CNN Website Targeted by DoS 187
antifoidulus writes "CNN is reporting that they were the target of a Denial of Service attack yesterday. According to the article, there have been reports on Asian tech sites that Chinese hackers were targeting CNN for their coverage of the unrest in Tibet. One has to wonder if this hacking attempt was government sponsored or not. The Chinese government hasn't been very happy with CNN -- in fact, the Beijing Bureau Chief has been summoned about a day before this happened."
Re:In Other News (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In Other News (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Great Firewall of China (Score:5, Informative)
State Sponsored Information Operations (Score:2, Informative)
Chinese anti-CNN site (Score:2, Informative)
Life iin China (Score:3, Informative)
Chinese Government (Score:3, Informative)
There's probably no need. The thing that many people don't seem to realize that the information chinese people in China get and the information people outside China get are very different, and what the implications of this are. I've met a number of people from China, and, simply put, there is a world of difference between what is common knowledge here and what is common knowledge there.
Where many Americans see the chinese government as a repressive tyranny that needs to be overthrown to allow the chinese people to be free, the chinese see huge economic development and modernization. Where I've heard Europeans call the One Child Policy a crime against humanity, I've heard chinese people call it an unfortunate necessity, put in place for the good of the people. The Dalai Lama? How dare he criticize the chinese who have done so many good things for him! And you may not realize it, but the chinese government is actually doing a lot of good things for the environment.
Of course, the chinese government isn't perfect, and I think everybody will agree. But, knowing what a chinese person in China does, some of the things that foreign press agencies have been saying about China are completely outrageous. And when they are also critical of your country, some people will get angry. In a large country like China, that means a lot of angry people.
Remember the flame wars that were all over the net and the media when foreigners criticized the Bush government, its warlike policies, and their attempts to deceive the American people and the world? The same thing is now happening in China. The good thing about it all is that it raises awareness, in China, about issues that are important to the rest of the world. The bad thing about it is that it seems that the criticism is being turned into evidence of a worldwide conspiracy against China.
Of course, this is the wrong way to deal with criticism. The right response would be to find the cause of the criticism and only then decide on an appropriate action. Perhaps the critics have a point and the situation should be improved. Perhaps the critics are misguided and they should be corrected. Or perhaps their criticism is unfounded - in which case the appropriate response may be to ignore them or to criticize them in turn. Silencing critics is not, I think, an appropriate response.
One really interesting question is, though, how well informed are the critics? How sure are _you_ about the real situation over in China?
Re:Hackers or government? (Score:4, Informative)
That could be the case for the Chinese people, but conversely, after years of hearing anti-China media coverage, it is hard for you to make a distinctions between myths announced by the Tibetan movements and facts in Tibet, between past and present, between Tibetans in exile, Tibetans supported by political influences/CIA, and Tibetans in Tibet.
It is wording like the summary and your comment that angers Chinese people who take actions on themselves. In fact, from the events in the past few years, like the bombing of Chinese embassy in Kosvo in 2000, Chinese fighter jet's collision with the US spy plane in 2001, and the anti-Japanese protests in 2004, it was the Chinese government who was afraid of overrun patriotism. Just yesterday, the Chinese government mouth piece published a statement [sina.com.cn] asking for calm and ration in patriotic actions, like what they did after the earlier mentioned events. You could say the Chinese government is freaking about destabilized society, whether that is caused by Tibet, Falun Gong or patriotism. Blaming every anti-West protest as government sponsored is exactly what humiliate those who are patriotic.
Re:Hackers or government? (Score:4, Informative)
Couldn't disagree more. As a UK born Chinese I can honestly say it more about the sheer hypocrisy of the west and also the 'way' in which those protests against the torch were carried out. Just to set the background, I was born in the UK, have some English relatives, went to public school etc. and probably speak better English than 99% of English that you find on the high street. For all intents and purposes I am 'British'. I am also very aware of my cultural identity and ties and am very comfortable in both environments. However for all my Britishness, the way that western media have portrayed this whole saga has been very disturbing for me. So much so that I am actively questioning my loyalties to the UK and the west in general.
We are all aware of human rights abuses in China (yes, even the Chinese in China) but the fact is if you go there you will see that the great majority of people are happy and grateful to the government for raising them out of poverty. What westerners can't grasp is how people can have such loyalty to a communist government. But that is a westerners' view through western tinted glasses and I can't help but feel there is lingering colonial attitude to the idea that somehow western democracy is the only way to govern and whether you like it or not, you "other countries" should have it as well regardless of what the majority of people in the country think. The fact is the relationship between the Chinese population and the Chinese government is much more, shall we say paternal. We do recognise that there needs to be change but that change must be at "our" pace, not yours. China has achieved more since opening up than almost any other country in history has in the same amount of time, but even that is not enough, the time scales most Chinese think about for democracy is in terms of 30-50 years. Not tomorrow or next month or next year. For some reason what took centuries to achieve in western democracies by western demand, must occur overnight in China. That of course doesn't preclude it from being possible but it is not necessarily desirable. China looks at the incredible instability that the break up of the USSR brought about and it nerve wracking not just for China but also for all the neighbouring countries.
On the subject of Tibet, it is not as simple as "Free"ing Tibet as so many band wagon jumpers have proclaimed. The fact is the histories are intimately tied and in addition to that Tibet has one vital resource that China absolutely cannot do without. Water. Both the Yangtze and Yellow river are sourced from the Tibetan plateau. An independent Tibet means there is no longer a guaranteed source of water. Without that, you have a country the size of the US without a major source of water. So what do you do? If you allow the break up of a unified China, you lose control of your source of water and run the risk of 50+ ethnicities all going there separate ways. You also lose control of all the nuclear weapons and have to deal with the ensuing headache. Those that say talking to the Dalai Lama is the solution also only have half the story. The Dalai Lama only speaks for a section of the exiled Tibetan community. Although he states his aims are an "autonomous" region with true autonomy, there is firstly no accounting for mission creep - give an inch take a yard, and secondly he does not speak for the Tibetan Youth movement who demand full sovereign status. The two entities are entirely at odds with each other. What is more the Dalai will die eventually; the youth movement will outlive him so it is their demands that have to be dealt with. So speaking to the Dalai Lama does not lead to a solution, it leads to maybe half a solution whilst he lives but would ultimately, with his death (insert reincarnation joke here!), lead to demands for fully sovereignty which, given the resource at stake is not acceptable.
Much is also made of the non interve