China's hacking: Don't worry?
On the heels of the Obama administration suggesting that the U.S. should “work together” with China to stem cyber crimes comes another account of China hacking, this time directed at the White House Military Office.
The Washington Free Beacon reports that hackers linked to the Chinese government breached the office's network. But an administration official quickly tamped down the report, saying that the “phishing” affected an unclassified network and that there was no evidence that any data had been stolen.
Really? Given this administration's disdain for truth and transparency, we have our doubts.
We're talking about a high-security network that, among other things, includes data on presidential communications, travel and the “nuclear football,” the device used by the president to communicate with strategic nuclear forces, The Beacon reports. A former senior U.S. intelligence official calls WHMO “the most significant office in the U.S. government.”
This latest attack was but one in an unrelenting pattern of China's hacking, most notably targeting Pentagon computers, according to a senior intelligence officer for the U.S. Cyber Command.
But instead of pressing China on computer espionage, the Obama administration plays down a known and nefarious threat, ignoring the burglar in its midst.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- An ObamaCare ‘re-do’?
- The Moody’s downgrade: Inaction’s price
- Corporate tax inversions: Prevent more Mylans
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Saturday essay: Ants with tool belts
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances