China has made significant efforts to try to stop cyber espionage, but it's proving a difficult task.
Despite criticism from skeptics, China is trying to honor its “no commercial hacking for profit” commitments as first promised in an accord with the United States, and later reaffirmed at the November 2015 G20 summit. Recent news reports cited that in a show of good faith, China had arrested hackers per the U.S. government’s request prior to meeting with President Obama in September. While detractors believe that commercial cyber espionage hasn’t really stopped, recent Chinese efforts show a government trying to get a handle on its large spying apparatus that could include hired and independent contractors acting autonomously in addition to its other resources. While complete cessation may never occur, significant timely reduction demonstrates Beijing’s willingness to work with the United States as a partner and not a pariah, and provides a foundation from which the two governments can move forward on other cyber security areas where incongruity persists.
China’s Cyber Spying Apparatus – Too Large to Manage?
According to recent press reporting,[1] cyber spying perpetrated by the Chinese military against U.S. commercial targets waned substantially after the Department of Justice indictment of five People’s Liberation Army (PLA) officers for cyber-enabled commercial espionage. While this represents significant progress toward curbing bad behavior by a state whose nefarious cyber theft was termed “pervasive”[2] by the Director of National Intelligence, some believe that China’s foreign intelligence service is still engaged in these types of activities. According to one security vendor,[3] as of mid-October 2015, hackers associated with the Chinese government have targeted seven U.S. companies (five technology, two pharmaceutical) since September.
Still, despite these proclamations, there are those U.S. officials taking a pragmatic approach to the cessation of China’s cyber spying for commercial gain, such as the deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command,[4] who believes the effort will take time. According to the same press report, led by its president, China began applying pressure on its military to cease its economic espionage refocusing it on operations that support ensuring the country’s national security interests. This is encouraging for a state that has perpetually denied any involvement in hacking.
China is suspected of having successfully infiltrated the networks of as many as 141 organizations from 15 nations and in nearly two-dozen critical industries including tech, financial services, government, and defense since 2006,[5] an effort that would take considerable resources to perform. The Chinese military, which has approximately 15 units known as technical reconnaissance bureaus[6] that have a signals/cyber collection mission, is only one part of equation. The PLA has a strong militia system,[7] as well, in which active reserves augment almost every area of military operations. Added to the mix are several civilian organizations that are believed to have a cyber mission such as the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), as well as the Ministry of State Security (MSS),[8] which has been linked by some to the 2015 Anthem breach.[9] Added to the mix are academic[10] and research institutes[11] that may also be pursuing their own cyber espionage efforts.
While this may seem monolithic in scope, and a surprise to some, for China watchers, Chinese interest in this area is not novel, although it has been evolving. Discussions on network warfare were included in China’s 2013 Science of Military Strategy,[12] an authoritative study of Chinese strategic thinking. Identifying PLA, MSS/MPS, and “non-governmental” forces involved in these types of activities. Indeed, the need for these forces is reaffirmed in China’s 2015 military strategy in which it identified “information society” (cyber power) as the departure point of international security.”[13]
Of note, according to the same press report,[14] some portion of the vast Chinese cyber espionage operations looks to have been conducted by military personnel independent of the government’s direction, and perhaps, knowledge. Like independent contractors looking for buyers for their merchandise, these individuals provided stolen information to companies, further blurring the lines of what constitutes state culpability in these types of activities, and further complicates controlling them. There has been steady reporting reflecting the continued convergence of the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPS) used by cyber criminal and cyber espionage actors, such as employing spear phishing and using the same malware, for example.[15] Despite having a steadily increasing military budget, inflation has impacted any benefits, contributing to significant corruption among its ranks,[16] which may help explain “moonlighting” practices and this cross pollination of criminal and espionage TTPs.
Given the various state and non-state individuals potentially engaged in cyber collection, it should come as little surprise that the volume of theft cannot be turned off at a moment’s notice. Taking into account overlapping mission areas, competition to deliver, target deconfliction issues, operations currently underway, independent operations, priority and non-priority tasking, it is understandable why reduction of cyber theft may be more of a evolving process than previously anticipated. This may help to explain the various targets and various types of capabilities observed over the past few years. Further complicating matters, oversight of these groups likely varies depending on the level of state affiliation that exists.
The recent arrest of hackers suspected of conducting the breach against the Office of Personnel Management in 2015 revealed that the hackers in question were criminals and not state-sponsored, according to Chinese officials.[17] While skeptics doubt that the “real” perpetrators will be the ones prosecuted, it does demonstrate China’s willingness to meet the conditions of its promises to the United States. It also sends the message that China is a contributing partner in the global fight against cyber crime—crime being the optimum word here—and may open up future discussions to determine what is a global consensus on espionage definitions and characteristics.
Conclusion
This gives hope for cautious optimism in Beijing reducing—not completely stopping—cyber-enabled commercial espionage. While detractors are quick to point out that the recent “no hack” pledges made by China with other governments, including the joint one made at the recent G20 meeting,[18] are paper promises that have no hope of enduring over a long period of time, they are nevertheless a marked progression toward codifying acceptable—and more importantly, unacceptable—nation state behavior in cyberspace.
This is not to say the United States should grant China carte blanche to stopping cyber espionage activities on their timetable. Washington should further engage with Beijing on the identification of key deliverable milestones and how they will be measured that would demonstrate Beijing’s commitment to its pledge. Too much progress has been made to let a knee-jerk reaction derail the agreement. As cited by one former White House director for cyber security policy at the National Security Council, “The importance of China committing to answer our calls… is a massive, massive change.”[19] Allow the carrot of diplomatic engagement to run its course as the stick of sanctions always looms near.
References
[1] Ellen Nakashima, “Following U.S. Indictments, China Shifts Commercial Hacking Away from Military to Civilian Agency,” The Washington Post, November 30, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/following-us-indictments-chinese-military-scaled-back-hacks-on-american-industry/2015/11/30/fcdb097a-9450-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html
[2] Andrea Shaal, “Top US Spy Skeptical About U.S.-China Cyber Agreement,” Reutuers, September 30, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/us-usa-cybersecurity-idUSKCN0RT1Q820150930
[3] Joseph Menn, “China Tried to Hack U.S. Companies Even After Cyber Pact,” Business Insider, October 19, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-tried-to-hack-us-firms-even-after-cyber-pact-crowdstrike-2015-10
[4] Ellen Nakashima, “China Still Trying to Hack U.S. Firms Despite Xi’s Vow to Refrain, Analysts Say,” The Washington Post, October 19, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-still-trying-to-hack-us-firms-despite-xis-vow-to-refrain-analysts-say/2015/10/18/d9a923fe-75a8-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html
[5] “U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2013 Report to Congress,” Testimony of the Honorable William A. Reinsch before the Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, November 20, 2013, http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/ReinschW-20131120_2013%20Annual%20Report.pdf
[6] Larry M. Wortzel, “The Chinese People’s Liberation Army and Information Warfare,” Strategic Studies Institute, March 2014, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub1191.pdf
[7] Deepak Sharma, “Integrated Network Electronic Warfare: China’s New Concept of Information Warfare,” Journal of Defence Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, April 2010, http://www.idsa.in/system/files/jds_4_2_dsharma.pdf
[8] Shane Harris, “China Reveals its Cyberwar Secrets,” The Daily Beast, March 18, 2015, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/18/china-reveals-its-cyber-war-secrets.html
[9] “Update: Premera Latest Healthcare Insurance Agency to be Breached,” ThreatConnect, https://www.threatconnect.com/the-anthem-hack-all-roads-lead-to-china/
[10] Dan Vargano, “China’s Universities Linked to Cyber-Spying,” USA Today, February 28, 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2013/02/28/china-universities-cyber/1954205/
[11] “Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation,” Prepared for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, October 9, 2009, http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-030.pdf
[12] Elsa Kania, “China: Active Defense in the Cyber Domain,” The Diplomat, June 12, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/china-active-defense-in-the-cyber-domain/
[13] Greg Austin, “China’s Military Dream,” The Diplomat, June 1, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/06/chinas-military-dream/
[14] Ellen Nakashima, “Following U.S. Indictments, China Shifts Commercial Hacking Away from Military to Civilian Agency,” The Washington Post, November 30, 2015,
[14] Andrea Shaal, “Top US Spy Skeptical About U.S.-China Cyber Agreement,” Reutuers, September 30, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/us-usa-cybersecurity-idUSKCN0RT1Q820150930
[14] Joseph Menn, “China Tried to Hack U.S. Companies Even After Cyber Pact,” Business Insider, October 19, 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/r-china-tried-to-hack-us-firms-even-after-cyber-pact-crowdstrike-2015-10
[14] Ellen Nakashima, “China Still Trying to Hack U.S. Firms Despite Xi’s Vow to Refrain, Analysts Say,” The Washington Post, October 19, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-still-trying-to-hack-us-firms-despite-xis-vow-to-refrain-analysts-say/2015/10/18/d9a923fe-75a8-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html
[14] “U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission 2013 Report to Congress,” Testimony of the Honorable William A. Reinsch before the Armed Services Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, November 20, 2013, http://origin.www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/ReinschW-20131120_2013%20Annual%20Report.pdf
[15] Kelly Jackson Higgins, “Cybercrime, Cyber Espionage Tactics Converge,” Dark Reading, February 24, 2015, http://www.darkreading.com/analytics/threat-intelligence/cybercrime-cyber-espionage-tactics-converge/d/d-id/1319203
[16] Kyle Mizokami, “Why the Chinese Military is a Paper Dragon,” The Week, September 24, 2014, http://theweek.com/articles/445300/why-chinese-military-only-paper-dragon
[17] Ellen Nakashima, “Chinese Government Has Arrested Hackers It Says Breached OPM Database,” The Washington Post, December 3, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-government-has-arrested-hackers-suspected-of-breaching-opm-database/2015/12/02/0295b918-990c-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html
[18] Ellen Nakashima, “World’s Richest Nations Agree Hacking for Commercial Benefits is Off-Limits,” The Washington Post, November 16, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/worlds-richest-nations-agree-hacking-for-commercial-benefit-is-off-limits/2015/11/16/40bd0800-8ca9-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html
[19] Katie Bo Williams, “Chinese Arrest of Hackers Not a First,” The Hill, October 13, 2015, http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/256769-chinese-arrest-of-hackers-not-a-first
American wannabe ‘security’ firms alleged that China has been hacking the US. The State and Defense Departments have echoed these claims.
Though the motive for the allegations is pretty obvious, neither alleger has advanced a plausible motive for China’s alleged hacking.
Nor has the US produced any evidence.
Nor has the US been willing to discuss an Internet Code of Conduct.
“a plausible motive for China’s alleged hacking”…wow that is dumb. Hundreds of billions of dollars of advanced research done by American and Western companies to be hacked and used free of charge by state owned Chinese companies that are decades behind in competitive economic innovation isn’t motive enough for you?
You ever wonder why everyone iPhone says DESIGNED in California, made in China?
Can you cite an example?
China’s even or ahead in most technologies last time I checked.
Can I cite an example of China/Chinese stealing US tech? Sure thing, but first let’s be honest, we both know you’re not going to read any of these because you’re a Chinese propagandist or in total denial of your countries failings. Face the facts buddy, your only good for cheap $2 assembling labor for products other, smarter, more advanced countries have designed and that’s why you’re economy is heading into decline.
Your technology companies are stolen clones of American/Korean/Japanese tech and your military is built around cloning Russian tech. To invent and innovate you need free thought and creativity, something the people of China sadly have no access to, to YOUR detriment. That is why everything will always say assembled in China, DESIGNED in USA/JAPAN/KOREA/RUSSIA, etc.
Here’s one the Chinese President says he’ll try to get his country to stop stealing. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/25/president-obama-chinese-president-xi-jingping-announce-agreement-to-stop-hacking
Here’s the link citing China breaking that promise and continuing to hack American and Western companies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-still-trying-to-hack-us-firms-despite-xis-vow-to-refrain-analysts-say/2015/10/18/d9a923fe-75a8-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html
And here’s one about an American technology company who had their software stolen by their Chinese customer after they bribed one of the software engineers, (they were dumb enough to do it on emails so there’s documented proof, the employee pleaded guilty and was convicted) behind bars) and now they’re being sued by the American company in China. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/06/27/feds-charge-chinese-firm-with-stealing-technology-mass-company-amsc/CTE66TzhtD19qvEfU35RQN/story.html
Uh huh. Can you cite an example – just one – of China stealing US technology.
One will be sufficient. And skip the ad hominem, please. Answer the question.
Here you go!
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa…
Victims:
1) Westinghouse Electric Co. (Westinghouse)
2) U.S. subsidiaries of SolarWorld AG (SolarWorld)
3) United States Steel Corp. (U.S. Steel)
4) Allegheny Technologies Inc. (ATI)
5) The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW)
6) Alcoa Inc.
Other cases outside of this indictment:
Sinovel- http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
DOW Chemical – http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
Dupont – http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
Boeing – http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
Lockheed Martin – https://www.fbi.gov/losangeles…
Ford Motors – https://www.fbi.gov/detroit/pr…
Some good reading:
http://www.ipcommission.org/re…
Some examples of this theft being put to use:
http://news.usni.org/2015/10/2…
Unproven Allegation: http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa….
Unproven Allegation, lost in two courts: Sinovel- http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
Normal Industrial Espionage: DOW Chemical – http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
Normal Industrial Espionage: Dupont – http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
This IS an example of China stealing trade secrets. Thanks: Boeing – http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/…
Unproven allegations: Lockheed Martin – https://www.fbi.gov/losangeles…
Normal industrial espionage: Ford Motors – https://www.fbi.gov/detroit/pr…
Unproven allegations: http://news.usni.org/2015/10/2…
We have one example of China engaging in espionage. (And a dozen examples of China developing technology more advanced than the USA’s).
LOLOL
Guys, I’m 100% sure this guys a troll and 99% sure he’s a paid Chinese propagandist. Honestly, the jokes on us, at least he gets paid to waste his time on these comment boards. On the positive side, he probably lost a ton when China’s stock index dropped over 2000 points, about 30%+ so he’ll need to do this for at least a few more years than he planned before retirement. Ha ha!!!
These “unproven” allegations are unproven for the simple fact that these people will never stand trial in a US court. This is because they’re a member of the Chinese Military. A nations military being used to steal IP to advance their technological capabilities is clear cut nation theft. Given the politically charged nature of this indictment, it was made sure there was more than sufficient evidence against the accused. Anything dual use for private sector and military applications get/ scooped up too. The entire economy is built off of using IP theft and then repackaging it for their domestic market:
China in a sense has no choice but to steal some of this IP. They had a very late start in comparison to other industrialized nations and to try to do this indigenously would mean spending a lot of time in the interim being unequipped to defend their nation.
Trying to deny this is the practice in China is just not possible without being outright disingenuous (which you are). This isn’t just US finger pointing at China but nearly every single one of it’s trading partners including Russia.
They’re unproven allegations. Like WMD, the Tonkin Gulf, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They’re just talk.
Let’s take a quick look at some areas where China is indisputably ahead of the USA, shall we?
Engineering: Tsinghua University tops MIT on US News engineering …
Youth Education: Shanghai does not insist on the level of qualification required in Finland – where teachers must hold a master’s degree – but it does demand that teachers have a degree in the subject they will teach, even at elementary school level. To teach science in elementary school you need a science degree; to teach maths you need a maths degree. OECD: http://www.oecd.org/countries/hongkongchina/46581016.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2014/02/05/what-we-can-learn-from-the-success-of-shanghais-schools/#51e3aeb867be, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/what-shanghai-can-teach-us-about-teaching-math/article17835021/?page=all
Governance. http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2011/world/infographic-successes-and-failures-of-chinas-five-year-plans-1996-2010/
Patents, IP: List of countries by patents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Indicators
Speech Recognition: In particular, Deep Speech works better than the others in noisy environments, such as in a car or a crowd. That’s key, of course, to making speech recognition truly useful in the real world. In noisy backgrounds, Ng said, tests showed that Deep Speech outperformed several speech systems–the Google Speech API, wit.ai, Microsoft’s Bing Speech, and Apple Dictation–by over 10% in terms of word error rates. http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2014/12/18/baidu-announces-breakthrough-in-speech-recognition-claiming-to-top-google-and-apple/
Graphenics: http://investorintel.com/rare-earth-intel/chinese-firms-to-launch-the-worlds-first-mass-production-of-15-inch-single-layer-graphene-film/
‘Clean’ nuclear power from thorium. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html
High Temperature Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors. In what would be a milestone for advanced nuclear power, China’s Nuclear Engineering Construction Corporation plans to start up a high-temperature, gas-cooled pebble-bed nuclear reactor in Shandong province, south of Beijing, late next year. Examples of the so-called Generation IV reactors that go beyond today’s conventional reactor technology, the twin 105-megawatt reactors would be the first of their type built at commercial scale in the world. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600757/china-could-have-an-advanced-nuclear-reactor-next-year/
Genomics. China leads the world, according to the National Institutes of Health. http://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/NIH-Director-Says-China-Leads-US-in-Genomic-Research-48781-1.html
Power generation (Duke Energy licenses their thermal power technology from China) http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204517204577042400486781234
Supercomputing. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/11/17/china-once-again-boasts-the-worlds-fastest-supercomputer/
http://www.nextplatform.com/2015/11/16/china-triples-top-supercomputer-count-in-2015/ “Chinese systems vendor, Sugon, has now overtaken IBM on the Top 500“
China’s Quantum Communication Network . http://www.scmp.com/tech/science-research/article/1893063/china-set-quantum-leaps-spook-proof-communications
Quantum Encrypted Networks in Space: https://www.rt.com/news/328988-china-quantum-info-teleport/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS
Missiles. http://missilethreat.com/missile-class/dong-feng-21d-df-21dcss-5-mod-4/
Naval Guns http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20141211000100&cid=1101
Passive Array Radar. http://chinadailymail.com/2014/12/05/china-says-it-is-able-to-track-and-kill-us-stealth-aircraft/
Metamaterials. http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?MainCatID=0&cid=1101&id=20150504000094
Hyperspectral Imaging: China To Launch The World’s Most Powerful Hyperspectral Satellite | Popular Science.
Nanotechnology. China leads the world in the number of nanotechnology patents. http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2014-02/17/content_31478994.htm
Suzhou’s Nanopolis is the world’s biggest multi-functional nanotech industrial community and is currently generating 20.4 billion RMB annually from the 120 corporations operating within its campus. http://daxueconsulting.com/nanotech-in-china-7-reasons-why/
UHV Electricity transmission: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?MainCatID=0&cid=1102&id=20150806000062
Electric Vehicles: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australian-all-electric-bus-drives-into-record-books-1018km-on-one-charge-39659
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/renewable-energy-ecology/china-electric-bus-19012016/
High Speed Rail: http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/GlobalCompetitiveness-Rail.pdf
You’re right Godfree. Chinese technology is miles ahead of anything in the west.
You should make a movie about it.
Now the first thing you’ll need is a script, and for that you’ll need Final Draft software, which was developed in the USA.
Then you’ll need some cameras. And you’ll want the best, so you’d have to go with German Arri Alexa camera. They also do lights, so they’ll have you covered there.
And then you’ll need some lenses, so again you turn to Germany and get some Carl Zeiss prime lenses.
So after all that, once you have finished shooting, you might want to add some CGI. Which means you’ll need the Canadian developed Houdini software. It does great work.
So once you’ve put you CG in, you’ll probably want to grade your footage. You know give it, a real cinematic look. And for that you’ll need either the USA developed Adobe After Effects software, or the Australian Davinci Resolve software.
Now you’ve given your movie a nice cinematic look, complete with CGI. So now we need to edit it. We means we again have to turn to America and use Final Cut Pro, or Avid. I suggest AVID because you can also do all the sound mixing with their software.
So there you have a finished movie. Now you need to promote it, which means a poster. So for that we need some photos. Which means using the Swedish Hassellblad cameras.
So once you have your photos, you’ll need to edit them. And for that you’ll need the American Adobe Photoshop. Then you’ll need to transfer it over onto another piece of American software in Adobe InDesign.
Now your set. It’s time for the red carpet, and what better way to capture the moment by using a Japanese Nikon D4.
And once that is over you can put it all up on the American developed internet. Because what better way to show the world how great Chinese technology is by making a movie where NOTHING used is Chinese.
You forgot the end of the story: your movie won’t be watched by any Chinese because the Chinese-developed Great Firewall will block it. Here is the Chinese innovation!
So very true.
Here’s the thing, that Godfree refuses to accept.
People don’t go, “We want the best. So we better go Chinese.”
Instead they say “Price is an issue. We need something cheap. So we better go Chinese”.
Which is fair enough. There is a market and a need for cheap products.
But don’t try and sell me a Geely Excellence by telling me it’s better than a Rolls Royce Phantom
Godfree will reply this: “Rolls Royce Phantom was originally designed by Chinese, and later its blueprints were stolen and modified by the British company, because anyway all Western companies only can survive by stealing the advanced Chinese technology via industrial espionage. There were evidences published in the Xinhuawang and my website.”
Followed up with “Where is the proof? What motivation would they have for doing this?”
If people say, “We want the best. So we better go Chinese,” they’re only talking about a limited range of products.
Just these: Speech Recognition, Graphenics, Thorium power, Pebble Bed Reactors, Genomics, Thermal Power generation, Supercomputing, Quantum Communication Networks, ASW Missiles, Naval Guns, Passive Array Radar, Metamaterials, Hyperspectral Imaging, Nanotechnology, UHV Electricity transmission, Electric Vehicles or High Speed Rail.
For everything else, there’s MasterCard.
You forgot sprockets.
I say that because you must be living in some sort of Jetson fantasy world.
Are you one of those NSA trolls whose function it is to bomb discussions with insults and non sequiturs? Or do you know nothing about China? Or do you not understand English?
You seem to have nothing to add but insults and non sequiturs – along with the usual troll claim, “I’ve disproved everything you’ve said many times and you’re a liar”. That’s very popular with the NSA crowd.
Actually I disproved your “London has worse pollution than Beijing” claim yesterday. Still haven’t heard a rebuttal. Slinking away again.
Are you one of those China trolls whose function is to bombs discussions with lies and falsehoods? Or do you know nothing about China? (Well you don’t speak Chinese so maybe.)
You seem to have nothing to add but lies and falsehoods, – along with the usual troll claim, “I provide links to everything I’ve said, prove me wrong” And when someone does prove you wrong, you just ignore them only to repeat the same lie 2 days later. That’s very popular with the 50c crowd.
Did you read the Bloomberg piece on London’s pollution?
Can you give an example of someone proving me wrong?
I actually sent you 4 links for you to read. Did you bother to read any of them?
Probably not.
What do you get out of all of this? Myself and others have on many occasions completely debunked the spin, half-truths or outright lies you push. Still you’ll push the same nonsense elsewhere and post links to your own website to try to make it appear a 3rd party agrees with you. All of this has to be a serious time commitment.
I can’t think of any rational reason for this. I’m puzzled by it. I actually want to know.
All I’ve gotten out of it is abuse. I persist in hoping that Americans will wake up to the fact that we’re in danger of becoming irrelevant if we don’t mount a program a Manhattan Project to stay ahead of – or at least compete – with China .
I point out social areas, like education, criminology and poverty eradication where China has big leads over us. If their government keeps up the anti-corruption campaign, by the time Xi leaves office people will be looking enviously at China – as they do at Singapore – and contemptuously at our corrupt Congress and Administration, who refuse to prosecute the crooks who are looting the country.
When I talk about our diplomatic defeats in Seattle and at Sunnylands (or Iraq or Syria), it’s not to gloat but to warn that we are losing our ability to influence affairs, as has already happened in the Middle East and even England, an occupied vassal state that joined China’s AIIB against US wishes.
I’m always banging on about the support and trust that the Chinese people give their government – and how easy that makes running their country. Imagine that 90% of us supported our government’s policies. There is nothing we could not accomplish. The Chinese have got it and they are accomplishing marvels. We don’t, yet all we do is deny their accomplishments.
Have you been to China lately? Imagine it in nine years’ time when its GDP is twice what it is now. When its IP portfolio is twice its current size and significance. When its cars and highways are electrified, 30,000 km. of HSR completed, and poverty eliminated? That’s going to look mighty persuasive to almost every country on earth, especially since China will be their biggest trading partner and investor.
The precautionary principle suggests that, since it is not harmful for us to assume my account to be accurate and could be most harmful to deny it, then we should assume my description and prediction to be accurate and act accordingly. i.e., get off our asses.
I’m just as mystified about why you don’t write under your real name and why you try so hard to disprove any positive statement about China. What’s the point?
Sigh, I was hoping for too much. You just used an honest question to continue your relentless campaign of spin. This is called “concern trolling”.
There’s no reason to use your real name in these discussion boards. I’m a small business owner / software engineer that does business globally (incl. China). I travel to China 4-5 times a year as well as other countries in that region.
I’m not trying to disprove any and all positive statements about China. I don’t have a vendetta against a country I receive 30% of my income from from. I do however go out of my way to rebut your fantastical claims. If you look carefully I only speak up when you make statements such as:
Defending North Korea and proclaiming America is a terrorist nation. This gets filed under an extreme position. This speaks to your mindset.
You stating that Beijing suffers from less pollution than London. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
You stating China is leading the US in human rights. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
You stating China has never stolen IP to enhance their technology base. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
You stating that the Chinese in particular (to the exclusion of all other Asians descending from that area) are a superior race that is inherently more capable intellectually. Hitler made a similar claim of an Aryan “master race” btw. There is no research to support or disprove this but is a wild claim that speaks to your mindset.
You stating that no country has ever developed under a democracy. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
This type of stuff doesn’t reflect a rational actor, which is why I was curious but (surprise) you used that stump to continue with your bizarre mission.
While I appreciate your concern, it would be useful if you could back up your claims with links that prove your case. That’s what I do.
Seriously? Once I dig it up, what good would it do? Will you ADMIT you’re incorrect with irrefutable proof? If so, I will go through the older posts and re-present it (again).
Just these refutations would be useful:
Defending North Korea and proclaiming America is a terrorist nation. This gets filed under an extreme position. This speaks to your mindset.
You stating that Beijing suffers from less pollution than London. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
You stating China is leading the US in human rights. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
You stating China has never stolen IP to enhance their technology base. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
You stating that the Chinese in particular (to the exclusion of all other Asians descending from that area) are a superior race that is inherently more capable intellectually. Hitler made a similar claim of an Aryan “master race” btw. There is no research to support or disprove this but is a wild claim that speaks to your mindset.
You stating that no country has ever developed under a democracy. There’s cold hard facts to debunk this.
So to be clear, if I provide this data you’ll then admit that you were incorrect and will not continue to make the erroneous statements elsewhere? Like any other rational person would?
If you provide the data. Not just more allegations. Data.
So that is a yes, am I safe in assuming that? You haven’t given an affirmative response. I don’t want to waste time putting it together for nothing. A debate is meaningless if one party can’t agree that facts are admissible.
I’m beginning to understand how climate denialism works. Perhaps cognitive dissonance is the natural state of the human mind.
Climate denialism manifests itself in many ways. One way is to make outrageous claims like London’s pollution is worse than Beijing. It’s a glorified way of passing the buck.
Something you are very notorious for.
Did you read the Bloomberg piece on London’s pollution?
Yes, it said that NO2 was worse in London than Beijing, which is only one polllutant. But I think you missed the part where it said that PM10 particles were 3 times higher in Beijing.
Nice proof Godfree
I don’t think you read it did you. You saw the headline and thought “Eureka! There’s my proof”
Lazy, just lazy
No. I’d read the entire article. I like the headline, however, because it gets people to reflect on why China is singled out when it doesn’t even have one city in the top ten most polluted. I also like it as a lead-in to the fact – undeniable in this case – that London’s air was far worse than Beijing’s long after Britain had industrialized – and that it’s still not clean.
No you’re right. 50 years ago London’s pollution was awful. And today it is still the worst city in Europe. However as smart you claim the Chinese are, why would they pursue a path of pollution first, clean air second in their economic rise? Did they just ignore history, and just thought “screw it, clean air is not a priority” Even today, after they issued their first ever red alerts for air pollution, what was their response. That’s right, raise the bar on how much pollution is needed to issue a red alert.
And all that could be ignored, if it wasn’t for people like you lying, and saying knowing false things like “London’s pollution is worse than Bejing”
It’s just BS, and you know it. Yet you’re just keep peddling it.
And you wonder why people insult you.
I am the messenger only. I merely quoted Bloomberg’s headline. Surely you’re not accusing Bloomberg of lying?
All developed countries I dustrialize rapidly and damn the environmental torpedoes. Japan in the 60s was unbelievably bad. I traveled each summer to an island south of Kagoshima in the East China Sea. It took at least an hour’s steaming to get into clean water. For miles from the Japanese coast the water stank and was the color of diesel oil. And Kagoshima is not even an industrial center.
Did you know that “one in four Americans lives within three miles of a contaminated site posing serious risks to human health and the environment”, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency? I remember the celebration when the first sturgeon returned to the formerly terribly polluted San Francisco Bay after decades of cleanup and millions of dollars. And SF is not an industrial powerhouse, either. The 60s saw a staggering series of environmental disasters in the US, Love Canal being emblematic. We are still only half way cleaned up from our industrialization phase.
So cut the Chinese some slack. They were much, much poorer than us when they began to develop and they’ve started remediation much, much sooner.
Who accused Bloomberg of lying? You’re trying to put words in my mouth. And I don’t think someone who read the article would consider using it as strong evidence on your farcical claims.
Maybe go look at any of the 4 links I posted you. Then maybe your pride and decency will finally stop you posting such ridiculous lies.
And while you are at it, go get yourself checked out because you really are starting to suffer from dementia.
Wasn’t it your lovely self who said, “And all that could be ignored, if it wasn’t for people like you lying, and saying knowing false things like “London’s pollution is worse than Bejing”.
Those are not my lying words. Those are Bloomberg’s lying words. Bloomberg writer Alex Morales’ words to be specific. If you think Alex was lying, get in touch and tell him what he wrote is ridiculous. To refresh your memory, here’s what Alex wrote:
London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s …
http://www.bloomberg.com/…/london-s-dirty-secret-pollutes-like-beijing-airpo...
May 27, 2014 – A cyclist pauses at the top of Primrose Hill in London, as the city below lies shrouded in pollution. Photographer: Adrian Dennis/AFP via Getty …
So you still haven’t read any of the links I’ve given you. If you did you wouldn’t be saying such bullshit.
If you want me to treat you with respect, how about you treat me with respect, and read my links.
Thats why people call you a childish idiot.
The only links I’ve found from you are around Bloomberg’s assertion that London has worse air quality that Beijing. I’m happy to admit that that Bloomberg is telling a partial truth.
Have you provided links on any other topics. I looked through your 130 comments in Disqus but could not find other topics that you provided links for. https://disqus.com/by/laughter_is_the_best_medicine/
Where else might I look?
http://shanghaiist.com/2016/02/19/china_indonesia_rail_project_stalled_again.php
It’s OK Godfree. I won’t allow you to slink away like you usually do
Every word Godfree writes is a lie, including “and” and “the”.
“Those are not my lying words.”
No you just keep repeating, knowing (as you just admitted) that they are a lie. So what does that make you?
By the way, since you seem to think bloomberg is all knowing.
What do you make of these headlines
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-29/china-stumbles-in-race-to-pass-u-s-as-world-s-biggest-economy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-17/how-china-s-slowdown-is-worse-than-you-think
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-03/china-s-slump-might-be-much-worse-than-we-thought
You have seemed to disagreed with these positions in the past. Are they lying. Maybe you need to get in touch with bloomberg.
your link leads to an 404 error page
Let’s try that link again..
London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s …
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-27/london-s-dirty-secret-pollutes-like-beijing-airpocalyse
May 27, 2014 – Concentrations are greater even than in Beijing, where expatriates have … London isn’t alone in having bad air in Europe, where 301 sites …
You’ve visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 2/28/16
“London isn’t alone in having bad air in Europe, where 301 sites breached
the EU’s NO2 limits in 2012, including seven in the British capital.
Paris, Rome, Athens, Madrid, Brussels and Berlin also had places that
exceeded the ceiling. The second and third-worst sites among 1,513
monitoring stations were both in Stuttgart after London’s Marylebone Road.
Beijing had a concentration of 56 micrograms last year, according to
China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection. The Chinese capital has a
worse problem with other pollutants, registering almost triple the level
of PM10 particles (bigger than PM2.5s) as on Marylebone Road.
The rest of the article discusses the levels of pollution of NO2 and PM2.5’s at the two specific sites Marlyebone Road measuring site, the worst site in all the 1,513 measuring sites in the EU.
So it would be accurate to say that seven sites in London had levels of some pollutants (NO2 and PM2.5) that exceeded the levels in Beijing.
It would not be accurate to say that London’s pollution is worse than Beijing’s. In fact that would be a false statement.
Then why did Bloomberg say it?
As we have shown you, and you understand very well, Bloomberg said there is a specific measuring station in London that records worse levels of two pollutants than the average of the city of Beijing. however this is the station out that records the highest level of pollution out of the network’s 1,513 in the EU.
I think it is useful to reveal your false statements. If nothing else, it shows readers how little respect for truth most of the pro CCP posters have.
One more time:
London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s …
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…
Bug Mike Bloomberg. Give him an earful. He’s a good listener, I understand.
yes, we read and responded to your link. did you miss it?
Here we are Godfree. A website that uses nothing but numbers, and data crunching.
http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/compare_cities.jsp?country1=China&city1=Beijing&country2=United+Kingdom&city2=London
Beijing is clearly, I repeat CLEARLY worse than London.
Talk – I repeat, talk – to Mike Bloomberg. Tell him he’s a big fibber.
While you’re at it, ask Numbeo if they just pulled the figures out of their asses? I know that London has better quality air overall, but what about NOx? That’s what Bloomberg alleged.
Just listing figures without sources is a prima facie sign of a scam. You know that.
No, no, no Godfree. You’ve asserted on numerous times, that London’s air pollution is worse than Beijing.
Now that I’ve given you (as well as numerous times in the past) proof that’s it not, will you finally admit that you were wrong? Or can we expect to see this same lie posted by you again in the near future?
And as write this, here is a real time check on the air quality of the two cities.
http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/
http://aqicn.org/city/london/
Hmmm….. 180 seems a lot worse than 64 wouldn’t you say….
No, we’re not accusing Bloomberg of lying, we’re accusing you of lying. Your link goes to a 404 error page
perhaps you are referring to 1952 London?
Godfree, you are claiming that the fact that in China anyone holding a math degree can teach math even if he does not have a teacher’s degree proves that China is ahead of USA (or Finland, you mention Finland which has one of the best education system in the world). You claim that this practice is superior over the practice of most of the free countries where a teacher need to pass a special training about how to become a good teacher, including pedagogical and didactic training, training in child psychology, and general pedagogical practical training.
I only have a single question. WHY?
I made no such claim.
It seems your memory is cheating again…
“Let’s take a quick look at some areas where China is indisputably ahead of the USA, shall we?”
“Youth Education: Shanghai does not insist on the level of qualification required in Finland – where teachers must hold a master’s degree – but it does demand that teachers have a degree in the subject they will teach, even at elementary school level. To teach science in elementary school you need a science degree; to teach maths you need a maths degree. OECD: http://www.oecd.org/countries/…”
Here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/foreignpolicyjournal/ramping_down_chinese_commercial_cyber_espionage/#comment-2536782565
Because results. Shanghai beat Finland by a country mile – at half the cost. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26249042. Finland came 6th., the USA came 24th.
I did, last link or do you want a video of China’s President describing to you exactly what they stole, when, and how then wiping you clean after you use the bathroom?