Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated 4.31 PM
THE UNITED STATES has charged five Chinese military officials with hacking into US companies to gain trade secrets.
According to the indictment, hackers targeted the US nuclear power, metals and solar products industries and are accused of stealing trade secrets and economic espionage.
The charges have been described as unprecedented and dramatise a long-time Obama administration goal to prosecute state-sponsored cyber threats.
“In sum, the alleged hacking appears to have been conducted for no other reason than to advantage state-owned companies and other interests in China at the expense of businesses here in the United States,” Attorney General Eric Holder told a news conference at the Justice Department. “This is a tactic that the United States government categorically denounces.”
Bob Anderson Jr, executive assistant director of the FBI’s criminal, cyber response and services division said that this will likely be the first charge of what will be commonplace.
“This is the new normal. This is what you’re going to see on a recurring basis,” he said.
US officials have previously asserted that China’s army and China-based hackers had launched attacks on American industrial and military targets, often to steal secrets or intellectual property. China has said that it faces a major threat from hackers, and the country’s military is believed to be among the biggest targets of the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command.
“It is our hope that the Chinese government will respect our criminal justice system,” Holder said.
The indictment will put a greater strain on the US-China relationship.
In recent months, Washington has been increasingly critical of what it describes as provocative Chinese actions in pursuit of territorial claims in disputed seas in East Asia. For its part, Beijing complains that the Obama administration’s attempt to redirect its foreign policy toward Asia after a decade of war in the Middle East is emboldening China’s neighbors and causing tension.
Last September, President Barack Obama discussed cybersecurity issues on the sidelines of a summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
White House spokesman Ben Rhodes said at the time that Obama had addressed concerns about cyber threats emanating from China. He said Obama told Xi the US sees it not through the prism of security but out of concern over theft of trade secrets.
In late March, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel revealed that the Pentagon planned to more than triple its cybersecurity staff in the next few years to defend against Internet attacks that threaten national security.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Keep the recovery going”
TDs: Wahey, we get a €5k pay rise!
Health workers: Where’s our pay rise?
Fine Gael: Well, we haven’t recovered that much now…
@Franklin Roosevelt: the economy has recovered very significantly since the 2007 implosion , I know that’s not popular acknowledge here but it is true
@Franklin Roosevelt: apologies hadn’t read comment properly
Maybe a.silly statement but ” voluntary organisations” funded by hse . What makes it voluntary if the workers are being paid ?
@Chris Tobin: as far as i know that title entitles them to legally receive charitable donations. So the HSE funding isn’t 100% of their income.
@Stephen Foster: voluntary only in name for tax reasons so
@Chris Tobin: They are service providers to the HSE who would have to do the support and rehab work they do. Section 39 groups as is mentioned in the article.
Please check out the difference before statements that quiet simply are wrong and uninformed.
The HSE pay for the staffing of them to do the work, the charitable donations are used directly to help the clients more than they could if only relying on HSE funding
I honestly wish people would learn more about the section 39 groups before commenting . The misunderstanding above are frightening.
Funding was cut, wages were cut, so as not to affect the clients IE me and other disabled people who rely on these groups.
The charitable donations go in special activities or training for the clients.
The group that help me received a 64% increase in requests for support and had a 15% cut in funding.
DO THE MATH.
Are these people employees of the HSE though? It doesn’t sound like it as they are section 39 companies who receive funding from the HSE as they are effectively charities or do charity classified work. SIPTU are looking for the HSE to increase grants to these designated charity organisations it seems so that they can be used to fund salary increases. This is comparing apples with oranges surely. I’m not sure how this is comparable with PS pay increases.
@Sean @114: hse funded ” voluntary organisations” so
@Chris Tobin: they are providing funds. They are not the employer and there is no obligation on HSE to provide more funds for salaries as it is not the employer. SIPTU comparing apples to oranges here. The gripe is with the employer surely.
@Sean @114: No you have it wrong completely. Not surprising as a lot of people do. It would take too long to explain. Section 39 groups do work for the HSE and they are paid like any other service provider. The wages were cut in line with the PS wages and what they are asking for is parity.
@Gary Kearney: The HSE provide recurring grants for these agencies but are not a direct employer of their employees. You will find none of them on the HSE payroll.
@Alan McCartney: But this came up in 2014 relating to top-up payments.
The HSE engaged with “section 39 organisations regarding their obligations under their service agreements with it not to pay or subsidise salaries, expenses or other benefits which exceeded those normally paid in the public service.”
If their pay was capped then, they’re saying it would be fair to match it with HSE wages now.
@Alan McCartney: correct, not the employer. They may ‘subsidise’ section 39 agencies but they do not employ these staff. At least that was always my understanding. If they were let go would they receive a P45 from the HSE employer registered company? I don’t believe so.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: yes obligations under an agreement which sees funding received from the HSE. They set guidelines that certain payments should not exceed those in line with their own. It makes sense to do so. Nowhere would it make sense to agree to pay ‘increases’ for non employees.
@Alan McCartney: and they can match it all they want from current funding levels.
When the inefficiencies are gone from the health service and some savings made, review pay and apply where possible.
The amount of €uros wasted on administration for administration sake is what cripples the guys of the budget.
SIPTU won’t hear tell of it because our affects their income.
You’d cringe at the salaries the top table are paid in these unions. Jack O’ Connor is on €149k folks.
@Murph: examples please.
Sack them all and get the army to take over.
@Peter Barlow: What, march into nursing homes and help them all into clean uniforms? Shout out their medication in relays?
@Peter Barlow: I hope none of your family ever need these services.
have your say