Chinese insider: China playing, and winning, zero-sum game with US

[garbon]

I think they have legitimate claims on one another.  That still doesn't mean it's wise to give the PRC carte blanche to try take over Taiwan.  I suspect that Taiwanese wouldn't be keen on it, and very well may fight to prevent it.  That means a war.  I don't see how a war in East Asia helps the US much.

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

[Maximus]

Those of you who claim that it is ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China, how do you square that away with the long standing claim of the Taiwanese government to be the legitimate government of all of China?

It's not ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China. Taiwan is part of China. It is ludicrous to assume that means the PRC has a claim to it. The RoC at least has a historical claim to the mainland for whatever a historical claim is worth. The PRC doesn't even have that on Taiwan.

[CountDeMoney]

pope-vader.jpg

That just made my motherfucking desktop.

Now I need a 27" by 40" print.

[Kleves]

Speaking of American being too weak and stupid to deal with China:

FOR the last two months, senior government officials and private-sector experts have paraded before Congress and described in alarming terms a silent threat: cyberattacks carried out by foreign governments. Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., said cyberattacks would soon replace terrorism as the agency's No. 1 concern as foreign hackers, particularly from China, penetrate American firms' computers and steal huge amounts of valuable data and intellectual property.

It's not hard to imagine what happens when an American company pays for research and a Chinese firm gets the results free; it destroys our competitive edge. Shawn Henry, who retired last Friday as the executive assistant director of the F.B.I. (and its lead agent on cybercrime), told Congress last week of an American company that had all of its data from a 10-year, $1 billion research program copied by hackers in one night. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, head of the military's Cyber Command, called the continuing, rampant cybertheft "the greatest transfer of wealth in history."

Yet the same Congress that has heard all of this disturbing testimony is mired in disagreements about a proposed cybersecurity bill that does little to address the problem of Chinese cyberespionage. The bill, which would establish noncompulsory industry cybersecurity standards, is bogged down in ideological disputes. Senator John McCain, who dismissed it as a form of unnecessary regulation, has proposed an alternative bill that fails to address the inadequate cyberdefenses of companies running the nation's critical infrastructure. Since Congress appears unable and unwilling to address the threat, the executive branch must do something to stop it.

In the past, F.B.I. agents parked outside banks they thought were likely to be robbed and then grabbed the robbers and the loot as they left. Catching the robbers in cyberspace is not as easy, but snatching the loot is possible.

General Alexander testified last week that his organization saw an inbound attack that aimed to steal sensitive files from an American arms manufacturer. The Pentagon warned the company, which had to act on its own. The government did not directly intervene to stop the attack because no federal agency believes it currently has the authority or mission to do so.

If given the proper authorization, the United States government could stop files in the process of being stolen from getting to the Chinese hackers. If government agencies were authorized to create a major program to grab stolen data leaving the country, they could drastically reduce today's wholesale theft of American corporate secrets.

Many companies do not even know when they have been hacked. According to Congressional testimony last week, 94 percent of companies served by the computer-security firm Mandiant were unaware that they had been victimized. And although the Securities and Exchange Commission has urged companies to reveal when they have been victims of cyberespionage, most do not. Some, including Sony, Citibank, Lockheed, Booz Allen, Google, EMC and the Nasdaq have admitted to being victims. The government-owned National Laboratories and federally funded research centers have also been penetrated.

Because it is fearful that government monitoring would be seen as a cover for illegal snooping and a violation of citizens' privacy, the Obama administration has not even attempted to develop a proposal for spotting and stopping vast industrial espionage. It fears a negative reaction from privacy-rights and Internet-freedom advocates who do not want the government scanning Internet traffic. Others in the administration fear further damaging relations with China. Some officials also fear that standing up to China might trigger disruptive attacks on America's vulnerable computer-controlled infrastructure.

But by failing to act, Washington is effectively fulfilling China's research requirements while helping to put Americans out of work. Mr. Obama must confront the cyberthreat, and he does not even need any new authority from Congress to do so.

Under Customs authority, the Department of Homeland Security could inspect what enters and exits the United States in cyberspace. Customs already looks online for child pornography crossing our virtual borders. And under the Intelligence Act, the president could issue a finding that would authorize agencies to scan Internet traffic outside the United States and seize sensitive files stolen from within our borders.

And this does not have to endanger citizens' privacy rights. Indeed, Mr. Obama could build in protections like appointing an empowered privacy advocate who could stop abuses or any activity that went beyond halting the theft of important files.

If Congress will not act to protect America's companies from Chinese cyberthreats, President Obama must.

Richard A. Clarke, the special adviser to the president for cybersecurity from 2001 to 2003, is the author of "Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It."

[CountDeMoney]

The only way companies are going to be protected by Chinese cyber bullshit is if they do it themselves;  the US government simply doesn't have the intestinal fortitude.

My company has a tremendous amount of defensive cyber capability, but there's no stomach for utilizing offensive capabilities in dealing with the Advanced Persistent Threat (see, the fucking government won't even call China out by name, they're simply the APT);  offensive capabilities would "interfere with the conduct of commerce."  What bullshit.

Simply put, we're getting smoked by China on an unprecedented level, because nobody wants to acknowledge what's happening, or do anything about it.

And never mind the private sector, that's bad enough;  where the Chinese are really raping us is at research universities.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's not ludicrous to consider Taiwan part of China. Taiwan is part of China. It is ludicrous to assume that means the PRC has a claim to it.

I'm lost.  What is the distinction being made between "China" and "the PRC"?

[derspiess]

I think the best play would be to negotiate some sort of deal like HK did, where everybody can basically continue as before but with tensions eased.

Yuck.  Taiwan's rather a different situation than HK.  I'd imagine your best play would be disastrous for the Taiwanese.

[Lettow77]

I mean, personally I think that Taiwan's better off without the PRC, but I don't really think the issue is as clear cut as all that when there are significant portions of the Taiwanese population who consider themselves to be part of one China, even if they don't want any part of the CCP.

An increasing minority, given the aging of the KMT folk and the rise of the Democratic Progressive Party.

  Regarding Lacroix's claims about it being Chinese- It is true is was ruled for a time by China, and was colonized by Chinese. The same is true for the Dutch. The people that did the most for the island and governed it with the greatest degree of genuine concern for the occupants' welfare remains Holy Sacred Japan, but this doesn't entitle Japan to annex Taiwan- independence is the best course for Taiwan.

China has no right to the island. The issue has been unhelpfully muddled by the domination of Taiwanese politics by KMT refugees, but that is a bygone era now.

[Valmy]

Yuck.  Taiwan's rather a different situation than HK.  I'd imagine your best play would be disastrous for the Taiwanese.

Yeah?  And why is that?

[CountDeMoney]

The Taiwanese have, over time, matured and progressed into their own nationality.  They deserve to be recognized as their own nation.

[Valmy]

China has no right to the island. The issue has been unhelpfully muddled by the domination of Taiwanese politics by KMT refugees, but that is a bygone era now.

Um the KMT controls both Parliament and the Presidency.

[Valmy]

The Taiwanese have, over time, matured and progressed into their own nationality.  They deserve to be recognized as their own nation.

Deserving has nothing to do with it.

[Jacob]

Hey Money, I'm curious about the cyber attacks and thefts and so on... obviously it's going on on a big scale.

What could be done by companies to protect themselves? What could the US do to protect their companies?

[The Minsky Moment]

Speaking of American being too weak and stupid to deal with China:
. . . Gen. Keith B. Alexander, head of the military's Cyber Command, called the continuing, rampant cybertheft "the greatest transfer of wealth in history."

Translation: my budget request is coming up soon.

. Senator John McCain, who dismissed it as a form of unnecessary regulation, has proposed an alternative bill that fails to address the inadequate cyberdefenses of companies running the nation's critical infrastructure.

AFAICT - the distinction between the two bills is that the Lieberman bill delegates power to DHS, whereas the McCain bill relies on DOD and NSA.

Because it is fearful that government monitoring would be seen as a cover for illegal snooping and a violation of citizens' privacy, the Obama administration has not even attempted to develop a proposal for spotting and stopping vast industrial espionage. It fears a negative reaction from privacy-rights and Internet-freedom advocates who do not want the government scanning Internet traffic. Others in the administration fear further damaging relations with China..

The Obama admin is backing the same Lieberman bill lauded above.  Who writes this stuff?

Under Customs authority, the Department of Homeland Security could inspect what enters and exits the United States in cyberspace. Customs already looks online for child pornography crossing our virtual borders. And under the Intelligence Act, the president could issue a finding that would authorize agencies to scan Internet traffic outside the United States and seize sensitive files stolen from within our borders.

Ie vastly increase DHS cyber responsibilities without any increase in authorized budget, resources, personnel.  Sharp thinking.

Richard A. Clarke, the special adviser to the president for cybersecurity from 2001 to 2003, is the author of "Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It."

Translation - I haven't had a real job for 10 years and now I make my living hawking scare stories to the public to sell books.

Here's the truth about Chinese industrial espionage - it is rampant.  And it turns out that the biggest method for gathering information is not cyber penetration from the outside but infiltrating moles into US companies who walk at the doors with USB drives and file folders.  The old fashioned way.  It further turns out that while this is indeed a problem, it is not as significant as one might think, because most Chinese companies don't have the capability to take blueprints and raw data and convert to advanced proprietary production techniques without extensive training and highly skilled personnel.  Thus, the principal way Chinese companies have succeeded in making actual use of advanced Western technology and methods is by dangling the prospect (mirage?) of the vast Chinese market in front of growth-hungry Western companies and convincing them voluntarily not only to transfer over technology, but to spend years training Chinese personnel on how to make use of it.  The exploitation of Japanese bullet train technology being a classic example.

[Lettow77]

Um the KMT controls both Parliament and the Presidency.

That's true, but that does little to detract from the fact that the KMT is in overall decline. They are on the wane- the DPP will be back in no time. The brief renaissance of KMT power has more to do with it being the way to express discontent with the DPP's first effort at ruling, which they mismanaged a bit. They aren't used to being a party in power, but they'll get the hang of it. History and demographics are on their side, or rather, the KMT is on the wrong side of history. (again)