China Says It Lacks Skills To Hack US Systems 507
ScentCone writes "A spokesman for China's foreign ministry says that — China being the 'developing nation' that it is — he doubts that his country has the sophistication to hack foreign systems. This in response to statements by two congressmen regarding apparent probing by China-based crackers into congressional systems for information about communication between US officials and activists in China."
Re:South Park defense (Score:1, Informative)
step 1, hide source (Score:5, Informative)
China has large internet user base and the average Jin would likely secure their home machine as well as average Joe across the ocean.
Re:whats more likely (Score:4, Informative)
"The extent of the intrusions on Capitol Hill, which officials said began in August 2006, was unclear, although Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), whose office had four computers affected, said that other members of Congress were targeted, as well as at least one congressional committee. "They got everything," Wolf said at a news briefing, describing the attack on his office systems.
Wolf said that after one of the attacks, a car with license plates belonging to Chinese officials went to the home of a Chinese dissident in the Washington suburbs and took photographs of it."
Re:South Park defense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:China lacks the skills? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:South Park defense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:South Park defense (Score:3, Informative)
China does get into wars (though historically with itself, and is claiming areas taken by the Mongols(Tibet is not historically part of China). Though "The Art of War" advises against fighting, it was not written because of a history of peace.
People started moving out of caves 8,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture in the fertile crescent.
Hate to spoil the punchline... (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite as impressive as you suggest. (Score:2, Informative)
Most of the filtering isn't even being handled by the "Great Firewall" but is instead handled by individual ISP's instituting their own filtering methods and complying with government issued blocklists, as well as citizen self censorship. While I don't mean to suggest that China doesn't have the programming talent to attack other nations networks (especially our American soft and squishy ones), but the "Great Firewall" is hardly a golden example of technological achievement.
(Wikipedia has a fairly good outline of China's known practices, those interested might want to take a look at it before doing some more in-depth research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China [wikipedia.org])
Re:South Park defense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:China lacks the skills? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:3, Informative)
There, fixed it.
Re:South Park defense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:South Park defense (Score:3, Informative)
China gets in wars/military actions like anyone else, but when they do it, the purpose is to take away freedoms.
Re:South Park defense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:China lacks the skills? (Score:4, Informative)
To English and German, an "A" is an "A" and really does not mean anything in and of itself. The alphabet denotes sounds that when strung together have a meaning.
In Chinese and Japanese, each character has a specific meaning in itself. It is that meaning that carries between both languages - one does not even need to know how to pronounce the character to understand its meaning.
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a good site to give you an overview [cryptography.com].
Re:South Park defense (Score:2, Informative)
Then what do you call the massive flood of chinese troops and equipment into Korea when the UN had pushed past the 38th parallel?
China most certainly does "get into wars"
And guess what - the thing you describe was first used and put to paper more than 2000 years ago by Sun Tzu. It's part of "The Art of War". I'd suggest you go read it.
Re:South Park defense (Score:3, Informative)
US Congress didn't declare war, what they did was that they gave authorization for Bush to use armed forces in defense of USA and for enforcing UN policies. Thus Giving Bush under conditions, the right to send America into war.
Now heres where things get interesting.
Firstly with Iraq, you were not at peace, you simply had a cease-fire arrangement. Peace was never officially declared after the Gulf war in 1990.
Thus by UN standards, USA never started a war, they simply resumed the Gulf war many years later. Thus they were in compliance with UN requirements
As we know, Saddam broke many un policies, including allowing UN weapon inspection teams.
Because of the refusal in compliance to UN policies, and the authorization from congress a year earlier in defense of UN policies, Bush had legal entitlement to used armed forces.
Thus we find that by legal UN loopholing, and by a no balls/brains congress, Bush legally sent USA into war.
What i also find interesting, is that the USA are still at war with N. Korea, since they never made peace there either, its still a cease-fire arrangement after several decades...
I guess Bush just had his hands too full with Iraq during his terms in office.
Re:China lacks the skills? (Score:3, Informative)
times they are a changing?
Re:South Park defense (Score:2, Informative)
nanking
look it up and shut your face
Re:China lacks the skills? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:China lacks the skills? (Score:3, Informative)
Depending on the number of Kanji in a piece of Japanese text, I can extract the meaning sometimes better than automatic online translations. I don't know any Japanese, but experience is that most of the important words are written in Kanji, while the Japanese characters are usually there for grammatical purposes.
Usually the problem when reading Japanese is the heavy use of Katakana, due to Japanese adopting a lot of western terms (even for things not of western origin).
For meaning of the characters, I can tell you that they aren't exactly the same, but are similar enough that usually Chinese are able to extract the general idea. The fact that Kanji was introduced to Japan a long time ago isn't really relevant. With a little bit of training a person who's proficient in (modern) Chinese can read ancient Chinese texts up to 2000 years ago (in its original form) without problem. The Chinese language has been remarkably stable/stagnant in the past 2000 years...
I'm not sure whether the Japanese could read Chinese without training though, I think they learn less Kanji than Chinese learn Chinese characters, and a difficult piece of Chinese text might be indecipherable...