcement, if not the military" you mean whatever cyber defense and possibly offense forces they have. I really hope that nobody thinks this is worth starting a shooting war with a rival nuclear superpower over.

shangxiao 12y ago
PRC is not (yet) a superpower.
- shangxiao 12y ago
  sigh go look up the definition
mckoss 12y ago
On further thought, you're right. I would not condone any sort of violent response. But a criminal investigation should be made, even if it leads to Chinese authorities. (Just as we should have criminal investigations over US surveillance programs...).

jacquesm 12y ago

I don't think this qualifies as an act of war, not by a long shot. But that does raise an interesting question: what would be considered (or rather should) an act of war in cyberspace? Should the target be a whole nation? Or maybe enough of it to affect their ability to function? How much commerce disruption equates an act of war, even if no shots are fired? You'd need some pretty good proof and how would you respond? With another cyber attack? Or escalate into a shooting war? Or by disconnecting the attacking country from the internet?

tbrownaw 12y ago
How much commerce disruption equates an act of war, even if no shots are fired? I'm pretty sure blockading ports (as in cities where ships go, not network ports) counts, so that's a starting point. But on the other hand, blockades do tend to be backed up by at least threats of actual physical violence, so.... ?

rmc 12y ago

> We don't allow foreign raiding parties to enter our country to loot private businesses. Really? The US government does just that, by mass spying of telecommunications.

meowface 12y ago
Both are unethical, but there is a difference between spying (sitting with some binoculars by a window, or snooping around inside the building) and destructive actions (blowing up the entrance with a constant stream of TNT so no one else can get in). US does the former, China does both.
- rmc 12y ago
  The US does damaging unethical things. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9285146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9285146 They aren't just observing.
  - meowface 12y ago
    They do, but usually those actions are done against "belligerent" entities. And though it's certainly not a great defense, the router bricking was unintentional. The US generally does not engage in destructive actions with the intent of restricting the rights of their own citizens... just other country's citizens. China does both. Both are very bad, but I think the US still has a slight moral highground here.
- isaacremuant 12y ago
  [Citation needed] We've been hearing propaganda for ages about China & Russia doing evil things in the cyberspace and USA promoting freedoms and such but the NSA revelations among other things have shown that USA is just as guilty of all the spying, attacks, weakening of hardware and software even if it hurts american companies, economic espionage (which was also a difference people here used to make with China and was proven false), etc. And I'm not even touching Stuxnet and Flame. > The US generally does not engage in destructive actions with the intent of restricting the rights of their own citizens... just other country's citizens. China does both. Both are very bad, but I think the US still has a slight moral highground here. If it does. It's not much higher. You're completely restricted in your rights to do anything that the government finds a matter of "national security". Even if it's not related to any official entity [1] It's time we stop thinking about Us vs Them and who is winning or has a moral high-ground and start thinking in terms of citizens of the world united against injustice. Opposing attacks like the Chinese against GitHub and the surveillance, propaganda and violence of all the other big powers. Feeling good about "our side" being slightly better (Subjective and irrational) won't change the fact that it's still unacceptable. [1] https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/26/new-low-obama-doj-federal-courts-abusing-state-secrets-privilege/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/26/new-low-obama-...

isaacremuant 12y ago

If this is an act of war then most of the NSA revelations would mean that the rest of the world has eons of Casus Belli's against USA.

doktrin 12y ago

> GitHub should get the full support of federal law enforcement, if not the military. With a few exceptions, the US military has atrocious "cyber" readiness and capability. This isn't yet in their wheelhouse, and any public assistance they might provide would just be risking embarrassment.