Chinese Human Rights Orgs Hit By DDoS 156
Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "IDG News Service is reporting that several human rights organizations focusing on China have been hit by DDoS attacks this weekend, including Chinese Human Rights Defenders and Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch. The latter works on issues of mental persecution (dissidents being thrown into mental hospitals where they were forced onto medication or beaten with electric batons) and eminent-domain type problems (seizure of farmland or urban land without compensation when the government is working on a project)."
Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Think it was the chinese again?
I wonder what a full-blown revolt in China would look like nowadays...there are so many people living in that country, it would be insane.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they give them all TV sets that should be enough to pacify enough of them so that revolts don't happen.
It works great in developed countries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent has been marked funny, but I would argue that their statement is more true than most people realize.
Entertainment has a long history of use by oppressive regimes to give people something easy to focus on, and taking focus away from the terrible policies said regimes put in place.
Hell, the US has lost so many basic human rights in the last decade, that I'm amazed a civil war *didn't* break out. But hey... as long as people get to have their reality TV shows, it's all good, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, the US has lost so many basic human rights in the last decade, that I'm amazed a civil war *didn't* break out. But hey... as long as people get to have their reality TV shows, it's all good, right?
Or, you know, maybe it's not as bad as you like to believe it is. I mean, FFS, the US may have it's problems, but let's face it, it ain't fucking China.
But you're right, that can't be it. Clearly you're the enlightened one, therefore it *must* be TV...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
It worked, for awhile. (Score:2)
Notice how the Roman empire fell.
Re: (Score:2)
At an early age we learn the concept of persistence, but during the rest of our lives we painfully learn how nothing last forever.
All great (and not so great) empires fall.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how the Roman empire fell.
If your point is that it fell by continued complacence by Roman citizens, heavier and heavier reliance on foreign-born legionary soldiers, and increased pressure from upwardly sophisticated (often by those same soldiers going back home and taking what they learned from the legions with them) "barbarian" attacks from the tribes in Germania and Gual, and a continuously lops-sided and punitive tax code, yeah...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that the above poster was "blaming" entertainment, so much as pointing out that government USES entertainment. Let's face it - entertainers aren't necessarily the brightest of bulbs. Almost all the big names in Hollywood are liberals, for example. They aren't very sharp tools, but they are tools.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backward: TV sets make people unhappy. Advertising works by convincing you that you have a problem or are in some way inadequate, then offering you a solution in the form of a product. It's primary goal is to make you miserable. News works by terrifying you about something (anything) and convincing you that continuing to watch the program is of some mort
Re: (Score:2)
That really kind of defeats the purpose of paying people slave wages of cents per hour in the first place. So yeah, provide them with TV, a three bedroom furnished house, a fridge full of food, a garage with a car in it, comfortable clothing and of course reasonable working conditions, hmm, well that's why the middle class fought for a reasonable wages in the first place.
You can't really pacify people while exploiting them, at least not without drugs and, those drugs that leave them happy while still abl
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they revolt?
The have it better now than anytime in their history. Sure a few may come to the US and the EU but they will see the improvements that they have been making over time and expect them to continue.
Not to mention that they are proud that went from being a third world nation to a super power in a generation.
I don't like the way things work in China but if you look back to how they worked before I think you will see that a DOS and great firewall are progress compared to the cultural revolution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture and how the country works overnight? That must end well. Remember that the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese. I don't think the country could manage a huge change.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree, in general, with your statement, it should be pointed out that the current Chinese government is also responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese. While I personally think the Soviet Union still holds the title for Killing the Largest Number of Your Own People, the Chinese are running a close second.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture
The current political leaders aren't "Chinese culture". Chinese culture is represented by thousands of years of history, not the last few decades. In fact, Taiwan has a better link to Chinese "culture" than mainland China as that government is older.
What would they revolt for? Stability. Authoritarian regimes are unstable. Authoritarian regimes don't allow for pressure release valves causing tensions to build and build and build until they explode, like they are in the Western Provinces.
the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese
I can't tell if you are trolling or if you are an agent of the Chinese government. But, let me remind you that 1) the current government started a civil war to gain power 2) killed over 30 million people during the cultural revolution and 3) continue to kill people to this day for speaking out for human rights.
I don't think the country could manage a huge change.
The Chinese are a resilient people who have dealt with many more huge changes than any Western culture can fathom. It is arrogant and condescending to imply that the Chinese people cannot "handle" a more open system.
mod parent +6 (Score:2, Insightful)
nothing makes my blood boil more than these condescending western attitudes that nonwestern places have a "special" culture that means they can't appreciate or don't deserve basic things like participatory democracy
as if you cross the ural mountains or the mediterranean or the rio grande and *poof*, magic!: those people over there have a "special" thousands of years of history and a deep intricate culture that apparently teaches us... somehow... drum roll please... that its ok for autocracies to commit horr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm both amused and saddened that you were modded a troll when you're speaking so much truth. The "our culture is special" argument is paraded out by the Chinese government all the time, and each time they do it it stinks a little more.
Obama did it recently too, and I lost a lot of respect for him. There's being diplomatic and there's compromising your core values. I think there was more of the latter than the former in his statements.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Chinese are a resilient people who have dealt with many more huge changes than any Western culture can fathom.
Although I understand where the sentiment comes from, the statement is utter nonsense. Your point would be better served by leaving it out. I don't want to argue whether 'western' culture, whatever that might be, has seen more or less changes over the last few thousand years. My point is that comparing the histories of ill defined societies by equally unclear measures, is not helpful in any way.
It should suffice to say, that 'the Chinese' peoples have proven to be quite adaptable in the past, and there is l
Re: (Score:2)
True. True. My original statement, when I read it in your post, reminds me of the Simpsons:
"The gays are very clean people, they have been that way ever since they came here from France."
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that they could handle it. I am not sure that they want it yet.
As long as things seem to be improving or has the hope of improving I think the Chinese people will wait. The heart of Chinese culture has always seemed to me to be pragmatism. And to be honest I don't see any way for a revolution to work. For a revolution to work the people in power need to be weak or they need to feel that winning has a higher cost than not winning.
I don't think the powers that be in China fit in any of those categor
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. China put up the Great Firewall. That doesn't provide a warm-fuzzy feeling that they can handle change. From my limited knowledge of Chinese history, my impression is that change comes very slowly to China, if at all.
You statements seem unfounded and contrary to observations in plain view.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some have it better now. There are a billion people living in China, and only a minority have access to the improved standards of living that you are referring to. This is pretty much how things were in the Soviet Union: some people were better off, but most were either in the same position they were in before the revolution or in an even worse position as a result of the government's policies.
Sorry, I know that the Reagan/Thatcher concept is p
Re: (Score:2)
In the not too distant future you had war lords ruling large areas of China and western governments doing their best to treat China like a colony, after that you had the Japanese invasion, then you had the revolution leading up to the terror of the cultural revolution.
China has almost no history of human rights of freedom in the last 100 plus years.
Way to many people mistake my statements with approval. I do not approval of the actions of the Chinese government.
I was stating that the risk to benefit ratio
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I don't recall any major trade agreements signed by the Reagan administration. I do remember the Clinton administration pushing NAFTA through and extending Most Favored Nation status to China.
In any case, free trade is not a "Reagan/Thatcher concept." It's a concept put forward most famously by Adam Smith, and then theorized by David Ricardo (who subsequently pushed for the repeal of Britain's Corn Laws in the mid-1840
Not true (Score:2)
There are now two Chinas. The vast majority are working poor, and are severely and even cruelly suppressed. PBS has a good documentary about 1989 [pbs.org], which includes an extensive section on what working in China is like now, and how the country has been changing.
If you watch this documentary, you might easily see why a large number of chinese people might want to revolt, if they weren't so completely powerless.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they revolt?
The have it better now than anytime in their history. Sure a few may come to the US and the EU but they will see the improvements that they have been making over time and expect them to continue.
Not to mention that they are proud that went from being a third world nation to a super power in a generation.
I don't like the way things work in China but if you look back to how they worked before I think you will see that a DOS and great firewall are progress compared to the cultural revolution.
It's seemingly good for them -- for now. But there are a lot of parallels to America's own past. We had our Gilded Age and we had our bust after that, we had our Roaring 20's and our Great Depression. During the boom times, everyone thought that they could get their piece of the action, have a nice, thick slice of the pie. But when everything crashed, the average worker found out that they weren't left holding anything but the bag. This is why we could go from the rah-rah capitalism of the 20's to robber-ba
at some point, your economy stops growing (Score:2)
maybe even sinks a little. then all hell breaks lose
sure, everything is quiet now, and plenty support the grumpy old technocrats in beijing. because they are delivering massive economic growth. but the elite are living on borrowed time, because when things go south, and they will: no country grows economically unhindered forever, then the people will ask questions. and then the grumpy old men in beijing won't have answers, just platitudes and lies, and so the people will look to other grumpy old men to answ
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
No mods, not informative.
"First World" refers to the US, Western Europe, and allies. "Second World" refers to the Soviets and their allies. China was and has always firmly been among the "Third World."
Since the fall of the USSR, the "Second World" doesn't really exist, though the countries that made up the Eastern Bloc, including most of Eastern Europe, could be said to have been in the "Second World."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
don't make me laugh (Score:2)
China was and has always firmly been among the "Third World."
Please....where was your interpretation when China was mapping the globe - for the first time... inventing celestial navigation, gunpowder, the sundial and writing encyclopedias covering everything from bio-science, to zoology?
China once led the planet in many ways...she wants that well-deserved mantle back and small minds like yours will matter not...once again.
she wants that well-deserved mantle back (Score:2)
'Cause I'd really appreciate all that.
Re: (Score:2)
It could just as well be anyone else, even US gov to try to get people to blame China. Maybe it actually does have something to do with the fact that China isn't loaning so much money to US anymore and as an answer they're trying to make Chinese look bad. Maybe Google is in this plan too!
Yeah, anyone can throw in all kinds of theories, but we don't really know. It could just as likely be anyone else, even someone who just does it fun to see all these news around the internet.
Comment from article:
It's useless to ask the chinese government if they're responsible because the timing makes it so obvious they would feel it was pointless to admit it, It's just too obvious
Yeah right.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what a full-blown revolt in China would look like nowadays...there are so many people living in that country, it would be insane.
China has the world's largest standing army.
It really wouldn't be much trouble for them to occupy their own country.
Particularly in light of China's strict control of domestic ammunition and arms sales:
Buying and selling weapons/ammo leads to jail time or the death sentence.
So to answer your question, a Chinese revolt would be a disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that the Chinese Army is made up of Chinese Citizens. Some may fire on their own people when told to.. but i'll bet some will fire on those giving the orders as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a People's Revolution. Possibly by a People's Revolutionary Army.
Re: (Score:2)
I had one of my Chinese neices come visit for a summer a few years back. She spent a year studying in England as well. When she was asked recently if she would like to come to the USA or stay in China, she said without hesitation stay in China. Beijing is a very modern city now in just the last 20 years totally re-done. The little emperors (single child family children) know they have it good now. Not revolution for awhile I suspect. The countryside has been getting much better too, although still very th
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, imagine if the Chinese people, not government were actually smart, hell, they would calculate that the population vs. amount of military is like 1000 to 1....really no contest if the people wanted to stop their oppressors, but that would be if they were smart enough to pull something off like that, I think the Philippines did something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am getting sick and tired of all the people I hear complaining about China and it's human rights abuses.
Why? Because whining does nothing. Our government does nothing. Forcing their hand, ala Google, does nothing.
So what to do? DO IT YOURSELF! STOP BUYING CHINESE PRODUCTS until they change their policies. Money is all they will respond to (or rather the lack of it). Just because our government treats China with "Most Favored" trading status doesn't mean WE have to.
It really is as simple as flipping over a
Re: (Score:2)
But... But.... Then what laptop could I buy? not a nice Mac Book Pro!
no iphone! no ipod! no fun!
There are limits to a person's ability to sacrifice, man!!!
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many people living in that country now it would never happen because they don't share a common cultural or social status. Also, the great majority of Chinese either don't feel *too* persecuted, or don't feel like they can do anything about it.
It serves then right. (Score:4, Funny)
Those damn Liberal Commies... Uhh.. Wait.. Ummm.......
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those damn Liberal Commies... Uhh.. Wait.. Ummm.......
Commies have generally spent more time fighting each other than the people who are supposedly their enemies. Stalin may have been a psychopath, but it's a safe bet that more than a few of the people he stabbed in the back were planning to stab him in the back if he hadn't acted first.
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of see that as chicken vs egg.
Were they going to stab him in the back just because or were they going to stab him in the back because if they didn't he was going to stab them in the back.
Re: (Score:2)
...it's a safe bet that more than a few of the people he stabbed in the back were planning to stab him in the back if he hadn't acted first.
Hear, hear! It's a little known fact that the switchblade knife industry skyrocketed in Ukraine before Stalin got wise to their plans, and preemptively struck at over 6 million [wikipedia.org] would-be backstabbers.
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe is a 'feature' of any government in which one or a very few have almost unlimited power. It has nothing to do with communist theory. If you look at the history of western Europe from the time of the Roman empire to the end of absolute monarchies you will see the exact same behavior time after time.
Stalin's number of killed are impressive only because of technological advances which allowed it.
One day (Score:2)
We'll look back on this kind of persecution and vow never to let it happen again. I won't be the first one to break Godwin's Law but you know exactly where I'm headed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain that claiming you are not going to Godwin a conversation is in fact Godwin'ing a conversation, but I agree with you in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice thought but it keeps happening again and again. The good thing is thing is that currently things in China are better than they where during the Cultural Revolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything would be though, wouldn't it? Actually for the average "man on the ground" this is probably the best time in China's thousands year history. Doesn't mean it still doesn't suck ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever said that it was a way I wanted to live but sometimes you have to look at it from a different point of view.
If you got beat every day and worked 16 hours a day you will think that a new master that doesn't beat you and works you only 12 hours a day is a hero.
Re: (Score:2)
The good thing is thing is that currently things in China are better than they where during the Cultural Revolution.
Only because most people are good little citizens (with exception of google.cn users and these evil human rights proponents).
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not only Chinese government's concern, it's all of chinese. The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls, and it would probably be bloody - history shows this. I think the citizens also understand that and think its better to live than let the bloody internal wars start again.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure give them a lot of credit, considering that they live under one of the most pervasive censorship and repression systems ever devised. Yeah, there are examples of worse regimes, but they are pretty extreme and really do not say very much.
Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well they do know that their government is like that, the placing of flowers outside Google China [economist.com] offices and the popularity of Avatar (because of unintentional references to China) show that.
They aren't stupid, you know.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls
You are perpetuating a fallacy. Change does not require war. In fact, the Chinese constitution already guarantees certain rights to speech, press, and assembly. The Chinese could implement democratic reforms by simply upholding their existing constitution. That would mean allowing people to speak out against the government, government officials, or government actions. That would mean allowing political rivals to run for office. That would mean
Re: (Score:2)
You speak as if a repressive dicatorship is China's only alternative to chaos. And yet somehow other countries manage to find other alternatives.
You know, I've been hearing the "Harmony is good for everybody" party line a lot lately. "Harmony" is just nice way of saying, "always do what you're told." That might work in the short term, but in the long term it's a formula for an abusive, corrupt government and a society with no creative spark.
Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (Score:4, Interesting)
In order to maintain control, the Chinese government must prevent widespread unrest. In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike. In order to maintain their status in the world, they must keep growing economically. Therefore, the government keeps hording money. Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry. Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.
Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments; or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.
My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The United States has a LOT to loose (and gain) from social unrest in China.
Think for a moment.
Do you believe that social unrest in China will be nonviolent? It won't be. There will be plenty of violence - especially if the lid is kept on too long.
Do you believe that the violence won't effect nearby nations, such as Japan, India, Korea, RUSSIA, etc.? It will. It will be deadly serious for those countries, because we are not talking about social unrest where a few people get a few guns and start shooting
Re: (Score:2)
The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
I would imagine the US has a tremendous amount to lose if social unrest breaks out in China. If that happens, I'd guess the Chinese government would be inclined to dump their rather considerable reserve of US cash onto the open market rendering the US dollar damn near worthless in the global economy. I'm not an economist (nor enough of a fan of economics to even pretend to be) but it's my understanding that this potential financial armageddon is one of the big reasons that China is able to basically bully
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine the US has a tremendous amount to lose if social unrest breaks out in China.
A classic way to quell internal unrest is to focus on an external enemy. How many times has history taught us this?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow, ok, let me pick this apart, since it's modded +5.
In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike.
No, they have to keep the peasants busy working and trying to make money to raise their standard of living, instead of out of work and making trouble. That means they need to continue to grow and increase their middle class, or the populace won't be happy at all. Remember, it's all about standard of living, or as another guy said it, having a TV in every household.
Therefore, the government keeps hording money.
This is a non-sequitor. The government hording money does not affect the populace's standar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to applaud your response - nicely debunked :)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, ok, let me pick this apart, since it's modded +5.
In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike.
No, they have to keep the peasants busy working and trying to make money to raise their standard of living, instead of out of work and making trouble. That means they need to continue to grow and increase their middle class, or the populace won't be happy at all. Remember, it's all about standard of living, or as another guy said it, having a TV in every household.
It also matters what is shown on that TV.
Therefore, the government keeps hording money.
This is a non-sequitor. The government hording money does not affect the populace's standard of living. Nor does it make sense for the government to horde money to keep the populace poor if they want to keep the populace happy. If the divide between the wealthy (government) and the poor is great, there is a greater chance of unreset.
I said the government wants to keep control - not keep the people happy. The divide is growing - not shrinking - even if the 'middle class' is improving.
Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry.
The first part doesn't make sense. If the chinese government is hording money, they won't be buying up dollars. That's spending their money to buy dollars.
They are propping up the US economy. But they're also spending a lot of it domestically. Their entire bailout package was to throw money around to stimulate the economy. Where've you been for the past 2 years?
Exchanging one form of currency with another is 'spending' nothing. Compared to China's actual growth, the 'bailout' package was scraps.
Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.
Non-sequitors. And they don't even make sense. In a healthy economy, everybody is growing wealthier. This is basic econ, 101. And what does investors have to do with anything?
The outside investment is a huge reason their economy is growing. Further, I never argued the 'middle class' was growing poorer.. I am saying, however, that they are not growing in l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
Except economic collapse, maybe. Who do you think owns the US foreign debt?
Re: (Score:2)
But in that case, the Yuan will plummet first, won't it?
On the other hand, I highly doubt the theory that China pegs Yuan to Dollar without any market support. Such theory is against the recent economic history and actuality in China. The best one could say is that the government may try to suppress value of Yuan, but it wouldn't work if the market fundamental would not allow it. That's because China has a vibrant black market. Back in 1993, the Yuan's official exchange rate is 3:1 against the Dollar, over
Re: (Score:2)
From the looks of it, I doubt they care.
The same could be said of the rest of the world too. Sure, there'll be some political posturing, some grandstanding by local loud-mouths talking about boycotting Chinese goods. But at the end of the day, people will go back to their same old lives, using their China-made toothbrushes to brush their teeth, wearing their China-made clothes, walking in their China-made shoes or driving in cars with, among other parts, China-made tires, sipping from their China-made coffee mugs, working on their China-made mice
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hilarious that people assume the government had anything to do with this.
Do you really think they would be this stupid and obvious about these things?
It's just some random scriptkid with a botnet trying to get some media attention; "lol, I did that heheheh".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think a bunch of hackers are going to take down the Chinese government, even ignoring the little detail that they have a few million of their own. What would make a difference is if western consumers stopped buying from them. Would you pay twice as much for your consumer goods to help bring about a more open China? Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How?
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese Gov't Public Relations (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh... a freshman in a public relations degree program would know that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Chinese Government is known for public relations. They tend to specialize in public mandates.
Getting rid of pesky pests (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely but possible alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
One alternative to consider, as unlikely as it may be, is this: China [already] has a really bad rep among the online communities for openness and free speech. Some third party comes along, having assembled a botnet, and wants to further smear China's name. So they tell their botnet to attack the webpages of those who oppose China's rights abuses. The world assumes it was China and hates them all the more.
Now, before a flood of hate-replies come, let me say a few things. (1) It is less likely than not that the above scenario happened. Anyone wanting to oppose China's rights abuses wouldn't attack those pages. ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.) The perpetrator would have to hate China but not care about the rights abuses. (2) I personally think that China is responsible. This post is just a small attempt to keep people thinking rationally instead of letting their emotions take over completely. (3) We probably will never truly figure out who really did it anyways.
Re:Unlikely but possible alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you and I strongly disagree with you. The chance that the Chinese government had anything to do with this seems small to me and the chance of some random scriptkid with a botnet doing this is huge.
People don't seem to realize how many botnets exist worldwide and how many individuals are involved in the botnet scene, there are plenty of people that could've done this just "for the lulz" to get some media attention and not out of a political motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
If I worked for the CIA I might just think that having the 'company's bot-net' cause even m0OO0r3 trouble for the Chinese would make for some pretty nice lulz....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The DDOS wouldn't have to be anti Human Rights, who cares if their page is down for a few days or even a month that's not going to stop the Human Rights people
yes (Score:2)
and iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes
(rolls eyes)
there's keeping an open mind, and then there's a giant chasm of gullibility
to entertain the notion that the chinese government is not attacking chinese human rights activists through electronic means is stupefyingly naive
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
China is giving the world the middle finger and not giving a shit about the repercussions.
Face it, corporations are hungry for dollars and one of the only markets left for them is China and the whole Google thing proved that it doesn't matter what China does, the corporations are going to fall in line and obediently do what China wants of them. Of all the companies affected by the breech only Google has spoken out - the rest are quiet and will remain so in fear of losing precious Chinese business.
China has seen that it has nothing to fear from the corporate world - the ones that give them money. They'll do whatever they want now - taking down sites and silencing opposition will only be met with silence and their homeland population is so docile that they'll never revolt so why the fuck should they care.
But... but hacking is ILLEGAL in China! (Score:4, Funny)
Shame on you, shame! Bad China! Go sit in a corner.
Oh, you don't want to sit in the corner?
You're angry we called you bad?
We're so sorry, we won't say it again. We beg your forgiveness.
-Signed, the International Community.
Re: (Score:2)
hacking is ILLEGAL in China
Unless you ARE China.
Re: (Score:2)
But Who? (Score:2)
Is China going on the offensive? It would not be a terribly wrong move, from a warfighting perspective. Give a taste of what real cyberwar looks like, then tell your opponents to stop the pissing and moaning about what they see as reasonable information management.
But it could also be someone bent on destabilizing China. Pakistan, perhaps. The iron is hot for the striking. Perfect time to try to foment international pressure.
Or by Chinese dissidents themselves.
Who can tell?
Only us. We, information scientist
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd think India would be more prone to want to hurt China, considering the problems with the Dali Lama and all. Or the Thais; when I was there in 1974 I never saw such hatred toward a country. Of course, China had been screwing over Thailand for a few thousand years.
We are the new gods.
Pride comes before a fall. The overlords on Wall Street are your masters, and will continue to be your masters.
Divides (Score:3, Interesting)
E.O.Wilson wrote an essay in the late 90's suggesting China is the test case for humanity's attempts to find solutions to environmental and population problems. China as a traditional agrarian male dominated culture has moved from a practise of female infanticide to using technology to abort female foetuses. From this practise a sex ratio imbalance has arisen that some see as of little current or historical importance. The nation's one-child policy could leave 24 million bachelors by the year 2020 [discovery.com]. My own readings in history have taken on views more in line from what has been learnt from the last few decades of research in primatology [wikipedia.org]. Chimpanzee behaviour favouring, figuratively speaking, male oligarchies restricting access to resources maps clearly, in my mind, onto all three, still widely practised, Mediterranean death cult religions promulgating male dominated societies. Based on China's current sex ratio imbalance the questions to be addressed probably can be set in historical, anthropological and primatological contexts.
Personally I suspect China flirted with democracy, but as is nearly always the case, power structures are not given to relinquishing dominion. Recently /. ran a story that the Chinese government replaced the movie "Avatar" with a biography of Confucius [stanford.edu]. The works of Confucius are only known by way of reconstructions, but his core message seems to have been one of a familia philosophy, strongly patriarchal, and, in that light, like the Christian, Islamic and Judaic cults that I find map well onto Chimpanzee behaviour. The core mandate of such power structures is submission and tradition. I suspect the Chinese government, if not the Chinese people, are moving away from democracy and into a tradition bound version of Confucianism, but at best it's only a superficial reading.
The discussion can go on and deeper but one current salient point should be made. Chinese society is observed to be much more family orientated than our western societies. A recent rampage killing in the international press was reported on as having happened in western societies because the killer was deranged, whereas the Chinese feedback suggested the man went on a killing spree because his family wasn't there to support him. Western society is strongly vested in the rights of the individual, China not nearly so much. If the West and China and, perhaps much of Asia, are to achieve an equilibrium than we're going to have to bridge this core cultural divide from both sides.
just my loose change.
Sacrifice (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see how many of the free speech advocates on slashdot would actually risk their own freedom for freedom of speech.
It's very easy to sit in your lazyboy and curse other countries when the worst thing that can happen is extension of the mickey mouse law...
Re: (Score:2)