Should the international laws be amended to consider state-led cyber attacks an act of war in additional to traditional aggression? Seems like UN Security Council should deal with these matters.
International law barely exists and is unenforceable. If a superpower--especially a permanent Security Council member--wants to do something, there's absolutely no recourse. Look at Russia and Crimea. That's the most egregious violation of the notion of international law in recent history, and nothing of consequence happened. The big powers can do whatever they want, and the worst response will be token economic sanctions. China is so economically intertwined with the world that nothing at all would happen unless they nuked someone.
I am not Russian, and have nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine or whatever (I am Brazillian, of Iberian descent).
Still, Crimea was not a "invasion" or "conquest".
Long story short:
Russia invaded Crimea in 1700s, taking it from Tartars.
When a Ukranian became leader of URSS, he "gave" Crimea to Ukraine, it was only nominal, nothing changed in Crimea itself, the place still was basically a navy base for Russia.
When URSS broke up, because of previous decision, it was decided Crimea was Ukranian, except most of population there is Russian (including a huge amount of Russian military), and their only warmwater seaport deep enough for the good warships Russia had, was still there, to make this work, Russia "rented" the place from Ukraine.
When Ukraine most recent revolution happened, do you think all the Russian military personel families that live there since 1700s would want to leave?
Now... if you want to claim what is happening in Donbass is a invasion, then that is more plausible.
> That's the most egregious violation of the notion of international law in recent history
There's a reason no country gives much of a second thought to international law. In the end it's purely about the optics and the optics are written by each superpower for whoever cares to listen to them. Case in point:
- Wage an asymmetric proxy war, invade a sovereign country, and annex one of their territories - Not OK.
- Find even a demonstrably false reason to wage declared war, invade a sovereign country, kill and torture combatants and civilians alike during the war and subsequent occupation - OK.
International law is a guideline and every country will interpret their own acts as righteous heroism and other countries' acts as barbaric violations of the law.
Increased encirclement & isolation (economic & political persona non grata) by a large group of the liberal affluent nations is the only approach that will work to curtail military attacks like this one. The CPC ego is extraordinarily fragile, the party's self-esteem gets injured very easily, and that should be taken advantage of. Essentially all the highest GDP per capita nations are liberal allies, they should band together and begin excluding China in unison if these military attacks continue.
It's the sort of organizing the US used to be good at, and is presently failing at miserably (for obvious reasons). Germany, France and Britain are also falling down on the job as well (because they're economically scared), so there's plenty of blame to go around.
> Germany, France and Britain are also falling down on the job as well (because they're economically scared), so there's plenty of blame to go around.
In the case of Britain we've had a disastrous handling of the pandemic which is still on going (both the illness and the handling of it) on top of Brexit and incredibly poor leadership.
It'll be a decade before we return to something like normality and even then it will be in a new reality.
Leaving the EU lost us our ability to stand up to the US or China in any meaningful way - for them we are just another Tuesday.
It's funny you say that, because I'm a security engineer and I talked to loads of other security engineers who didn't question it. People at the top of the field. It looked bogus as hell at the time, but you couldn't easily say so.
Hackers are as susceptible to partisan politics as anyone else. At least we now have the benefit of the CrowdStrike President's declassified testimony.
It took me forever to find out that the “back channel” with trump tower and Alfa Bank was a hacked Point-of-sale terminal in the lobby sending spam mail. Snopes still laughably lists this as “unproven”
I remember at the time thinking “what are they doing, using an IRC channel?”
I was screaming inside when the FBI started waving around that they had evidence and all they could show for it in public at the time was a handful of incoming HTTP requests from Russian IPs.
I get hundreds of MB of traffic from Russian, Chinese, etc IP addresses every week scanning for drupal/wordpress/etc vulnerabilities. It hardly meant anything.
Worse still is that we know that this happens and my colleagues still just go along with whatever companies like CrowdStrike or Trail of Bits or whoever say. Like we make business decisions based on their word alone. They're popular, so they must be correct. Group think is real and there's large numbers of us who aren't as capable as we claim to be. 95% of the work for most is checking the boxes on compliance questionnaires and getting shut down/stalled by the engineering & ops teams who actually make their companies money.
The US has the better navy but china has a crap tonne of anti-ship missiles (because of the US having the better navy) and that's before the risk of it going nuclear.
I wonder how far the US would actually go to protect Taiwan, would they risk someone tossing a nuke or the situation getting spectacularly out of hand.
Even a large number of people in Taiwan today do not want to be associated with the RoC. There is a growing sentiment to express a distinctly Taiwanese identity.
I think this would be a functionally useless move that might hasten the coming of a potential ww3. It doesn't seem like a solution to me, just provocation. It doesn't make the PRC less powerful, it doesn't change how much of the world's manufacturing has been moved there, it doesn't change who owes them money, or their cyber abilities/actions.
What does it do but exclude them from any dialog to make force and violence more likely alternatives?
What would the UN do with this? Quite a few wars in recent memory involved members of the security council, and the same would likely apply to cyberwarfare.
Can you please give me a proof that it's China and not someone else...or nothing at all?
I always hear cyber-attack's from Russia, North Korea or China, but never from Israel or the US, are they just so bad in covering up or is maybe something else behind it?
Yes your right, i am not saying cyber-warfare does no exist, i just don't see often good point's for the origin of the attack...often its like HAHA we found the timezone of Peking in a file....as if a professional agency is that stupid (well sometimes they are)
Ok you win, since the NSA and the CIA have a complete transparency rule like all the western security services have...it has to be China (or something like that) ;)
All your replies are arrogant in tone and derogatory to other posters. If you're trying to prove a point you should have to put in as much effort as you are requesting from the others. Provide valid links where the assumptions were wrong and justify your argument. This condescending tone does not suit HN community. I hope someone flags your comments.
You make the allegations so bringing the proof is on your side...
To believe everything a state says well THAT is arrogant..one hint?
-Chemical weapons in Iraq (many times repeated by 'free' media, with a war at the end and no chem found)
And NO i like the HN community exactly because thinking out of the box is normal, just believe what a state like Australia says and the standard 'enemy' is china...that's a dangerous thing. I'm NOT saying it's not true, i just want some proof, otherwise it smells once again foul.
Not just cyber attack, Australia is also under economic attack [1] for the same reason. And China just suddenly decided to sentence an Australian to death (same move they made against Canada), after five years of sitting on the case [2]. It's all about intimidation and leverage. China will press until Australia capitulates. Fortunately the Australians have backbone.
As a superpower capable of standing off with China, the US should be stepping in and offering very public political and economic support to Australia. It's the only approach that will work when dealing with China's new era of extreme belligerence. If the US were currently being led by a wiser politician, they would be rallying allies old and new (such as India) at China's expense.
Why is it the US' problem? If AUSTRALIA were currently being led by a wiser politician, or indeed had in the last .. 20 years .. been led by wise politicians .. it wouldn't be in this mess right now in the first place.
Its only because Australia kowtows with fluidity every time the US snaps its fingers that its in this mess right now. Australians need to stop being the lapdogs to the American empire, and start thinking about their own future. Australias future isn't white American: it is multi-cultural and mostly Asian.
Because Australians have been led to believe that the US and Australia are allies, resulting in Australia punching way above its weight in giving the USA cover whenever it went abroad, for instance in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on.
The usual understanding is that such loyalty is a two-way street. Not that the current US government cares about such pesky details but that's where it stands.
Australia is a liberal democracy, and turning away from that to the arms of communist, authoritarian China is simply a non-starter. Like America, Australia will be multi-ethnic, but it’s still a liberal democracy. America is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy too, and supports Australia against Chinese communism. The fact that the US will be less white in the future has no bearing on anything here. Do you think it’s only whites people in America who want to stand up against China? If it is, what does that say about the future of the world if nobody but white people care about liberal values? You’re kind of confirming the fears of white supremacists here.
I don't agree on any of these points, nor do I think the questions are of any relevance. But we will just have to end this thread now, as it is going to get flagged.
(Wouldn't it be nice if HN had a "Take it Private.." mode, hmm..)
That's an interesting claim to test, actually. Could you provide links to one or more discussions on this site where the overwhelming consensus was that Huawei 5G would not be a national security threat to the US?
Now do the following: search the threads you provided for "Trump". The decision might have been "right", but easily 90% of posters say that Trump was "wrong" to make it somehow, because saying he was right at anything is socially unacceptable here.
Note that I did not say HN disagreed with the decision necessarily. I was just saying it was shitting on Trump for making it.
> Now do the following: search the threads you provided for "Trump".
Okay then. The first two links have 8 occurrences of the string "Trump":
1. "Meaning while Trump is trying to make other country buy more Boeing planes?" I don't think this person is complaining that Trump is trying to support American businesses, but in any case they aren't saying that he shouldn't have opposed Huawei.
2. "... Trump only says pleasant words [about trade] which is completely legal in both countries?" This seems to be a defence of Trump.
3. "Trump considered [purchasing Greenland]." A criticism of a different Trump policy (in the context of an article about the Faroese prime minister).
4. "I think that Trump's move with banning Huawei is bad for the US in the mid and long run." An actual criticism of Trump's Huawei decision, based on fear of retaliation from China. Two child comments support Trump, while one supports the criticism.
5. "Trump's trade war with China, as many contract manufacturer move out of China, will prove none of that supply chain myth is true within a year or two." A comment supporting Trump's approach.
6. "These things, and I'm not passing judgment on them, are simply pushing the Chinese to be self-sufficient on everything. Stroke of the Trump pen and X chip for your hardware is denied." A comment trying to look at the long term consequences without being critical of Trump.
7. "I'm sure that the EU/australia/the west is breathing a sigh of relief that Trump did this instead of forcing them to make up some more draconian law..." A comment supportive of Trump.
8. "FYI: Trump says U.S. "wants to be the leader' in 5G development" A comment potentially trying to explain Trump's actions, but not critical of them.
If that is an accurate analysis of a random sample of comments, I would say that most posters agree with Trump about Huawei. I don't know where you get your "easily 90%" statistic from.
I am pretty sure that nations with the resources are pretty much doing some stealth cyber attack to nations they consider a threat - whether by economic or defence policies.
Likely the scale of the attack happening is something that may have surprised the victim nation that they are calling out the attacks in the hope that it would at least calm down the intruder or even have the government intervene.
On a side note, reading the article in a mobile device was a big PITA. Lots of ads and unnecessary information included. And they had the temerity to tell me that I am using n/3 free articles. I think I would pass from subscribing if on the limited free version and the reading experience was just worst.
