View Full Version : Something VERY Real to Fear...

01-19-2010, 08:10 AM
Was listening to a lot of NPR reports yesterday on this whole Google v China thing, and this is some truly scary shit. It's being....um....postulated (The US has to step carefully since the Chinese own a trillion in US T-bills) that there is a super complex, highly organized systemic Chinese cyber warfare element controlled by the government that is out to steal EVERY Western secret they can get their hands on. There was a dude interviewed whose firm is basically hired by all the Fortune 500 companies to protect Industrial, technical and propriety secrets from these a-holes, and he says he's just about ready to give up, as the effort on their part is SO massive and well-organized that it's basically too late for the West to do anything about it.

They are stealing military secrets. They are stealing industrial secrets. They are stealing technological secrets. They are raiding companies R&D. Basically, they can catch up and EXCEED the West in a very short time because they are willing to steal anything and everything we have.

Technology is our edge, and they are going to steal that edge.

Scary shit.


China’s expansion of economic espionage boils over


If you read Google's explanation (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html) about why it threatened to withdraw from China, you might think it's all about a recent Chinese cyber-attack and Google's anger over being made complicit in the persecution of human rights activists. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/asia/14beijing.html)
By cyber experts and China hands alike point to a much broader issue: The Chinese government has adapted the tactics it has used for military cyber espionage for corporate purposes and is now using them on a wide scale. Added to a fundamentally unfair business environment for foreign firms, the damaging effects of Chinese cyber spying may be scaring off firms like Google as they weigh the risks of operating there.
"The story is much bigger than the recent attack or concerns about human rights," said James Mulvenon, a preeminent expert and consultant on Chinese cyber activities, "It's becoming increasingly difficult for international companies to work and operate in China, particularly innovation firms."
As Google announced in its statement, many other firms are being targeted as well. The 34 firms discussed as part of Google's investigation into the attacks are mostly Silicon Valley technology firms who work with or in China, said Mulvenon. This is all part of the Chinese government's stated goal of aiding Chinese-owned firms using state power to cull information from that particular sector.
"The Chinese government has made it very clear they have a set of national champions and those champions should be promoted," he said.
Some China experts contend that Google, which has been operating in China since 2004, may be simply fed up with the Chinese government's pattern of allowing in foreign companies and then appropriating their technology for the benefit of Chinese competitors, in this case the rival search engine Baidu.
"They may be reaching a point where they realize their whole presence in China is being manipulated," said Larry Wortzel, vice-chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which was established by Congress to monitor such issues, "They're losing code and technology. The Chinese government wants Baidu to succeed."
Wortzel said that China's regular practice is to allow firms into China for the express purpose of ripping off their propriety technology and feeding it to their Chinese competitors.
"They don't have any respect for international property rights," said Wortzel, "Once they gain a technology, they use it to reverse engineer it or copy it and then take it and use it to promote a Chinese-owned company."
A huge part of the problem is that there is a lack of policy and legal mechanisms to protect both government and corporate actors in cyberspace. The U.S. response to the increasing cyber threat from China has been improving but is mostly seen as too little, too late. Leaders such as Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman James Cartwright have often called the U.S. government cyber defense effort "dysfunctional," and military leaders have admitted that gargantuan amounts of information and intelligence have been lost.
The Obama administration came into office promising to fix that problem but has faced setbacks along the way. Shortly after publishing a cyber review (http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf) in May, Bush holdover cyber chief Melissa Hathaway resigned. Homeland Security cyber head Rod Beckstrom also resigned (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/breaking-cyber/) last year over a turf battle with the National Security Agency. The new cyber czar Howard Schmidt was named (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g6OJujkqDi2k_miJTeIqtKatnD3Q) in late December.
To be clear, Google is not accusing the Chinese government of anything, and a spokesman would only say that they've determined the latest string of attacks "originated from within China."
But cyber security expert Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, said that attacks like the one on Google can be judged to be government-sponsored, if not government-run outright, due to their sheer sophistication, their massive scale, and the military-like efficiency with which they are carried out.
Paller said his research supports the conclusion that every foreign firm operating in China has likely been penetrated and has software on it that enables outsiders to access it at will. And while attribution of attacks is difficult to prove outright, the string of similar attacks on U.S. government and military installations dating back years shows a pattern of behavior that points directly back to Beijing.
So how do we know the Chinese are shifting those tactics to the economic sphere? One piece of evidence came to light when it was revealed (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/03/mi5_warns_over_chinese_hack_attacks/) the UK's domestic intelligence service MI5 sent a letter to over 300 firms warning them of state-sponsored economic cyber espionage attacks coming from China.
"That was the proof to me that the same techniques had been moved over to the economic espionage area," said Paller.

01-19-2010, 08:20 AM
This is some scary shit.

History has proven time and again that all empires come to an end either because they stretch themselves too far or because they become complacent. (Or stupidity destroys them from within). Given the current political/economic climate in the US of A, I fear that our time has come to an end (slowly but surely) and I have always thought that the next empire was going to be China.

This just adds to those fears...

01-19-2010, 08:35 AM
So, is this saying the Chinese are becoming excellent "hackers"?

01-19-2010, 09:49 AM
Its known in DoD / Intel / gubmint as "the China problem". We have the tech to prevent it. But typical of gubmint decisions, we make them on the basis of having made a PC decision (read: safe) rather than adopt new tech that would disrupt the hegemony of entrenched vendors and contractors. Interestingly the network gear deployed in said networks is largely developed and manufactured in China and India. The code all comes from our enemies. Do you think they can get into our networks?

As colossal as this stupidity is, my larger concern is the 30 year lead the Chinese have in nanotech. Dat be da really scary @#$%...


Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Nano-weapons research booming in China with an assist from the USA

Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.

One of our family’s reasons for immigrating from Russia to the West (in 1972) was the danger to the free West from totalitarian societies like Russia and China. But hey presto! In 1986, Eric Drexler had finished a cycle of his nano research and published the results in a volume, entitled “Engines of Creation” and containing a chapter entitled “Engines of Destruction,” such as weapons that can destroy a country without the latter’s retaliation, that is, without “mutually assured destruction.”

What is “mutually assured destruction”? Every powerful nuclear country can prepare a secret depository of nuclear bombs. After an enemy nuclear attack, these secret nuclear bombs go into action and destroy the enemy country. Hence the name — the nuclear destruction is mutually assured.

Drexler’s molecular nanotechnology came from the realization that molecules have enough space within themselves and hence can be converted into supermicroscopic (“nano”) machines, able in particular to seek out the enemy secret depositories of nuclear weapons and thus preclude the enemy’s retaliation.

However, it was necessary to convert Drexler’s ideas into products, just as the ideas of E. Fermi, L. Szilard, and some other scientists named by Einstein in his letter to President Roosevelt of August 2, 1939, were converted into nuclear bombs as a result of the “Manhattan Project,” the allocations for which — the original $6,000 authorized — had grown by the spring of 1945 to $2,000,000,000.

In 1986, when Drexler’s book was published, he and his wife Christine Peterson founded the Foresight Institute for nano research. The trouble was that Congress was to finance from the same annual sums of nano allocations both the nano research of the Foresight Institute and the production of commercial nano products. This intensified the attempts of the “nano business” to discredit Drexler’s book.

But today, about 22 years later, the word “nano” is as well known and respected as was the word “microscopic” after the invention of the microscope or the word “atomic” after the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities in 1945

The 20th anniversary edition of Drexler’s book was published in 2006, and I received a copy through my computer — free of charge.

Well, I counterattacked all attempts to compromise Dr. Drexler’s molecular nano research. Nano weapons were not finished products. But before 1945 nuclear weapons were not finished products either. But if Hitler had devoted his time and energy to the production of nuclear bombs (rather than devoting his time and energy to the seizure of the still free area of Czechoslovakia, then to the seizure of Poland and France, and to the preparation of his war with Soviet Russia) he could have been the dictator of the world instead of a suicide.

To what extent are nanoweapons finished products in America and China today?

The CNET networks, engaged in exchanging the information among 120 million monthly users, cites the following opinion:

You won’t find any company in the U.S. doing nano-weapons research . . . . You have to go to China, where the government has been sinking billions into nano-weapons research since the 80s."

As I have said, the Foresigt (Nanotech) Institute was founded in 1986 by Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, and his wife Christine Peterson. She had a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from MIT. In 1991 she coauthored “Unbounding the Future: the Nanotechnology Revolution” (Morrow) and in 1997, “Leaping the Abyss: Putting Group Genius to Work”.

As for Eric Drexler, it is worthwhile to recall his dictum that a country ignoring the development of its nano weaponry is preparing its suicide.

What is necessary to develop nano ideas of genius into finished products — nano weapons? Financial allocations from whoever rules the country. If Hitler had been sufficiently generous in financing his development of atom bombs, and his atomic project had outstripped its U.S. “Manhattan” counterpart, the defeat or the suicide of the free world would have been inevitable.

Meanwhile Drexler left Christine Peterson and married a businesswoman named Rosa Wang. He is no longer a member of the Institute he had founded, and Rosa Wang’s money could not substitute the Congressional or governmental allocations required to create a new Foresight Institute and obtain finished nano weapons out of nano ideas.

The free West continues to surrender, but without the exchange of hostile expletives that was characteristic in the previous decades. On the country, the kindness of the free West toward the dictatorship of China seems to be helpful to the growth of China’s military might.

Many Americans seem to have forgotten that they were contemporaries of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others much like them. In their perception, mankind consists of polite, gentle, kind children. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology was asked (http://www.crnano.org/fag.html) why do they have their materials translated into Chinese? The center answered 6/2/2008:

Because over a billion people in the world speak Chinese, and because advanced nanotechnology may first be developed in China. We are very grateful to Dr. Sinclair Wang, who volunteered to perform this translation for us.

Imagine over a billion Chinese-speaking people left in ignorance of advanced nanotechnology, developed in the USA! Have the milk of human kindness and offer the Chinese translations of it! Surely the dictatorship of China will share advanced nanotechnology with the USA if such nanotechnology is first developed in China! What a pity that Falun Gong victims may, instead, be tortured to death — the dictators of China may be not in the mood to help belated American nanotechnologists with advanced nanotechnology!