America's Rendering of Chinese Hacker Threat Is Like A Thief Calling Another A Thief

The “hacker threat” theory surrounding China is causing a great clamor. A number of American media sources, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, have hyped up the continual attacks they are encountering from Chinese hackers. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. network security company Mandiant issued a report claiming that hackers related to Chinese military have repeatedly attacked American websites. Furthermore, it identified the hackers’ headquarters as an ordinary building in Pudong, Shanghai. Both the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Defense refuted this claim.

As early as 2010, the New York Times made a fool of itself by randomly pointing people to the “hackers’ spectrum.” Obstinate and falsely confident, the publication claimed that Shandong Lanxiang Technical School (which is known for training talented people in auto repair, excavating and electric welding areas) was in fact a “Chinese Hackers Camp,” and as a result, it confused the technical school and attracted ridicules online. This time, the Americans are making a comeback in a similar vein, but they are still relying on mere IP address guesswork. The fact is, the number of IP addresses originating in the U.S. ranks highest among the cyber-attacks China has suffered. Could we borrow the American approach, and use “IP tracking” as evidence and simply look up the addresses to determine which buildings or technical schools are housing the U.S. hackers’ headquarters?

Using tricks and deliberate misrepresentations is not a wise approach. It only creates the impression that a thief is calling another a thief. When it comes to the internet, the U.S. fully deserves the title of world leader. It created the internet, set rules for it and is home to innumerable main servers. When it comes to hacker attacks, the U.S. is also number one. It not only invented the majority of viruses, but launched the highest number of hacker attacks as well. It often harasses others, yet always puts on the appearance of a victim, frequently questioning and accusing others. Such a paradox between actions and logic is a symptom of a “masochistic personality disorder,” to put it lightly. In other words, the U.S. is pursuing hegemonism in the virtual world.

There is no real profit to be made from “getting up early” here. There is clearly some other motive behind the U.S.’s sustained efforts to raise a storm around the “hacker” events, though what this motive is is still unclear. However, we could consider that, when the U.S. media hypes up the “Chinese hacker threat” theory, President Obama can gain greater authority to implement “preemptive” cyber-attacks. The news that the U.S. Department of Defense plans to expand its current number network technicians by five times has also been revealed. These circumstances naturally cause people to doubt whether the U.S. is truly defending its legitimate rights or campaigning for the expansion of its “cyber army,” whether the U.S. is racking its brain for the maintenance of world network security or running gimmicks for congressional appropriations and public support.

In recent years, the U.S. has used the internet to provoke opposition around the world. Creating conflicts and inciting revolutions are becoming the norm for the U.S. The network war has already entered the its diplomatic and military arenas. In today’s world, where network technology has been deeply integrated into human productivity and lifestyle, the U.S. is sparing no effort to promote the militarization of cyberspace, develop rules for network warfare and increase the risk of military conflict in cyberspace, and by doing so, posing a serious threat to our national security and international peace. On this point, we must be clear-headed and prepare for necessary defenses.

In the age of the internet, the rules of the game cannot be determined by the Americans alone. All countries are shapers of and participants in the future of cyberspace. Only comprehensive cooperation can lead to win-win scenarios and contribute “positive energy” to international network security. If we attack one thing today and suspect something else tomorrow, cyberspace will never experience peace and interests of all parties will be compromised. The U.S., as the boss of the internet world, should bear its responsibility. The thief trick seems smart, but it is, in truth, very irresponsible. Better to play it less.