6 ms·
To say that the "Chinese government" is involved I think understates the situation. We know as fact that their army has invested considerable time and money in
by whoopdedo 12y ago
To say that the "Chinese government" is involved I think understates the situation. We know as fact that their army has invested considerable time and money in a cyberwarfare unit. And that the company that operates the Firewall is a military contractor.
When Sony was hacked a few months ago, the media couldn't wait to label it a "terrorist act" by North Korea.
I just now searched Google News for "github terrorism".
1. http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/24319/github-falls-victim-to-possible-chinese-cyber-attack http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/24319/github-falls-victim-to...
2. https://grahamcluley.com/2015/03/github-ddos-attack/ https://grahamcluley.com/2015/03/github-ddos-attack/
That's all, even though the evidence appears more clear that the Chinese government is involved. Whereas North Korea's responsibility was in doubt. The silence speaks volumes.
But is "terrorism" even the correct word for this? When Saddam invaded Kuwait, was that a terrorist act? Consider this quote written by a Chinese military analyst 30 years ago:
those who take part in information war are not all soldiers. Anybody who
understands computers may become a "fighter" on the network. Think tanks
composed of non-governmental experts may take part in decision-making;
rapid mobilization will not just be directed to young people; information-
related industries and domains will be the first to be mobilized and enter
the war..
(From http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/chinarma.htm http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/chinarma.htm)
However, the Chinese may respond by claiming this was a preemptive defense. That GreatFire.com was designed to weaken their security and they were justified in taking action to protect the sovereignty of their computers. Haven't western nations done the same when they were threatened by terrorism or nuclear arms?
It seems to me that we have officially entered the era of a weaponized internet.
- methou 12y ago> It seems to me that we have officially entered the era of a weaponized internet. Couldn't agree more. And GFW is indeed a WMD that must be stopped.
- 1stop 12y ago... I can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious. But seriously... What "Mass destruction" can the GFW cause? ... Like Amazon/Azure/Rackspace are WMDs under your current definition?
- jakub- 12y agoMass destruction of freedom of access to Western academic research, journalism and social ties.
- Karunamon 12y agoI think the attack has proven that the government via the GFW can take down any web service they choose. There's not much infrastructure out there than can repel firepower of that magnitude. Maybe not "destruction" in the permanent sense, but given the damage that a DDOS can do (financially, at least), it would make sense to treat one as an attack on infrastructure.
- maybeathrowaway 12y agoIs terrorism the correct word for the US government infiltrating, manipulating and subverting technology and services all over the world? Is spreading fear about being monitored by a seemingly lawless entity terrorism?
- tedunangst 12y agoNot terrorism. The attack was somewhat narrowly targeted (at least as narrowly as technically possible, given it's all on one domain) and also tried to achieve the desired end goal. They weren't blowing up random parts of github infrastructure.
- jacquesm 12y agoI wonder if the same terminology would have been used if Iran or North Korea had conclusively perpetrated this attack.
- tedunangst 12y agoI have no question there's a political aspect, though calling the Sony attack terrorism is a better fit. Assuming the purported objective was to prevent release of The Interview, how does exposing the alias Tom Hanks uses to check in to hotels accomplish that? How does that accomplish any objective? (Regardless of the responsible party.)
- JonnieCache 12y ago>But is "terrorism" even the correct word for this? Don't use that word. It's barely even a word any more, its become one of those weaponized magic symbols used for mind control. See also "freedom", "globalization", "sharing", "choice" and so on. Instead, you can just use words like "murder", "destruction of infrastructure" and the like.
- jacquesm 12y agoYou forgot 'communism'.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- tripzilch 12y agoAnd what about "hackers"? :)
- hyperpape 12y agoMakes sense, once you can come up with a single word to refer to targeting civilians with violence to try to effect political change. That's what "terrorism" meant and that's what it means, even if our news media and government have decided that it can only ever be applied to Muslims.
- JonnieCache 12y agoThe problem is, there's no well defined way to tell which version of the word someone's using. That's the point. So best to just not use it. (Obviously you do need to use it sometimes, in an academic context for example. It's a tricky one.)
- hyperpape 12y agoI fall on different sides of where it makes sense to use the word, but you're right: it is hard to tell how someone uses it.
- wongarsu 12y agoWith any meaningful definition of the word neither the github attack nor the Sony hack was terrorism. Nobody was trying to spread terror among civilians, nobody tried to influence government policy.
- frozenport 12y ago>>have officially entered the era of a weaponized internet. Nope, the State department has yet to respond.
- belorn 12y agoIf we are going to use terms like "cyberwarfare", it make logical sense that other military tactics will also be ported over to digital versions. One of those is the classic weapon test, where a nation demonstrate their military power to the world. China used 1% of the available traffic from a single CDN. Their choice of target might just have been randomly picked from low priority list for the dual purpose of sending a political message.
- whybroke 12y agoThere is never going to be serious public criticism of China in the west because there are vast numbers of western organizations making vast sums there. The public will see little to nothing that might ask for trade restrictions as a response. If decades of continuous trade deficit and serious attacks on places like Los Alamos go under or unreported, don't hold your breath for GitHub. Of course if it were North Korea (or Iran) it would be headlines.
- moe 12y ago"github terrorism" the era of a weaponized internet Is HN turning into Fox News now?
- guscost 12y agoThe Internet has always been weaponized (in the sense that it was designed to be a countermeasure against a nuclear first strike).
- addingnumbers 12y agoThat's not true, pure urban legend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_design_goals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Misconceptions_of_desig... Even if it were true, designing something to withstand attack doesn't make it a weapon. Is a kevlar vest a weapon?
- guscost 12y agoAh, I didn't know that. But I would call something that can survive a nuclear strike and then be used to coordinate a counter-offensive a weapon, or a least part of a weapon system.