Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Upgrades

USA Busted Trying to Bug China's Presidential 767 510

Posted by chrisd from the what-part-of-covert-didn't-you-get dept.
morcheeba writes "A new Boeing 767-300ER was refitted to become China's presidental aircraft. What goes into a plane like this? Besides the bedroom, sitting room, bath with a shower, there was a 48" TV, satellite communications, anti-missile defense systems and advanced avionics. And oh yeah, numerous high-tech listening devices. Wonder how those got in. Read the article at washingtonpost.com." CD: The question is, what was the bug in the headboard for?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USA Busted Trying to Bug China's Presidential 767 More

USA Busted Trying to Bug China's Presidential 767

Comments Filter:

  • Whole new meaning to the term Bedbug! (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtomicSushi ( 444823 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:20AM (#2867025) Homepage
    Don't let the CIA bite.
  • Maybe they set their watches wrong, and are now set to Apr 1st?
    Could it be true?

  • Pillow talk, obviously. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <slashdot@russnelson.com> on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:21AM (#2867035) Homepage
    The bug in the headboard? For picking up pillow talk, obviously.
    -russ
    • Let me get this straight: they stuck a bugging device in the headboard of the Chinese premier's bed so they could listen in on pillow talk?

      Gee, I'd love to join the Mile High Club when I'm in my eighties, too!

      (Clue: if Tony Blair had a VIP transport of his own, this theory might make sense. But Chinese heads of state seem to get the office on account of having outlived all their grandchildren ...)

  • My favorite quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by anonymous loser ( 58627 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:21AM (#2867036)
    A CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, declined to comment on the report, saying, "We never comment on allegations like these, as a matter of policy."
    ...except when we didn't do it.

  • Reversed situation (Score:5, Funny)

    by MiTEG ( 234467 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:23AM (#2867051) Homepage Journal
    Since so many things are manufactured in China and exported to the USA, who's to say that the Chinese haven't been doing this for years? I think it would be very easy to covertly place bugs in things the president has in the Oval Office or Air Force One (electronics, etc.) They just might be doing it a lot more effectively.

    • Re:Reversed situation (Score:5, Funny)

      by flacco ( 324089 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @03:30AM (#2867421)
      Since so many things are manufactured in China and exported to the USA, who's to say that the Chinese haven't been doing this for years?

      It's probably more effective to bug Xiang's 767 than it is to bug several million flip-flops.

    • Exactly - go to your nearest McDonald's and destroy all the Happy Meal toys ASAP.

      -Kevin

    • Re:Reversed situation (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fgk ( 552217 )

      Actually, word has it that the DOD does not use any NIC's produced in China, because of possible off-network data streams, ie it is possible to have a nic duplicate a stream of data packets oubound from a targets system, after sending a command to that NIC, remotely. One of the ideas was that the Chinese military is one of the biggest manf's of electronics (dual-use purposes also), and quite possibly could 'bug' almost any system.

      No, this isn't the X-Files.

    • Bush's special interests (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:19PM (#2868830)
      First off two wrongs don't make a right. The bigger question to me is why would the US do this to a plane that will be examined from the top down the second it gets delivered? The mostly likely conclusion is to generate more tensions between the US and China.

      From the get-go the bush administration has been very adamant on trying to create a new red-scare ostensibly to help defense contracts get through. Think back before 9/11 and look at the various games of cat and mouse the US has been playing with China.

      The sad part is that there is lots of trade to be lost by being percieved as the world's biggest spy. Look at the European take on MS and government collusion, Echelon, etc.

      In the end this kind of strategy will cost companies revenues, jobs, and negatively affect the economy just to appease the military-industrial complex. In a slumping economy pissing off your potential customers is very bad business and I doubt the big defense contracts are going to make up for what the US is going to lose in trade by its reputation. Even if they did the money comes from American taxes, so its a no-win situation.

      This is cold war politics at action. The Russians took this kind of thing as par for the course, but our current administration does not have a firm grasp on how important perception is in the 21st century. The old cold war games may now not be non-event exchanges but could cost us dearly.

  • USA's response (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:26AM (#2867060)
    It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature.
  • That's the best thing about paranoia... once you get started, it just builds and builds upon itself until it encompasses everything.


    Whether this is true or not does not matter. China figured that they overpaid for the work on the plane. The Chinese government paid $30 million to the Chinese Air Force, who paid the American firms $10,000,000 to do the job. What's a great way to get out of paying your bills? If you're a big nuclear superpower, just make an international incident out of it!


    Cryptnotic

  • A matter of trust (Score:5, Funny)

    by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:37AM (#2867119) Homepage Journal

    You know I've often wondered how countries can trust US equipment sold to them (or Russian equipment, etc): Who says that the day Saudi Arabia pisses the US off all of their F15s might respond to the "die now" signal and plummet to the ground? If I were ever to buy hardware from a country other than my own I'd go through every single mm of it with a fine tooth comb, and then I'd reflash every piece of circuitry, etc: There is no way I'd ever trust what was delivered. Sorta defeats the premise of military trade, but perhaps that's a good thing.

    If this story is true then this will be a disaster for US military and commercial companies: Already there is a world wary of Echelon, but if now they have to worry about every other device being trojan horsed. Having said that, the next time you drink from that "made in China" cup, think to yourself "Would it be in their national interest to put a chemical that slowly leaches into Westerner's systems, causing cancer or just stupifying the society (i.e. lead)."

    • Re:A matter of trust (Score:4, Funny)

      by ArcticChicken ( 172915 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:51AM (#2867185)
      I've often said that if China ever planned to conquer the world, they wouldn't use something as expensive, messy, and overt as nuclear weapons. They'd simply release masses of cheap, defective electrical products.

      Umm ... wait a minute...
    • By the same token why would you standardise on an operating system or office software that was built by a US firm. It's infinately easier to install "listening devices" into windows or office then to install them in an airplane. Combine this with the fact that every single company and govt office in your country is going to run the thing on every single desktop and you have a disaster ready to happen.

      The CIA (or NSA, or FBI, or MS) theoretically would be able to read any document, created by any application, on any desktop. That would be a much more powerful spying tool then a bug in an airplane that gets used infrequently.

      • Re:A matter of trust (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 )
        The Chinese have thought of that as well, and are working towards a solution [wsws.org].

    • Re:A matter of trust (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Cato the Elder ( 520133 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @04:30AM (#2867536) Homepage
      I don't know if it would be all that bad. Remember, this isn't some random plane, this is one specifically retrofitted for high-level Chinese government officials. It's a matter of respect for our spooks to bug it--shows we're taking them seriously. Then their spooks comb the plane, trying to find _all_ the bugs we planted. The Russians did the same thing with the embassy they built for us, I'm sure we did the same for them.

    • Re:A matter of trust (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hs81 ( 62329 )
      Maybe I'm getting more cynical as I get older but spying is just a fact of life. The US spies on even its friends in Europe and the Europeans are happy to return the favour. Even as individuals we are guilty of the same impulse to watch our neighbours simply out of curiousity. Spying is, and always will be, a fact of life and frankly I'm surprised that the Chinese expected anything less. The only way that this could have been avoided would have been to make it explicit in the contact that once the aircraft was delivered it would be stripped down to search for such devices.
    • Argh, why does this article come as a supprise to people? I mean, you can be absolutly sure that the moment the Chinese got the plane they had their best people combing the thing for bugs!

      It is ABSOLUTLY EXPECTED that there would be bugs in the thing! That's why this _incident_ will blow over in a second, and i guarantee there will be no consequences for US companies! Frankly the only thing that would supprise me (although not too much) is if Boeing _actually_ knew what the CIA was doing!

      As I can remember it being said in at least one movie: "We bug them, they bug us. That's how it works."

      For another example, when that US spy plane made an emergency landing on Chinese territory early last year, sure some feathers were ruffled when the chinese basically pulled the thing apart for technology secrets, but as you may have read, back in the late 80's i believe, when a Soviet MIG made a similar emergency landing in Germany (i think it was) the United States sent the plane back AFTER 6 months, IN BOXES! In other words, it is expected, and accounted for _always_.

      I believe it's called "intelligence" or "Spying".
    • It sounds like somebody has been reading David Gerrold's _War_on_the_Chtorr_ series.
  • ...was for Cinemax's new "World Leaders: EXPOSED" series. Coming this fall. You don't wanna know what they caught Jean Chretien doing -- or DO you?

    - A.P.

  • Yup (Score:2, Interesting)

    by J4 ( 449 )
    Is this a surprise? Gotta wonder how much of the tech China bought during the Clinton administration is booby-trapped

  • Other way cool spying gizmos (Score:5, Informative)

    by S Nichol ( 230334 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:43AM (#2867143)
    The US has also used the following nifty tricks to spy on its enemies and its allies:

    1. The ambassador in some Communist country (maybe even the USSR, I don't remember exactly which) would avoid potential bugs in his office by holding conversations on the balcony outside. Intelligence officials noticed there was often a lot of branches on the ground, so they put together a fake tree branch containing a listening device and planted it outside the balcony. Eventually a gardener picked it up, but said intelligence officials grabbed it out of the trash, dusted it off, and replanted it.

    2. When Khruschev came to visit the US during the 1960s, the CIA spent $2 million to divert the plumbing to his hotel bathroom to a special container so they could analyze his fecal matter. Apparently they were hoping to find out if rumors he had cancer were true. The $2 million conclusion? Khruschev needed more fibre in his diet.

    3. The Cabinet room in Ottawa (the capital of Canada for the ignorant) has special curtains that are always drawn. The reason? The US Embassy (an ugly postmodern glass-and-steel combo with foot-thick windows) is just across the street, and happens to have a ton of spying equipment on the roof, including laser devices capable of picking up subtle vibrations of windows and passing the data to a computer that spits out a coherent version of the conversation.

    4. The CIA (although I thought the NRO - National Reconnaissance Office - ran American spy satellite operations) is rumored to have at least one satellite that has the space version of stealth technology. This satellite reportedly uses mirrors to foil visual detection from the ground, thereby enabling to spy on without knowing he is being watched.
    • The Cabinet room in Ottawa (the capital of Canada for the ignorant) has special curtains that are always drawn. The reason? The US Embassy (an ugly postmodern glass-and-steel combo with foot-thick windows) is just across the street, and happens to have a ton of spying equipment on the roof, including laser devices capable of picking up subtle vibrations of windows and passing the data to a computer that spits out a coherent version of the conversation.

      Why would the US be spying on CANADA?

      Conversely, why would Canada fear US spying?
      • The US spys on its allies, just as Canada spys on her allies. We spy on each other, it's the price of being friends.

        Canada doesn't fear US spying in the lower levels of government, like I said, it's a price of being friends. What we fear is the US trying to control our Cabinet by knowing what its issues are and how dicisions are made.

        Remember the level of government of Canada go (Top to bottom)

        Governor-General (Effectivly Canada's president, but she represents the Queen)
        Prime Minister (Real Power)
        Cabinet (Federal Minsitries)
        Commons/Senate (Representatives of the population/provinces respectivly)
        Lieutenant Governors (Governor's of the Provinces)
        Premiers (Prime Minsiter of the Province)
        Provincial Cabinet
        Provincial Legislature/Provincial Parliament
    • Easy. The US is trying to get our superior beer recipes...
  • I mean, good grief, if Karl Marx wasn't already spinning like a gyroscope in his grave over running 'the people' over with tanks and the like, he would have to going nuts over the general downfall of genius-communism exhibited by the Chinese government here. The U.S. spys on everybody, including friends, so how did they think they would send an airplane back to the U.S. and not have the CIA get their hands on it?

    From Lenin to Jiang Zemin is obviously not progress.

  • A CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, declined to comment on the report, saying, "We never comment on allegations like these, as a matter of policy."

    ...did you by chance work for Microsoft before?

  • Not Neccesarily the USA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dragons_flight ( 515217 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:51AM (#2867184) Homepage
    Okay, it's certainly the most likely scenario that the CIA would bug this plane, but I can't help but wonder if it isn't too obvious? Besides isn't 20+ bugs a little overkill? With that many you're almost certain to get caught and the you'd have to really want the intelligence enough that you'd hope a few wouldn't get found.

    So what are the alternatives? I suppose there are a few other countries with the technology, and a few that might want to spy on China. India might be the next most likely, but they still seem pretty unlikely to be in a position to pull it off. Perhaps it was an inside job then? Maybe China wants a diplomatic incident? Or, maybe their spy agency would be interested in bugging their own president?

    Since no one ever confesses in these situations, and it's unlikely that there will ever be enough proof to really say who accomplished this or how. My money is still on the CIA though, but it forces me to wonder whether the administration is a bit more frightened than they let on? I mean what does it really say if the intelligence is so valuable that they'd risk an almost certain diplomatic incident by using so many bugs on the hope a few bugs would remain undiscovered.

    On the other hand, it's equally fair to wonder whether the US wants a diplomatic incident? But I have a hard time justifying that one in these times. Isn't terrorism a good enough evil for the 21st century?
    • Okay, it's certainly the most likely scenario that the CIA would bug this plane, but I can't help but wonder if it isn't too obvious?

      The CIA isn't always the picture of subtlety, you know.

      Besides isn't 20+ bugs a little overkill? With that many you're almost certain to get caught and the you'd have to really want the intelligence enough that you'd hope a few wouldn't get found.

      We really want the intelligence. Boy howdy, do we ever want that intelligence. The repercussions of being caught are really relatively minor, compared with the potential benefits should the bugs go undiscovered for a while.

      On the other hand, it's equally fair to wonder whether the US wants a diplomatic incident? But I have a hard time justifying that one in these times. Isn't terrorism a good enough evil for the 21st century?

      Ooh, goody! Let's play conspiracy theory!

      No, terrorism isn't a good enough evil, at least not for military budgets. The American people are only going to put up with that war for so long. It'll be handy for political use, but not for pushing money around long-term. What's needed is a good, solid cold war. You get the occasional flash points (Vietnam, Korea, Guam...) for political brownie points, and you get to pump money into military contractors at a sustained high rate. Not to mention other strategic industries like, say, energy production.

      On the other hand, maybe the general feeling is that the Chinese can only afford to distance themselves from us so much right now, so it's a great time to mess with 'em a little and see what we can get away with.

    • Re:Not Neccesarily the USA (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @04:13AM (#2867502)
      Finally, a post with a little thought behind it. I also think we should consider the possibility that the USA was deliberately looking for an incident, and here's why: Everybody in the Bush administration whose voice matters (Bush is not one of these) is a fossil of the cold war. They can't understand foreign policy without a cold war structure.

      There is plenty of evidence the US took active steps to reawaken a cold war, this time with China as the enemy. For a while we were doing absolutely everything we could to piss them off: We bombed their embassy "by mistake," we made it obvious that our spy planes are over their country (one of them crashed), Rumsfeld canceled the decades-long practice of mutual military inspections with China, we are building SDI again, and a bunch of other stuff. All of this shows a clear pattern: we were trying to provoke China to do something that we could point at and say: Hey, look at how evil China is! Then we'd have a "justification" to retaliate with something totally disproportionate, pissing them off even more, and that's all it takes to have a cold war! Fortunately, China appears to have a much more civilized foreign policy than the US and they didn't take the bait.

      Remember that the microphones were planted before September 2001, and the order to plant them is older still. Fortunately for our warmongering administration, bin Laden handed them a kinder present than anything they could have imagined. Now they have a new enemy that they can indiscriminately call "evil" and the world makes sense to them again. This takes the heat off China, but we can't debug the plane by remote control.

    • Besides isn't 20+ bugs a little overkill?

      No. A bug on a plane is mainly going to pick up noise. Barring some amazing noise-cancelling technology, the bug wants to be within three feet of the person speaking. And that's stretching it. So 20 bugs would provide at best very spotty coverage of the plane's interior.
    • but I can't help but wonder if it isn't too obvious?

      Maybe these bugs where the ones meant to be found.

  • Everybody spies on everybody (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kenneth_martens ( 320269 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @02:03AM (#2867225)
    This is not suprising: the US spies on everyone, including allies (yes, even Britain.) (In fact, I saw a documentary the other day about how we bugged the Xerox machine at the Soviet embassy, and got snapshots of all their documents for years.) So while it may be a little embarrassing to get caught, it isn't a revelation. China shouldn't take it personally--we spy on everyone.

    Of course, that doesn't mean spying is moral or ethical--that is another discussion entirely.

    • Re:Everybody spies on everybody (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @02:20AM (#2867274) Homepage
      China shouldn't take it personally--we spy on everyone.


      Then we should stop whining when we find out that other countries have been spying on us. It makes us look like a bunch of hypocritical crybabies.

    • It's not the bugs, it's the insult. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kwil ( 53679 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @03:26AM (#2867410)
      Heck, it's not the spying they're taking personally. It's the insult of not bothering to cover your tracks well enough.

      To put 20+ bugs in a plane and assume that the Chinese won't find them is simply insulting the Chinese intelligence community and via them, the Chinese government. That's what they're taking personally. It's kind of a "Just how stupid do you think we are?" personal.
    • I seem to remember reading that the United States and Britain have a "no-spying" clause.

      Mind you, given how far Tony Blair is up Dubya's arse, I don't think they'd need to spy to get all they need to know

  • We bug their buildings too (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Goonie ( 8651 ) <robert,merkel&benambra,org> on Saturday January 19, 2002 @02:10AM (#2867249) Homepage
    When the new Chinese embassy was built in Canberra, Australia, the Australian intelligence agencies attempted to riddle the building with bugs. Unfortunately, they got caught and it made the national papers. However, the Chinese barely made a squeak about it in public. I think we can safely assume they try to do the same things to us.
  • as you can imagine. I've heard a rumor when I was working for IB? in 1994 but since I couldn't find proof of it so take it a grain of salt.

    A report saying that H? has shipped to Middle East some printers which have suspicious chips hidden. It was discovered by China's agents. Due to embargo China had problems getting many advanced equipment thus must rely on their 'partners' to resell some of them, and discovered the case.

    Rumor said that these chips are not merely listening devices, but for more dangerous missile-guided purpose.

    Soon after this instance Microsoft shipped software that included anti-communist [infowar.com] messages.

    China has already lost much confidence in using US' technology since.

  • Maybe they just forgot (Score:3, Funny)

    by phalse phace ( 454635 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @02:19AM (#2867272)
    "the American firms were paid about $10 million for the refitting job but China doled out $30 million"

    Maybe China forgot that the extra $20 million they spent were for the bugs.

  • Rather than searching the plane to make sure all bugs/listening-devices are discovered, it would be easier just to fit a cone of silence [bcpl.net]

    "What's that Chief?!"
    "I'm sorry Max, you'll have to speak up!"

    :)
  • Could this be revenge for the U.S. spyplane that was downed by a Chinese fighter jet and disassembled by the Chinese last year? Think about it:

    • American spyplane flying near Chinese mainland (but over international waters) is struck by a Chinese fighter jet, damaging it and forcing it to land in China.
    • Chinese detain the Americans and go through the plane with a fine tooth comb, probably taking apart and documenting everything they find.
    • After a few months, Chinese dismantle the plane and force the U.S. to rent a C47 cargo jet to take the pieces back to the U.S.

    After that incident, I could see the U.S. wanting to "get back" at the Chinese. Maybe they put the bugs there specifically so that they would be found, or just because they think the Chinese like taking apart planes. You could see it as an "international practical joke".

    This is of course, assuming that the bugs were actually there. Right now, all we have to go on is second hand statements from the Chinese military. Personally, I think it is more likely that they are trying to get out of paying the bill.

    Cryptnotic

    • Um... let me get this straight: an American spy plane fucked up a Chinese plane over their territory, killing the pilot, and you think that WE are the ones who should retaliate? I might be missing something, but I suspect it's not me.

      • Facts.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday January 19, 2002 @04:30AM (#2867537) Journal
        We have these things called Facts...

        1: The American spy plane was in international waters (as recognized by the rest of the world save China)

        2: The pilot of the Chinese plan was killed because he flew too close to a larger plane and ran into it

        • Re:Facts.. (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by Anonymous Coward
          . . . And I'm sure you'd react the exact same way if a Chinese plane was caught "in international waters" a few miles off of the coast of California and an American plane went down when it just "got too close," right?

          No, you and the rest of the fucktard "patriots" in the U.S. would be calling for nuking China.
  • I've figured it all out. The US has been spying on China for quite some time (the new cold war?) and I know what they want. I can't believe I didn't discover this fact when the US spy plane went down over China. They want the infamous egg salad recipe [lefthandfilms.com]. So much trouble for such a small item.

  • Copiers in USSR were bugged. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ardias ( 544478 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @03:11AM (#2867372) Homepage
    Way back when Xerox sold copiers to the Soviets, they installed little microfilm cameras in them. The Soviets paid Xerox for maintenance contracts. The field technicians who serviced the copiers would secretly replace the microfilm cannisters when they changed the ink cartridges. The film cannisters were given to the US government as part of a separate service contract with the US.

    Eventually, the Soviets figured out the ruse.

    Obviously, the US government has taken advantage of US technology to bug the Chinese plane also. Just shows there is a benefit to being the world's technological leader. All your enemies have to come to the US for parts and service.
  • is not that we did it, but that we got caught. China wouldn't pass up on a chance to eavesdrop on our leaders....hell, FRANCE probably wouldn't. But anyone contemplating this kind of move has to consider the risk benefit ratio. What were we risking? Not much. China already knows we spy on them, just as they do us. But getting caught does make us look stupid, and someone's head should role for that.

  • Made in USA? (Score:4, Informative)

    by cheezehead ( 167366 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @04:19AM (#2867517)
    I'm wondering: were this bugs marked "made in USA"?

    Seems silly, but (slightly offtopic): years ago, the US tapped a Soviet military communications cable that was running underwater in some bay somewhere near the Asian Soviet coast. Worked well for a while, but when the Soviets finally discovered the tapping device/recorder, it turned out it was marked "Property of the United States government". Somewhat amusing.

    You can read all about it in "Blind Man's Bluff" by Sherry Sontag et al.

  • That's why China doesn't like US-equipment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @07:01AM (#2867771)
    .. even software.

    Any manufactured item which doesn't have it's guts wide open always have the possibility of stuff like this.
    It is actually rather impossible to know wether for instance MS-software does not have government requested back doors.
    Free software probably also have some risk, because it would be impossible for someone to be sure that the millions of lines of source code, some which are rather difficult to understand, could not have some small back door.
  • Ok, I found a web page [ap.org] for it!

    From the Associated Press, in response to the Enron ordeal:
    [snip]
    The spokesman [Ari] said Bush is always ``looking out to protect America's jobs and taxpayers' money.'' He noted, for example, that Bush has talked to China about purchasing a Boeing aircraft.
    [snip]

    I'm always looking in this paper for the dumb shit they report, but this is got to be the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

    Of course they want them to buy Boeing aircraft, the special ones.

    I must somewhat defend the CIA or whoever did this. I mean, they spy on us... why not spy on them for a change. I'm sure the Chinese have planted a few bugs here and there.

    It's just funny they got caught is all.
  • Why in the name of all that is un-american, would the chinese let a bunch of yankies have _anything_ to do with their leader's transport plane? we all know that the american government cannot be trusted, period, (especially since bush came in). surely they can make their own planes and 48" tv's?

  • Maybe it was one of the X10 cameras...?
    Anyway, you can get the headboard pics and wavs over at alt.binaries.erotica.amateur.chinese.government
    E njoy!
  • (no, the rest of this comment is not a M$ bash).

    There is a good reason you put 20+ bugs on the aircraft.

    You know the Chinese will inspect the aircraft with a fine tooth comb - they aren't stupid. So, one of two possible outcomes:
    1. They find no bugs. Then they get really suspicious, since they know we've bugged the plane
    2. The find some <N> bugs, and cannot find any more. Now, they have to assess whether their "N" bugs is large enough they can conclude they've found them all.

    So the trick is to plant N+M bugs, making sure that they are all so difficult to find that the Chinese are likely to only find N+X bugs, where X<M.

    As for the issues of spying - EVERYBODY SPYS ON EVERYBODY ELSE. That's how the game is played. You don't get pissed when you get fragged on "the hill" when you are playing King of the Hill (unless you are a complete lamer), and you don't get pissed when you find you are being spyed on by another contry. However, you DO make political hay of the event - that's part of the game as well.

    If we DIDN'T spy on everyone else, if we DIDN'T bitch when we caught them spying on us, then the rest of the world would point at us and make "googley" circles around their temples.

  • Spying is Business as Usual (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cryptochrome ( 303529 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:24PM (#2868852) Journal
    They spy on us, we spy on them, and generally it's not a bad thing because it gives insight into whether those you are spying on are posing a real threat or just being belligerent, and prevents either side from preparing surprise attacks. The diplomats know this, which is why you rarely hear of spying - it's just business.

    The question you should be asking is, why is China making such a big deal out of this now, when they haven't before? Why were they so aggressive towards that EP-3, and more recently the P-3? What might they have up their sleeve - an actual push on Taiwan, or a military challenge to the US in the Pacific? You should read Jane's [google.com] and Stratfor's [google.com] reports on the subject before you go crying on how unfair this is, particularly when the US has strong alliances with South Korea, Taiwan, and the Phillipines, and an obligation to defend Japan.

  • Oooh. Bugs. That's NOT the point! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Saturday January 19, 2002 @01:49PM (#2868937)
    Oooh, bugs. Yeah, no shit!

    There are always bugs in the residences of diplomats and the various cubby holes of mid-range political activity. But at the higher end of the scale. . . That is, if there are bugs on the Chinese version of Air Force One, then you can safely bet that they WILL be found.

    Which means that they were meant to be found.

    Bugs aren't interesting.

    The interesting thing is that it made high profile 'real' news (i.e., the Washington Post).

    Why? Easy. -To further the programming of public awareness on both sides of the Atlantic.

    -See stories about how China now filters Email. Look for similar material over the next few months.

    The highschool play unfolding on the world stage is clearly being performed in order to cast China in the role of the next big bad guy.

    Why?

    So that when the curtain finally goes up on 'act 2' (-That'd be the whole plot development between Pakistan, India and China, each with nukes, BTW), the U.S. will have paved the way for public sympathy in supporting the country most able to provide, um, oil. And general fear.

    I'm betting on concentration camps being open for business in the U.S. in another ten years. Maybe sooner.

    Why?

    Cuz Fear is Food. Solution? Refuse to play. Fear is a choice. Laugh a lot. Love your friends. Stay healthy. Learn how to avoid the bullshit, in the air, in your food, in the programming. The end of the world, (beginning of the new), only happens once in a very long while; Try to enjoy it!


    -Fantastic Lad

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close