Gaby

GeorgeBMac said:

AppleInsider said:

The Microsoft Exchange hack and many other attacks were caused by gangs working with the Chinese government, the Biden administration and NATO claim.

Actually, NATO didn't claim that.   Aside from the usual crowd of the U.S., Britain and Canada, others are saying that Chinese hackers did some bad things -- but they are not attributing it to the Chinese government.

From Reuters:

"While a flurry of statements from Western powers represent a broad alliance, cyber experts said the lack of consequences for China beyond the U.S. indictment was conspicuous. Just a month ago, summit statements by G7 and NATO warned China and said it posed threats to the international order.

Adam Segal, a cybersecurity expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, called Monday's announcement a "successful effort to get friends and allies to attribute the action to Beijing, but not very useful without any concrete follow-up."

Some of Monday's statements even seemed to pull their punches. While Washington and its close allies such as the United Kingdom and Canada held the Chinese state directly responsible for the hacking, others were more circumspect.

NATO merely said that its members "acknowledge" the allegations being leveled against Beijing by the U.S., Canada, and the UK. The European Union said it was urging Chinese officials to rein in "malicious cyber activities undertaken from its territory" - a statement that left open the possibility that the Chinese government was itself innocent of directing the espionage."

With the U.S. in full attack mode on China, it puts their allegations / assumptions into question.

Apparently there was a hack and also a release of information to others on how to exploit it.  But there does not seem to be a consensus that it was initiated and supported by the Chinese government.

But, regardless, if the hackers were operating independently in China, it is up to China to shut them down -- at least.
Or, as the EU put it:
"The European Union said it was urging Chinese officials to rein in "malicious cyber activities undertaken from its territory""

The fact remains that in such a country as China that is so authoritarian, and with such strong firewall and censorship capabilities these cyberattacks are unlikely. When you consider that every byte incoming/outgoing is monitored, and that people are rounded up and arrested for so much as sneezing in the wrong direction, let alone for a crime so grave as expressing an opinion that doesn’t toe the party line.  It is almost impossible for even an individual to commit these crimes and harvest so much data, let alone for innumerable groups to engage in these activities and remain unknown. Which is why it’s dubious that anyone could manage without the state being actively involved. Not to mention the type of IP and tech they’re stealing is clearly beneficial to the government.  As for other countries not calling them out specifically, for one it’s called diplomacy, and secondly they’re scared shitless of being on the receiving end of china’s ire themselves. And reading between the lines of what nato and the E.U said, it’s fairly obvious that they acknowledge the Chinese state to be involved. If this were anywhere other than China or Russia, it would have been declared an act of war and they’d have gone in guns blazing. In truth sadly, I think that’s the only language they’ll understand. Because they keep nipping at people to see how far they can push and it’s not going to stop. 

Well you’d have to be pretty stupid to use a google VPN. Though in truth I’m dubious about all modern VPNs. There was one that came with Ironkey’s more premium device years ago that I used when necessary. Of course they have their uses but I’d advise anyone only to activate for the bare essentials. If it’s browsing related, Tor is the more secure option. It’s certainly one way of them solving the problem of all the valuable data they have been losing over the last couple of years, and smart/sly to boot. They ensure that one way or another they’re creating detailed profiles on vast swathes of the population - again relying on the average person’s lack of understanding. Of course with schemes such as these they can perpetuate the notion that they are becoming more privacy focused by slowly deprecating cookies etc thus increasing user trust in them. 

Leave them to their folly. The first step is elegant coding and therefore highly efficient OS and software. But you cannot - if you are aiming at producing silicon comparable with Apple’s - just go and design a processor in a vacuum, no matter how good the team, and expect it to compete on that level. The silicon must be designed in concert with the software so they can both take advantage of one another and the specific features they were engineered for. And frankly I just cannot imagine Samsung having the vision, the patience or perhaps even the resources to completely change the way they operate and produce a fully realised product, which will also mean years of work on Tizen or starting from scratch. They are always following short term trends for quick profit, and doing what I view as PR stunts such as these to give the appearance of not being behind the curve and being a direct competitor to the very many companies they try and replicate across their various electronic and household divisions. Not that I’m saying that they don’t produce any quality products, but they use a lot of spin. As an aside, what about the Exynos chips they spent so much time raving about? 

The Apple Watch series 6 In titanium is actually an Apple Watch Edition. I own one and it’s also listed on site. Just to be the pedant in the room lol 😆 

22july2013 said:

I've been known for complaining that Tim Cook is fighting Apple's legal battles with weak public statements. 

Mark Zuckerberg's statements have been loud and clear, but they are the wrong arguments. Here's what I think Mark should say: (I apologize for being the devil's advocate)

Tim Cook announced a few days ago that Apple will get its revenue for his Apple App Store "one way or another." That's a valid position, which also applies to FaceBook. If Apple decides to unilaterally revoke one of FaceBook's ways in iOS for making money, through its new App Tracking Transparency software, FaceBook will find another way. Apple has the right to charge users for "free apps" on its app store, and FaceBook has the right to charge users who use FaceBook. That fee could come as money, or personal information, or varying service levels like fewer ads or faster server response times for people who provide us with the data we need to make our money. Apple isn't the only company who can play that game. FaceBook can take a page from Apple's playbook and this is a game Apple can't win because, like Apple, FaceBook has a relationship with the users outside of the FaceBook app on iOS. If, however, Apple decides to play fair and nice with its iOS features, FaceBook won't need to resort to charging users "one way or another."

By comparing FaceBook's problem to Apple's problem, he may get popular support.

Frankly I don’t think that would do facebook’s already tenuous public image any favours at all, moreover it would provide further proof of Zuckerberg’s entitled, misanthropic and infantile outlook. it comes across as peevish. Devils advocate is one thing, but to suggest Apple is “unilaterally revoking Facebook’s access to a revenue stream” is simply untrue and reductive. The only thing that Apple is doing is providing its users with more information on what data is collected by each app to allow consumers to make more informed decisions, as they are often ignorant to the realities of cross site tracking, and the extent  to which sensitive data is being vacuumed up by certain organisations, and the potential problems and dangers this poses. whilst also providing an opportunity for said devs to explain the purpose of, and benefits, if any, to allowing unfettered access to their digital lives and personal information. Because after all what is in the best interest of a psychopathic wunderkind is  often diametrically opposed to the best interests of the general population. It probably would be better for them to offer subscriptions and various service levels. And like @StrangeDays ; stated - “ FB can still build your ad profile using internal signals, they don’t need external signals.” which is another option for them; and being far less onerous, might actually earn them some goodwill for once. There are myriad ways for them to remain profitable without going to such invasive extremes. The best thing they can do is to change their practices, shore up their security and employ a new CEO to take the company in a radically different direction because Mark Zuckerberg is pure poison plain and simple.