CNN Website Targeted by DoS

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."

Well, let's take a look at this ..

[ScrewMaster]

If it wasn't government sponsored, then it was promulgated by some individual or group with substantial resources (a hitherto-unknown botnet, perhaps.) They need to be found out and put away for a few years. On the other hand, if it was sponsored by the Chinese leadership it means they're attempting to extend their brand of censorship worldwide. In which case, they also need to be put away for a few years.

"One has to wonder..."

[Devin Jeanpierre]

No, I don't, and nor does anybody else. Since when did an attack coming from a country mean the government was involved? How many domestic hacking attempts have there been against the government? Was the government hacking the government? Hardly. Given the public Chinese outcry against the West for the way we've treated the Tibet issue, isn't it quite possible, quite plausible, that a few people out of 1 321 851 888 candidates took it just a wee bit too far? Why on earth must the government be under suspicion before we even have a clue as to who did it?

Re:In Other News

[niceone]

I guess normally cnn could handle a slashdotting, but why add to their woes today? Anyway I couldn't read TFA, the sever was dead. Maybe it's best if other people don't try!

Not smart

[sdo1]

If it is a government sponsored attack, then it's really not very smart. It just serves to bring attention to the issue, not bury it.

Poking at big news bureaus like this doesn't make them back down. It makes them more resolute in their reporting and possibly (probably) more biased against your cause.

-S

Re:Well, let's take a look at this ..

[MollyB]

[...] They need to be found out and put away for a few years. On the other hand, if it was sponsored by the Chinese leadership it means they're attempting to extend their brand of censorship worldwide. In which case, they also need to be put away for a few years.

Sir, I refer you to the concept Belling the Cat [wikipedia.org]. If one found merit in your suggestion, how would you propose to carry it out?
(takes a giant step backwards)

Re:"One has to wonder..."

[dreamchaser]

It is probably more along the lines of a wink and a nod and looking the other way, not organized government sponsorship. As others have noted, the 'Great Firewall' could easily block DOS attacks but didn't in this case.

Re:Cold War

[MrNaz]

Run! The Germa^WCommu^WChinese are coming!

Re:Time not on their side

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they will implode. They now have amazing manufacturing capabilities -- all thanks to the many high-tech companies that outsourced everything to China.

And the way the government works over there, maybe they will just go out and kill anyone who dares to starve and charge the family for the bullet.

If China implodes, chances are good the US will have imploded before they do. And if it comes to that, do you really want any nuclear power to implode? I'm betting they would make demands of Taiwan and Tibet and if there was not cooperation, China would go to war to secure the resources.

And as to time not being on China's side, that's one thing China has always used to advantage. The plan ahead and they wait. They make 5 year plans look like child's play. Think of the Chinese water torture. They use time as an ally.

Hackers or government?

[Alwin Henseler]

On the other hand, if it was sponsored by the Chinese leadership (..)

Yes, that would be interesting to know. But one of the more insightful views I've heard recently in the China vs. Tibet matter, is that "after so many years of communist rule, it is hard for Chinese people to make a distinction between government, communist party, policy and country". As a result, criticism of Chinese actions concerning Tibet may be felt not as attacks on policy, but attacks on the Chinese people and country. Don't know if that is true, but I'd welcome readers from China to comment on that.

There is a big difference between saying "you are bad" and saying "you are doing something bad". I guess the real gain is that more people (including the Chinese) are talking about Tibet now, and maybe someday the Chinese *people* will realize that Tibetans just want the same thing as the Chinese: run their own affairs, be left alone, and live in peace with their neighbors.

In general I feel that whenever 'weapons' (DoS attacks, censorship, physical force) are used to end a discussion, it means that party has run out of reasonable arguments (and in a way, admits moral defeat).

Re:Cold War

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the most capitalistic sense of the word :P

Re:Hackers or government?

[Don_dumb]

Yes, that would be interesting to know. But one of the more insightful views I've heard recently in the China vs. Tibet matter, is that "after so many years of communist rule, it is hard for Chinese people to make a distinction between government, communist party, policy and country". As a result, criticism of Chinese actions concerning Tibet may be felt not as attacks on policy, but attacks on the Chinese people and country. Don't know if that is true, but I'd welcome readers from China to comment on that.

There is a big difference between saying "you are bad" and saying "you are doing something bad". I guess the real gain is that more people (including the Chinese) are talking about Tibet now, and maybe someday the Chinese *people* will realize that Tibetans just want the same thing as the Chinese: run their own affairs, be left alone, and live in peace with their neighbors.

This is clearly one of the real problems with the West criticizing China but it isn't unique to China. Many Americans reacted in a similar manner when the rest of the world criticized the Iraq war (freedom fries anyone) , people took it to be an attack on themselves as well as their government. Someone yesterday pointed out the similarity to the US civil war where the Southerners took criticism of slavery with a personal attack on themselves and their heritage. Just like faith versus fact, it is impossible to have a sane and worthwhile argument.

Re:Cold War

[winkydink]

Actually, the Chinese are communists.

In name only

Re:Hackers or government?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care. That's not "Chinese." Theirs is an insular culture not introspective. Granted western introspective nature does have some narcissistic aspects to it, but not like chinese culture. We recognize our narcissism and generally reguard it as a fault. Chinese are the people they want to be, and they've formed the government they deserve. Never forget they chose "The Gate of Heavenly Peace" for themselves. It wasn't something done to them. It wasn't descended upon them from another planet. It was something they chose for each other, their fellow countrymen. And they all chose to ignore it, accept it, and maintain the status quo. It is the country they collectively chose to form, and reform.

Honestly, Nixon "opening" china was probably a mistake. It's cost us our integrity by virtualizing slavery for crappy socks, and cheap crappy DVD players and it's cost them opportunity to escape the morass they've chosen for themselves. There is no morality in Chinese politics, only authority.

Re:In Other News

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot's user base is *over*-sexed. Just under-fucked.

Re:Hackers or government?

[Count Fenring]

Although, as far as I recall, there wasn't an American DDOS attack on British news sources based on the Iraq thing, government sponsored or not.

And as far as the Chinese... as long as you are going to be horrible to entire nations like that, people are going to say bad things about you. Why, look at us! Quit whining about it, either stop or accept that the world can recognize your evil actions for what they are.

I would prefer them to stop, by the way. And I wish we'd (USA) stop treating them like they're our best chums while they're violating human rights on international scales.

Re:Hackers or government?

[ScrewMaster]

In general I feel that whenever 'weapons' (DoS attacks, censorship, physical force) are used to end a discussion, it means that party has run out of reasonable arguments (and in a way, admits moral defeat).

The man who raises a fist has run out of ideas. -- H.G. Wells, "Time after Time"

Re:Hackers or government?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that it's not unique to China, but it sure seems stronger there, doesn't it?

I've met tons of Americans who criticize their own government.

I've met Taiwanese people who bash the hell out of their government, calling it a corrupt charade.

I've met French people who -- though generally positive about their country -- have intelligent criticisms of their leaders.

I've met Singaporeans who, while recognizing the state's economic successes, bemoan the state of their country's government-controlled press, who resent the heavy-handed restriction of free speech and honest reporting.

All the Cubans I've ever met wished for Fidel Castro's death -- and are sorely disappointed that power has been handed over to Raul.

I've met tons of Chinese people -- many more Chinese than Taiwanese, or French, or Singaporean, or Cuban. So why the hell have I yet to meet a Chinese person critical of their own government?

In fact, it's worse than that. Even the many Chinese-Americans I've known -- people who either were born in the US or moved here as small children, people who you would think would not have been bombarded by the Chinese state media -- tend to be Chinese nationalists, supportive of whatever the country does.

I just don't get it.

There's this incredible conflation going on of the Han race, the Chinese ethnicity, and the government of the People's Republic of China. It's in the CCP's interest to confuse these separate concepts as much as possible, as it buys them the loyalty of not just their own subjects but also of Chinese people around the world -- who, if they paused and thought for a second, would realize they they have little more in common with the CCP's ruling elite than a few genetic markers.

More, it severely hampers debate, because the minute an American or European caucasian speaks critically of the CCP on the Tibet issue, *BAM*, a bunch of brainwashed Chinese people (please, don't get hung up on this: most people of any ethnicity are idiots) come out swinging with a bunch of prepackaged straw-man talking points (kind of like American conservatives):

1 - "You're just racist." Way to use an ad-hominem argument there. Even if I am, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

2 - "Well, YOU are in Iraq." For starters, I am not in Iraq, you unable-to-separate-a-person-from-his-government moron; the idiot president of my country made that call, not me. And besides, it's irrelevant; your argument hardly justifies Chinese control of Tibet; it sounds an awful lot like, "Oh yeah? Well YOU beat your wife too!"

3 - "You European imperialists can't criticize us!" See #1 above. Just because the Dutch raped South Africa doesn't mean it's China's turn to fuck over other countries too.

4 - "We have historical claims to Tibet." For starters, who the heck is "we?" What do you get, personally, from Chinese control of Tibet? Why are you identifying with the CCP? And more, why do ancient territorial claims matter? Gaul was once part of the Roman empire; does that give modern Italy a claim to France? The stated present-day desire of Tibetans to rule themselves is the most relevant claim.

The problem is that you can't just ignore this trend by Chinese people of conflating "Chinese-ness" with supporting the CCP. Until this social trend is reversed, the sad truth is that Westerners will not be paranoid for finding the loyalty of Chinese people suspect.

I know this post will get modded down to hell, as it's incredibly un-PC, probably comes across as a little racist, and if you inspect it a little more deeply is also just plain bitter. But it's not a parroted stereotype -- just the disappointed real-life observation of someone who expected more out of people.

Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Cafferty used the microphone in his hands to slander China and the Chinese people (and) seriously violated professional ethics of journalism and human conscience," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Tuesday at a news conference

I was not aware that China was recognizing a professional ethics of journalism code... You know, when you imprison journalist based on political beliefs, force state-run journalist to run stories favorable to the government, etc

I sincerely hope that the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman was joking about it!

Re:Regarding China and the US

[tresriogrande]

This brings a very important point, that the Chinese as a whole does not believe, rightfully, in democracy in the form exists particular in the U.S. Not to be confused with some Chinese do believe, but the vast majority don't. With the huge population, culture, and history, the Chinese has different set of values. You don't have to agree with them, but you have no right to judge them when yourself are guilty of worse atrocities worldwide.

Re:Hackers or government?

[smitingpurpleemu]

So Western hypocrisy is OK. Got it. We never criticize anyone for the shit it does unless in retaliation. We stopped that practice in the 1980's. If you leave us alone and STFU, we will leave you alone and STFU, and both of us can profit from trade. Apparently the West can't understand that simple fact, and want to take over our country as well as making our money. No dice, China is too strong for your imperialist ploys.

Re:Hackers or government?

[dwater]

...and maybe someday the Chinese *people* will realize that Tibetans just want the same thing as the Chinese: run their own affairs, be left alone, and live in peace with their neighbors

The trouble is that people in 'the west' have been educated to think that Tibet is independent (or should be), and so any argument or commentary starts with that assumption. I have yet to see any commentary in the western media that isn't dripping with blatant bias. This mostly has come about due to the anti-communist attitude of various US presidents and their attempts to work against communism, whether directly or surreptitiously.

I also have yet to see any reference to the historical involvement of Britain and the US in Tibet, and especially in inciting Tibetan leaders to push for independence with promises of support and actual supplies of weapons.

Furthermore, the 'peaceful' Tibetan culture that existed until fairly recently was, iinm, based on the cast system and extraordinarily 'unfair' (to put it mildly) to the majority of the population, in favour of the ruling religious leaders. It is only right that China should want to change such a system in one of it's own provinces - just like it's trying to remove corruption from all of China.

The recent protests in Tibet are only taking advantage of the olympics - if their were no olympics, then there would be no violent protest. Furthermore, I posit that it is the protesters that are causing violence and deaths, not the army/police/etc. as portrayed/suggested by the western media.