🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9d6jls$1k7$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>In <9d6bit$ooh$1@caerulus.cerintha.com> "Michael Scheidell"
><me2@privacy.net> writes:
>
>Lets, see the following set of sentences.
>
>]Chinese hackers have broken into dozens of small computers, unprotected
>
>...
>]The FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Centre said Chinese hackers had
>]publicly discussed increasing their activity with May 7, the second
>...
>]last night had shut down six of them. The identity and whereabouts of the
>]hackers using those servers is not known."
>
>
>So, the hackers are unknown but are "Known" to be Chinese? What kind of
>jingoistic nonsense is this?

What's so hard to understand?  The Chinese cracker community let out the
word that they were planning an attack, in comemmoration of a date of
significance in Sino-American relations.  But we don't know the individuals
involved, just that they're members of this community.  It's not jingoism,
just limited information.

This is not much different from what it would be like if a terrorist leader
called for an increase in terrorist activity on a specific day.  The CIA
would know to be on the lookout for hijackings, bombings, etc. on that day,
but we wouldn't know which individuals were the terrorists.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.