Another Attack, On Law Firm Suing China 131
An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the attack on Google, another company claims to be the victim of a similar attack. Gipson Hoffman & Pancione is a Los Angeles law firm whose client, CYBERsitter, is suing the government of China and several Chinese companies for using their intellectual property in the infamous Green Dam censorship filter. According to the firm, they have been targeted by a spear phishing attack from China." Relatedly, smartaleckkill writes with news that the US state department is to formally protest to China over the alleged cyber-attacks on Google, "likely early next week."
Re:As far as lawsuits go (Score:5, Informative)
I am actually glad to see that lawsuits over software patents aren't being used for silly purposes to remove competition. Cyber sitter could have put together this lawsuit long ago, but they go in on the heels of the google hacking fiasco they got caught in.
What do software patents have to do with anything? This is a copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation lawsuit and it was filed BEFORE Google went public with their issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Unsure where patents come in to this. If there was a software patent being copied, which there isn't, it would not be valid in the EU, let alone China.
China or Slashdot (Score:2)
How do we know they didn't just get /.ed? With all the publicity it's not that far fetched.
That's right.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. We have seen how much china cares about UN's protests. Why would they care the slightest when only a single nation of UN protests? A nation that is very much in debt to them at that. Not only does USA have a massive debt but even the soldiers' helmets have been made in China... As long as USA needs more money from there each year, all these protests are simply for the show and both nations know it.
Sigh. This again (Score:5, Insightful)
This "Oh China owns all the US's debt, the US has to do whatever they want!!" stuff is silly. It shows a lack of understanding of how money and debt work at an international level.
So, what China owns are US securities. These are promises to pay a certain amount of US dollars on a certain date from the US government. How long that time frame is depends on the type of security. Also if they pay interest periodically or if it is a lump sum also depends. The treasury sells securities as short as a few days, to as long as 30 years. Now there's a couple important things to understand about these securities:
1) They are payable in US dollars. What that means is that they are susceptible to devaluation by large amounts of inflation. If they US wanted to it could simply print the money to pay them and devalue the dollar. That has consequences for the US, but also for the holders of the securities. If the dollars your securities are paid in suddenly worth 10% of what they were when you bought them, your investment goes in the crapper.
2) The securities are the equivalents of IOUs. There's no international agency that enforces their repayment or worth. The US just says that their full faith and credit backs them. This means the US could default on payment. That of course has serious consequences for the US, but again for the holder. Suddenly your notes are worth nothing. Countries have defaulted before, though it is rare (the US has never defaulted on payment).
What this means is that you China can't simply call the debt due. They can't say "We want all our money now." It is paid out when it is paid out. Also, taking any drastic action with regards to their notes could lead to the notes losing a lot or all of their value. For example they could potentially try and dump the notes, sell them to other people. Doing so would undermine fail in US securities and make it extremely difficult for the US to sell new ones. However, it would also mean that because people were so worried, China would have to take a massive loss on the notes they sell.
Further, something like that might even lead to a situation where they lose all their value and the US keeps its credit. Remember the credit of the US is all in what people believe. So suppose the US convinces its allies, particularly the European and Asian nations, that China is waging economic war. As such the US has to null all of China's treasury holdings. Not to worry, the US will still honour notes issued to all other countries, just not China. They pull that off, suddenly China is left with a bunch of worthless notes (well nothing actually, they are just accounting entries at the Department of Treasury) and they are in a world of hurt.
What we really have with the US and China, and indeed much of the global economy, is an intertwined system of economic mutually assured destruction. China could create problems for the US economy because of the large amount of US debt they hold, but to do so would create massive problems for their economy.
It is not at all a situation like a person faces, where you owe money in a currency you don't control, and they can come and take the items secured by the loan (like your house) if you fail to pay. Treasury notes are paid in US dollars, whatever a US dollar happens to be worth at that time, and only have value because the US says they do, there's no assets that can be seized in the event of non-payment.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the parent again. Other countries aren't selling what they produce on credit to the US. Chinese firms are selling goods they produce to US firms (and sometimes to the government). Often on short term credit terms, but that's pretty normal.
China-the-country is buying securities (IOU's) from the US. They are investing here because, like the parent said, the US has never defaulted. Using history as a guide, it's about the safest bet out there.
I think you might be thinking of trade deficits and balance of [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the government can pretty much just flush away any debts by printing money. As someone who owns a house, a little bit of hyperinflation wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. They could instantly flush away 90 percent of everybody's debts by just printing 10x as much money.
It would wreak havoc in the short term, but it isn't so clear what the longer term effects would be.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post fails to mention one important aspect of the in debt to China argument, which is that the US runs at a deficit and needs to continuously issue securities to cover the shortfall. These securities are purchased by China.
If China stopped purchasing these securities then there would be a serious financial issue for the US. So the issue of being in debt to China is not due to China owing many securities already, it is with requiring them to continue purchasing more.
Re: (Score:1)
So we might be forced to balance our budget?
Wow, you are right, that would be terrible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure if China didn't buy them, someone else would.
I wonder, are securities issued in a limited lot or something? Like, "500 30-year securities at $10,000 apiece are available, first come, first served" or can someone just buy 'em anytime they want?
If it's the former situation, then if China doesn't snap 'em up I'm sure someone else will. If it's the latter situation, then I suppose we'd have to tighten our belts (perhaps around our necks..).
Re:Sigh. This again (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, T-bills [wikipedia.org] are auctioned off in lots. That's how their price is set, actually: the US government actions off a batch of notes to paid off at a particular price after a particular time, (say, $1,000,000 after 30 years). Investors bid against each other, and the one willing to pay the highest price for the note wins.
Of course, the price paid for a treasury ends up being slightly below the face value of the note. That's mathematically equivalent to the government paying interest on the loan when it's repaid. (Of course, individual investors usually don't hold treasuries to term themselves, but instead sell them to others.)
That's where the interest rate on the US debt comes from: the higher the demand for US treasury securities, the higher the price, and the lower the government's effective interest rate.
Since US treasuries are considered the safest securities around, because the US has never defaulted, demand for treasuries is usually high, and especially high in times of economic sluggishness like the present. During the worst of the financial crisis, the prices paid for treasuries exceeded their face value, which meant investors were literally paying the US government to hold onto their money.
All this means that the US government can borrow very cheaply and in massive quantities. If China were to stop participating in treasury auctions, there are plenty of investors who would sake up the slack. The only effect would be that due to a reduction in competition, the bid price would be slightly lower, which would correspond to a slightly higher interest rate.
No big deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. That's actually quite relieving to hear. I was never really worried about China bankrupting us, but I was rather worried about hearing people keep repeating that same inane argument. Many thanks for the knowledge!
Re: (Score:2)
Investors bid against each other
Thank heavens for the taxpayers' sakes that - given the historical lack of examples of collusion or insider trading among those who dabble in high finance in America - it is safe to assume the word "against", eh?
Re: (Score:2)
No, the US would have multiple options. It could exercise one of them, or more likely a combination of them:
1) As I mentioned, they can simply print money to cover their obligations. They devalue their currency and cover their debt that way, since their debt is all payable in US dollars.
2) As others mentioned, they increase the interest rates on their securities. For some this is done directly (the rate is set and you buy them at that rate) for others it is by auction and so happens automatically. The US is
Re:Sigh. This again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a growing islamic population in Europe and they might think, demographically they might be in charge of Euro in some 30 years
Good ol' islamophobia, here we go again.
That stupid lie, "the islamists will be in charge in 30 years" gets rolled again and again; that doesn't make it more true. It's no more valid than "the commies are out to get us" or "the Catholics breed like rats and will be in charge in, what was it - 30 years". To hell with that.
America plays by the rules, mostly, although there have been some serious breaches of trust from time to time, not least over the Iraq war. China is playing by the rules too and we have no
Re: (Score:2)
THe real problem is what China is doing .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sigh. This again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sigh. This again (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worth pointing out specifically that our debt wih China is one of the largest weapons in our peace arsenal. If China takes a warlike action (ie invades Taiwan) one of the first things we would do is cancel our debt obligations.
It is at least partially due to this fear that China has not yet declared open hostilities. When they start selling that debt, or stop taking on new debt, watch out.
I do not think that the current issue with Google rises to the level that we could do that and preserve our credibility. But it does start painting a picture, and combined with the jailing of those steel execs last summer its not going in a positive direction.
I'd love to know the other 20 companies that were hacked at the same time as Google. We'd have a clearer knowledge of China's intentions and the threat she poses. But you can believe that the State Department knows.
When does China come up for the MFN vote again? Expect to hear this then again, and maybe more details too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means, but I am curious how you think the U.S. could unilaterally cancel a debt, considering Amendment 14, Article 4.
Joe.
Re: (Score:2)
"...but I am curious how you think the U.S. could unilaterally cancel a debt, considering Amendment 14, Article 4."
For the same reason we could ignore any other part of the Constitution: Because we WANT to. Ultimately the Constitution (or any other set of laws/values/etc) has power because we give it power. If we are not willing to enforce the provisions in the document it doesn't matter what they are, it becomes just a piece of paper. Two data points (among many): 1. The Soviet Constitution provided
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that in a dispute over such things, the US Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction.
In the matter of a war, all bets are off, because there is no way SCOTUS would hear a case from an active enemy, and as the winner we would dictate terms as pert the armistice, and as the loser, vice versa.
If the matter weren't a war, SCOTUS might not hear just based on their whim.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, you're that loser who was completely wrong about Article 14, 4 and got pissed at me when I pointed out your ignorance.
Why are you at it again when it's been proven to you that you don't know a fucking thing about the Constitution and cry like a bitch when it's pointed out to you?
I mean seriously, I've proven yourself a total ignoramus on the subject, why are you embarrassing yourself by pretending your opinion on the subject isn't worthless?
Re: (Score:2)
While some of the points are informative, your question (and intimation) is a good one. While it is plausible that the U.S. can summon the political will and make some excuse to "cancel" its debt to China, there's a foolishly idealistic assumption that we could do so while containing the devaluation to only "Chinese-held" securities. There are a lot of reasons why that is implausible. First, I defy people to sufficiently define a "China-owned T-Bill" such that, when said T-Bill is submitted for redemption,
Re: (Score:1)
No - that part means that the US and the southern states have no requirements to pay back Confederate debts, so anybody who lent money to the Confederacy loses. Congress still isn't allowed to cancel debts made by the US itself.
And if it did, because we didn't have enough tax base to pay the government's debts, fat chance on borrowing more money from the still-solvent parts of the world. Unfortunately, given the spending habits of the US government from Reagan on, borrowing money instead of saving it wh
Nope you're wrong (Score:1)
"No - that part means that the US and the southern states have no requirements to pay back Confederate debts"
No, actually, you're totally wrong.
"And if it did"
It DOES.
The fact that you don't know that, and admit as much when you say "if it did" tells me you're relying on your READING of the wording, which means exactly fuck all since your reading of it sucks.
Re: (Score:1)
If I'm reading your comment correctly, you're misreading what I was referring to with "And if it did" (which I'll admit may not be entirely clear even with context, much less without.) The "if it did" refers to "if Congress did cancel the US's debt", not "if the phrase in the Constitution meant _x_". Congress has not yet canceled the US's debts, and if it did, they'd have serious trouble borrowing more.
Are you contending that the US government and the Southern States had the legal obligation to pay back C
Re: (Score:2)
Your response was pretty retarded, equating the definitions of insurrection or rebellion with something other than the matter being discussed. To answer your taunt, it would appear that my lack of constitutional scholarship is topped by your lack of reading comprehension. I guess expecting intelligent conversation on Slash was a bit delusional on my part.
Re: (Score:1)
"Your response was pretty retarded"
And yet, you did nothing to prove it wrong or refute it apart form call names.
More to the point, you illiterate cunt, you ignored the part about congress, which is totally unrelated to YOUR taunt and COMPLETELY answers your question.
YOU'RE WRONG, eat my asshole while you cry about it bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
From your over the top response of crawling over all my threads and spamming with profanity, this apparently stung you pretty deep. You would be able to easily avoid the emotional pain you just experienced by avoiding the taunt in the first place, you know. Are you aware how your lack of self-control is resulting in self disgrace?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've always wondered why people think the US is so indebted to China. Of the US debt, only 28% is held by foreigners, and only 23% of that is held by the Chinese (so 6% total). It's about $800 Billion, which is quit a bit, but only about 5% of the US's yearly GDP.
Beyond that, why does it even matter? China would be hurt far, far worse than the US if there was a political breakdown between the two. 40% of the Chinese GDP comes from exports, so they'd suffer tremendously. The US imports the equivalent of
Re:That's right.... (Score:4, Informative)
China's 2008 GDP was about $4.4 trillion. Their trade with the U.S.at $338+$70 billion accounted for 9.3% of their GDP. So if China were to dump all the U.S. securities and stop all trade with the U.S., they would be hurting their economy more than they would be hurting the U.S. economy.
China needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs China.
Re: (Score:2)
We have seen how much china cares about UN's protests
About as much as anybody else, I'd say. Hasn't the US regularly ignored this kind of things in the past? The UN is not a global government or a police force, it is only a forum where national governments can go and rant about things; 'cause that's got to be better than starting a war.
Just wait until the Chinese take over ECHELON (Score:2)
the ensuing protests will be worth a laugh or two.
US alignment (Score:1)
Actually, the Bush/Cheney administration were "chaotic evil"... just because they talked about "the Rule of Law" in accents resembling Bismark talking about "Blood and Iron" doesn't mean they intended it to apply to themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lots of countries run mini Echelon like systems.
"The message, a fax sent by satellite transmission from Egypt's foreign ministry to its embassy in London, was intercepted on November 15 by Swiss intelligence, the newspaper reported. The Swiss defence ministry said it was investigating the leak of the document."
fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/10/usa.mainsection
China has in inward looking system, built by US/EU corps and telcos.
What w
Re: (Score:2)
They helped Iran and Iraq wipe each other out in the 1980's.
They helped Bosnia and Kosovo gain freedom.
They propped up dictators, arms dealers, private armies and drug dealers in the name of 'freedom' around the world.
They got sweeping new internal and external powers after 9/11/2001.
Great new offices and local legal telco support in the fly over states.
So really its been win, win, win, decade in decade out, b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To find, track and build a circle of world wide friends
um... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:um... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's probably these guys. [wikipedia.org]
Kind of a weird phenomenon. Makes me wonder if youthful rebellion manifests itself in a society like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably these guys. [wikipedia.org]
Kind of a weird phenomenon. Makes me wonder if youthful rebellion manifests itself oddly in a society like that.
oops
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if youthful rebellion manifests itself in a society like that.
When it does, the Chinese government simply machine guns the trouble makers [wikipedia.org] and the rest fall into line. After all, they have millions of other youths (life is cheap in China) who will tow the party line; especially after the trouble makers, who conveniently gathered themselves together at the same place and time for a protest, are shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me wonder if youthful rebellion manifests itself in a society like that.
When it does, the Chinese government simply machine guns the trouble makers [wikipedia.org] and the rest fall into line. After all, they have millions of other youths (life is cheap in China) who will tow the party line; especially after the trouble makers, who conveniently gathered themselves together at the same place and time for a protest, are shot.
I agree although I had meant to make a slightly different point. In the US, young people get angry and they tend to express it mostly with things like petty vandalism. It's a nuisance, but it isn't a huge problem. In China, there's this huge social pressure to not step out of line like that, so I'm wondering if ordinary youthful anger gets channeled into the more socially accepted statism. They feel the need to be aggressive toward something so they accuse their state of being too soft and lash out at count
Re:Technobabble has gone too far (Score:4, Interesting)
It gets worse. According to the linked Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]:
"Several recent phishing attacks have been directed specifically at senior executives and other high profile targets within businesses, and the term whaling has been coined for these kinds of attacks."
Presumably said senior executives tend to be fat and blubbery.
Re: (Score:2)
It gets worse. According to the linked Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]:
"Several recent phishing attacks have been directed specifically at senior executives and other high profile targets within businesses, and the term whaling has been coined for these kinds of attacks."
Presumably said senior executives tend to be fat and blubbery.
Also interesting (from your Wikipedia article), is a new phishing technique aimed at academia (presumably targeting those of higher intelligence). This new "dolphin phishing" along with all these "whaling" attempts appear to be originating solely from IP addresses in Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
,No
Re: (Score:1)
Captain Kirk, is that you?
Tread softly (Score:1, Troll)
China now owns the US dollar, thanks to the Fed. But don't take my [theglobeandmail.com] word for it. If I were the US I would invest in some lube and bend over quietly.
Re:Tread softly (Score:4, Informative)
You don't need to understand anything about the global economy [slashdot.org] to realise that's bullshit. All you need to do is ask yourself if China could gain an advantage by using it's holdings to manipulate the value of the dollar then why has it not done so already? Surely your not suggesting that China is currently propping up the US out of the goodness of it's heart?
The fact is that the Chinese and US economys are like two drunks leaning on each other, if one stumbles they both fall. I put it to you that your link is little more than an advert for something called "China Investment Corp".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Google is the sealed train.
What the CIA funds and sells to the world, they can also use to inject NGO's, cults, porn, MS based services, democracy, encryption and other harmful ideas.
As for "origin of their traffic" who knows what they where fishing for. America is smart at tracing the net, You can send your ip's and data stash around the web a few times.
Unless you pick it up in some huge pipe equiped EU/US low security walk in office next day with
"spear phishing"? (Score:3, Insightful)
What, is "targeted" too many letters for you?
New law firm business model (Score:2, Funny)
1. Set up honeypot and bogus law firm.
2. File big lawsuit against China.
3. Log sources and vectors during ensuing cyberattack.
4. Sell results to DoD.
5. Profit!!
export 'em (Score:5, Funny)
Q: what do you call 80 tons of lawyers on a slow boat to China?
A: a good start.
Seriously though, if we really could figure out to export lawyers; it would balance the trade deficit, and just think what it would do for the quality of life domestically.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, if we really could figure out to export lawyers; it would balance the trade deficit, and just think what it would do for the quality of life domestically.
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that would constitute an "Act of War".
Besides - you really think someone would be stupid enough to *pay* us for them?
Re:export 'em (Score:4, Funny)
"Besides - you really think someone would be stupid enough to *pay* us for them?"
Dunno. How well do they burn? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
We could pay them to take 'em and still come out ahead on net value.
Re: (Score:1)
Q: what do you call 80 tons of lawyers on a slow boat to China?
A: a good start.
Seriously though, if we really could figure out to export lawyers; it would balance the trade deficit, and just think what it would do for the quality of life domestically.
Wouldn't the idea of exporting lawyers for the purpose of balancing the trade deficit imply that such lawyers actually have value?
Why on a slow boat? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And because it has been going on for years it is okay? No, USA and allies needs to retaliate and take the battle to China. Or to put it plainly wage a cyberwar against China until they understand that this kind of behaviour is not tolerable. Otherwise we are just asking for more.
And of course USA and allies need to be careful to contain the conflict. And no, I am no war monger. But I do not believe that weakness is the path to lasting peace.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was so common from US to China, it would have been nice if they blocked the import of poisoned pet food and Drywall made of industrial waste. (If we are not, it would be the first good use of spying!)
Got give it to the Chinese some credit. When they found milk was tainted, they executed the guy in charge of food safety.
Wish we could do that with a few incompetent bureaucrats here. Or at least they could sit on death row for the rest of their lives.
The US State Department will fix it all for us! (Score:2)
Who am I kidding.
E
Can Airbus Sue the US now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can Airbus Sue the US now? After all, if hacking into communications is now a lawsuit offence that can be persued against a government, the US interception of Airbus negotiations to land a sale so that this could be leaked to Boeing and then let Boeing win the contract should likewise be open to lawsuit.
Will the US agree?
Or is it only bad when China does it?
Re: (Score:2)
How about this little investigation into the subject by the EU Parliment? [af.mil]
It happens quite a bit, apparently, if you read into the middle or so of the document.
Re: (Score:2)
China seems to have a serious issue with..... (Score:2)
.... the communication media of the internet.
I discovered I had a whole and large website installed within my own web site a couple years ago and from this I was able to determine that many otehr sites including many found on sourceforge to as well have had such hidden websites installed.
I was able to determine it was from china that this was happening.
Many of these hidden site installations are probably still existing today. I'd advize everyone with a site, individual to corporate to government to do a ful
What do you expect when you give china source code (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think there was anything unusual (Score:5, Interesting)
"There are attacks every day. I don't think there was anything unusual," Mr Ballmer added.
Seriously, Ballmer? Have you read the part where the Chinese government has been labelled as the attacker of over 30 international companies by Verisign? Not just some guy in China, but the Chinese government. I would consider that pretty damn unusual.
Why is this different than military attack? (Score:2)
If China invaded Hawaii, California or Alaska, but did not kill any US citizens we would treat this very differently as the Fed would take this very seriously rather than saying, Yeah, cyber attacks, they happen every day, nobody got hurt etc etc.. Maybe if the Fed realized that when China steals intellectual property, it might not hurt the US today, but it enables China to get a free pass on research for which we had to invest our own time and money into.
During WWII there were many Germans immigrants that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What precisely do propose we actually do about it?
Spying has not traditionally been accepted as casus belli in the historical record, and there's the little matter of the fact that escalated military engagements with China are just a bad idea.
C//
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Give China a computer.... (Score:2)
and they will send you a spam.
Give China your entire manufacturing base
and they will crush your entire empty shell of a country.
Letters of Marque (Score:1)
It's time for Congress to exercise one of their little known powers and issue a letter of marque to Google, authorizing them to take action against Chinese nationals via the internet. We are effectively in a state of conflict with China, with them attacking US interests via "private" proxies. Google and other organizations could be allowed to exercise some self help and go on the offensive.
And it would make "Talk like a Pirate Day" really mean something.
Suing a *country*?? (Score:2)
Are they drunk? How do you sue a country??
Which common law do they think both entities (China and CyberSitter) exist in and are forced to adhere to?
I don’t see any multinational organization with the power of enforcing shit on China.
But I can see China’s agents shooting the CyberSitter boss in the head on his next voyage to some small/shady country.
Dumb move. It’s like taunting the USA to “come get me, suckers”! Basically, you’re fucked. ;)
There should be a Bad Idea Jeans [youtube.com]
The most effective weapon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Whoops, wrong article. My multiple tab browsing privileges should have been revoked a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I try to keep the JavaScript horror confined to one tab at a time, so I never understood how people could comment in the wrong article.
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)