Oh no I meant your area of professional expertise in the area of cyber security. I did not mean this particular hack.
> wealth of information on their servers useful for counter intelligence, economic, political and likely even military gain as well
Perhaps you could go further and tease out why a US company would have information on their servers useful for counter intelligence, political and likely even military gain - beyond of course the merely mundane trope of suggesting that the algorithms or IP are the reason.
I'll take a stab, but I'd love to hear how your characterize it: It's because US tech companies, like other multinational corporations inside the US, partner with the US government which some times means intelligence or military sectors - either to provide products and services - to perform research or to fund research - or to offer capabilities as a de facto extension.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act weaponized the US tech service sector to provide data and metadata for US intelligence efforts and for the targeting of foreign nationals.
(Incidentally, it's true also that individuals located at Google hacked back into the Chinese C2Cs.)
Chinese Intelligence is fully aware of FISA and the USG use of technology product and service backdoors.
> I don't we'll ever know exactly what all of their reasons were for breaking in, but I don't think the theory that one of the primary motivations was targeting dissidents can be waved away as just spin.
You really don't motivate why we should take the PR statement more seriously than the journalism. And references to 'I don't think we can ever be certain' is an appeal to uncertainty that isn't really there.
> Perhaps you could go further and tease out why...
I suggested it for much more mundane than you suggested: Google is likely to have valuable political, economic and political information because politicians, businessmen and service members have personal Google accounts, and employees are the weakest link in an organization's security. I don't think anyone's going to be sending out the designs for the next stealth fighter over Gmail, but plenty of people would be sending out innocuous documents, contact information, personal problems, etc. Intelligence services thrive on innocuous information in aggregate.
Is it the case that FISA weaponizes US tech services as claimed above? Could you go on at length about the Snowden disclosures and how they and the FISA Court pertain to overseas national spying - and Google and other companyies' roles?
> wealth of information on their servers useful for counter intelligence, economic, political and likely even military gain as well
Perhaps you could go further and tease out why a US company would have information on their servers useful for counter intelligence, political and likely even military gain - beyond of course the merely mundane trope of suggesting that the algorithms or IP are the reason.
I'll take a stab, but I'd love to hear how your characterize it: It's because US tech companies, like other multinational corporations inside the US, partner with the US government which some times means intelligence or military sectors - either to provide products and services - to perform research or to fund research - or to offer capabilities as a de facto extension.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act weaponized the US tech service sector to provide data and metadata for US intelligence efforts and for the targeting of foreign nationals.
(Incidentally, it's true also that individuals located at Google hacked back into the Chinese C2Cs.)
Chinese Intelligence is fully aware of FISA and the USG use of technology product and service backdoors.
> I don't we'll ever know exactly what all of their reasons were for breaking in, but I don't think the theory that one of the primary motivations was targeting dissidents can be waved away as just spin.
You really don't motivate why we should take the PR statement more seriously than the journalism. And references to 'I don't think we can ever be certain' is an appeal to uncertainty that isn't really there.