Skip to comments.NY Times says Chinese hacked paperís computers
Posted on 01/30/2013 10:54:05 PM PST by Olog-hai
The New York Times says Chinese hackers repeatedly penetrated its computer networks over the past four months, stealing reporters passwords and hunting for files on an investigation into the wealth amassed by the family of one of China's leaders.
The attacks coincided with a Times investigation into how the family and relatives of Premier Wen Jiabao built a fortune worth more than $2 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Is that the best excuse they can come up with?
Excellent source of counter-espionage.
That would be like a thief drilling a hole to siphon out the contents of a sewage tank.
Because the NYT supports the Chi-com model, they probably think they are immune to this kind of thing - useful idiots on a grand, publicly traded scale....
The NYT needs to just go down to the Hudson and head out on the latest garbage scow.
all they had to do was ask, imagine treating your friends that way
The NYT does not support the Chinese model, which is more or less unregulated capitalism, with small exceptions made for state-owned enterprises. It's spent a lot of time criticizing the Chinese for labor issues because the Chinese don't have enough government regulations for the NYT's taste. The NYT wants Swedish-style socialism, not communism. The raw capitalism that's part of the Chinese economic scene is why its nominal per capita GDP is 4x India's and reflected by annual car sales that are just over 6x India's.
SpaceBar: “That would be like a thief drilling a hole to siphon out the contents of a sewage tank.”
Now that’s funny! Thanks.
Unregulated capitalism in China? Think again. The Party gets quite a bit from foreign companies in exchange for the low labor rates and (relatively) low corporate taxes; lots of proprietary info is not secret from the Party. All contributes to empowering the Party furtherand its military. Those goals are not capitalistic.
China doesn't do anything to generate low labor rates - they are a consequence of China's relative poverty, and are much increased from where they were during the communist era. They have overtaken Indonesian and Thai wages, neither of which has experienced the destructive rule of communism. On a GDP per capita basis, it appears that average Chinese wages are 4x Indian wages. China has adopted the Singapore model wholesale, which is part unregulated capitalism, and part authoritarian rule, starting pretty much after Deng Xiaoping met Lee Kuan Yew, now Singapore's eminence grise, but formerly Prime Minister who elevated the formerly backward city state to the point that its nominal GDP per capita, at $49K, narrowly exceeds ours:
Low tax rates are universal in China. Foreign manufacturers get an extra break, but that's pretty much the norm in Third World countries that want to encourage foreign investment. The difference between China and India, Indonesia and Thailand is that Chinese officials are less corrupt, and infrastructure in the form of power, clean water, roads and telecom is far superior, although nowhere near developed country standards. And that relative difference was all it took for China to vault from dead last in GDP per capita to the upper half of the list. As to the Chinese nickel-and-diming foreign investors for technology transfer, Korea, Japan and Taiwan are notorious for doing more or less the same thing. What none of these other countries did was let foreign companies get a commanding share of their domestic automobile markets (GM and VW are #1 and #2 respectively in China).
ONE founded a tiny nation of two million, and succeeded in turning it into an economic powerhouse.
The other reformed a once-great empire of more than 900 million, and was trying to grow its economy after years of poverty and isolation.
One had grown up in an Anglicised family, spoke English better than he did Mandarin, and fought the Communists.
The other spoke only Mandarin, with a Sichuanese accent, and was a Communist leader.
Yet both men saw what was needed to create order out of chaos, and were not afraid to make radical changes to achieve what they wanted for their countries.
For this, they shared a mutual respect and admiration that cemented a ‘special relationship’ between Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew and China’s reformer Deng Xiaoping, according to a new biography of the Chinese leader.
By the end of Mr Deng’s first official visit to Singapore in 1978, says its author Ezra F. Vogel, the two men had developed a bond that, ‘like that between Zhou Enlai and Kissinger, enabled them to communicate with mutual respect on a common wavelength’.
Modern China’s first premier Zhou and then US Security Adviser Henry Kissinger were instrumental in taking the United States and China towards resuming diplomatic relations in the 1970s.
Likewise, Mr Lee and Mr Deng’s relationship paved the way for diplomatic and economic ties between Singapore and China.
In his newly published book, Deng Xiaoping And The Transformation of China, the eminent Harvard University academic Vogel reveals for the first time the depth of Mr Deng’s admiration for Mr Lee, and describes both men as having much in common.
They had come of age fighting colonialism, were both ‘straightforward realists, utterly dedicated to their nations’, and believed in the need for strong leadership.
‘Deng had close ties with many foreign leaders, but his relationship with Lee reflected a greater depth of mutual understanding,’ writes Professor Vogel. Only one other person, Hong Kong tycoon Yue-Kong Pao, he says, had bonded with Mr Deng the way Mr Lee did.
‘From Deng’s perspective, what made Lee and Y.K. Pao attractive was their extraordinary success in dealing with practical issues, their first-hand contacts with world leaders, their knowledge of world affairs, their grasp of long-term trends, and their readiness to face facts and speak the truth as they saw it.’
According to Prof Vogel, Mr Deng admired the Singapore leader’s accomplishments in the young Republic, while Mr Lee was equally impressed by how the Chinese leader was dealing with problems in the Communist giant as it tried to enter a modern world.
Prof Vogel, who has written a number of influential books on the rise of Japan and Asia, is best known for his 1979 book Japan As Number One: Lessons For America. Aware of Mr Lee’s familiarity with Mr Deng, he flew to Singapore to interview the former prime minister when researching his latest book.
Then Vice-Premier Deng and Mr Lee first met in 1978, when Beijing was seeking support from South-east Asian nations amid strengthening ties between Vietnam and the then Soviet Union. By this time, the two Communist giants had fallen out, and China was afraid that Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore would swing over to the powerful Soviets.
Prof Vogel says that when Mr Deng visited Singapore on Nov 12, 1978, both men were already ‘aware of the other’s reputation’, and made special efforts to bridge the cultural gap.
Mr Lee prepared a spittoon for Mr Deng and offered him an ashtray, knowing the Chinese leader’s habits. But Mr Deng, having found out Mr Lee’s views on smoking, made sure not to spit or smoke during their meeting.
When Mr Deng laid out his fears about the Soviet Union, he was surprised by Mr Lee’s frank reply that Asean nations were more worried about the ‘China dragon’ than the ‘Russian bear’, as Mr Lee recounts in his own memoirs.
But Mr Deng recovered quickly, and asked what was wanted of China – a question that ‘astonished’ Mr Lee, who recalled the meeting in his two-part memoirs, The Singapore Story.
‘I had never met a communist leader who was prepared to depart from his brief when confronted with reality,’ he wrote, ‘much less ask what I wanted him to do.’
Mr Lee too paid tribute to the Chinese reformer: ‘He was the most impressive leader I had met. He was a five-footer, but a giant among men. At 74, when he was faced with an unpleasant truth, he was prepared to change his mind.’
Indeed, their meetings – Mr Deng and Mr Lee met again in 1980, 1985 and 1988 – ultimately led to significant changes in the relationship between China and Singapore.
Up till then, Beijing and its propaganda had refused to recognise Singapore’s independence, and condemned Mr Lee as a ‘running dog’ of the West.
But, writes Prof Vogel: ‘A few weeks after Deng visited Singapore, this description of Singapore disappeared… Instead, Singapore was described as a place worth studying for its initiatives in environmental preservation, public housing, and tourism.’
Mr Deng died in 1997, at the age of 92.
While I believe the Chinese are a long term threat to the region because of their traditional expansionist territorial goals, they've been more than fair compared to our "allies" in the region as regards trade. It's a pity that we will eventually have to go to war with them once they start annexing stuff left and righ, given how they're already a much bigger market (50% bigger) for American goods than Japan, despite being a poor 3rd World country.
Chinese were looking to learn how to best issue State propaganda.
If Chinese Communists took over the NYT, would anyone notice?
It’s more likely that the Times is planning to release secret U.S. information and the Chinese didn’t want to wait for publication.
Next thing you know, they’re going to claim the chicoms put a bunch of commie propaganda in the paper.
But how could we tell?
This is not news. The Chinese hacked the NYT 40 years ago.
The Chinese were allegedly pleased to find some of Mao’s speeches on Pinch Sulzberger’s hard drive.
Well...keep supporting Free Trade with Communist China...and get more fun stuff from the Communist Chinese
The NYT does not support the Chinese model, which is more or less unregulated capitalism, with small exceptions made for state-owned enterprises. It’s spent a lot of time criticizing the Chinese for labor issues because the Chinese don’t have enough government regulations for the NYT’s taste. The NYT wants Swedish-style socialism, not communism. The raw capitalism that’s part of the Chinese economic scene is why its nominal per capita GDP is 4x India’s and reflected by annual car sales that are just over 6x India’s.
Kinda hard to attack the NYT for being Liberal when you are cheerleading for the Communist Chinese, dontcha think?
By the way...all that “free market in Communist China” stuff has brought their per capita GDP to around half of what Mexico’s is....and look at all the Illegal Aliens we get from Mexico!
Chinese were looking to learn how to best issue State propaganda.
We have a winner!
Thanks Olog-hai. Gosh, having something important like the Slimes fall under foreign control would be devastating. /s
I guess this is how that “Syrian Tank Brewing Up” headline got written.
In October 2012, The New York Times reported that Wen’s relatives have controlled financial assets worth at least US$2.7 billion during his time as Premier.
In response, a Chinese government spokesman stated that the report “blackens China’s name and has ulterior motives”, and the websites of The New York Times were censored in mainland China.
Lawyers representing Wen’s family also denied the report’s content.
Wen personally wrote a letter submitted to the Politburo Standing Committee asking for an investigation to the claim and willing to make his family asset public. Professor Zhu Lijia, of the Chinese Academy of Governance, suggest that this is Wen’s last try to push the passing of the “Sunshine” law, which require government officials to release their financial information to public.
Professor Jean-Pierre Cabestan of Hong Kong’s Baptist University questioned the timing of the report and suggested “It looks very much [like] some people close to Bo Xilai are trying to throw mud at the reformists”.
If the New York Times is looking it's because their dem contacts ( dare we call them "handlers"?) have a shakedown angle...
Some editor has made the call that even though the dem handler has an agenda giving him this information - on balance it's a good story.
I believe that call is made many times a day in the MSM which is why the press has become a joke.
I don't have a problem with their economic system - capitalism works. The NYT dislikes that economic system precisely because it's capitalist.
That China's GDP per capita is 50% of Mexico's is a modern miracle. In 1979, when the China's economic reforms started, after the meeting with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, its GDP was less than 5% of Mexico's. That's another way of saying that relative to Mexico, Chinese incomes have gone up 10x. Any way you look at it, that's quite a feat.
In that time frame, China's GDP per capita went from 20% less than India's to 4x India's. That blistering growth happened precisely because of China's turn to capitalism. And that turn to unregulated capitalism in many industries is both the cause of its growth and the liberal media complex's unending critiques of Chinese economic policies.
When was the last time you heard any media criticisms of Iran's Marxist economic policies? Yes, the amusing thing about Iran is that its theocrats combine a Leninist model of government with a Marxist economic policy. The Chinese still have a Leninist model of government*, but the economic system, with partial exceptions for Party-owned sectors, is unfiltered capitalism.
* The Leninist phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a fancy way of saying the Party's non-hereditary self-appointed kings-in-all-but-name get to appoint the aristocracy-in-all-but-name that runs day-to-day operations, all in the name of the "proletariat".
Telmex's Carlos Slim own 8% of the Times - a stake he bought during the financial crisis. I think the NYT hired Walter Duranty long before Slim was born, though.
You gotta admit - the rebels found the chink in its armor.
“Hacked” as in correctly guessing reporters’ and editors’ passwords being “Obama2012”.
When was that hack, 1960?
Maybe it was just a Syrian Fire Drill.
And Murdoch’s companies will eventually be the Gulf States’ propaganda arm, or rather, one of them.
Or maybe it was flatulence - as a result of excessive hummus intake - that somehow caught fire.