The Chinese might have responded with too much haste to the most recent accusations by Google. The English news from Xinhuanet has made some amusing and unfortunate errors. This one is probably my favourite:

In fact, individual criminals, rather than states, are the major treat to Internet safety, as some U.S. experts say.

I would like to know which experts say this. Criminals are a major treat? Do these treats leave a sour taste?

The next one makes me think that the Chinese editors might have relied too much on Google translate.

The chimerical complaints by Google have become obstacles for enhancing global trust between stakeholders in cyberspace.

If only Google had known that their language engine would be used to draft the letter against them. Oh, the fun they could have had.

Although China does not identify the experts it cites, mentioned above, they don’t seem to mind accusing Google of failing to identify theirs. Double standard?

Then unidentified American security investigators said, they traced the attackers to computers at Chinese Shanghai Jiaotong University and Lanxiang Vocational School, according to the New York Times.

And then they try for some humour.

The report amused many Chinese at that time since Lanxiang Vocational School enjoys a good fame at training chefs for local restaurants.

But the American investigators suggested that the school had the capacity to stage the cyber attacks and made the world’s No. 1 search engine suffer. It is really hard for people with common sense to understand.

Well, actually, I don’t know about that since security experts in America often tout their culinary skills. I know one who brags about his “short-order cook” training, another who writes guides to restaurants, and another just retired to start a chocolate company.

It could just be that Americans think very highly of culinary skill while the Chinese…well, apparently common sense to them is you don’t want to eat the food made by graduates of the Lanxiang Vocational School. Americans who saw the school’s name might have thought “good fame at training chefs” meant something like Culinary Arts instead of “do you want fries with that”.

Never mind the messenger(s). The historic trend of attacks has been away from states and towards groups/individuals, away from clear definitions of victory and towards mixed levels of compromise. That was a large point of my Dr. Stuxlove presentation earlier this year. Google might believe it knows reasons why China is sponsoring or even supporting attacks but the company has yet to provide anything even close to a proof.

It is hard not to wonder about the timing and the reason they chose to announce this breach. Does Google make a major news announcement every time they think someone not in China is responsible for breaching their security?

A source familiar with the incident said this was not the first time a Google employee has been dismissed as the result of a privacy breach

I am reminded of a comment I made on Bruce’s blog the other day about the US intelligence community’s recently published review on McCarthy-ism. I ranted a bit but the follow-up comments by Eric and Dirk are excellent. Definitely worth checking their perspectives out if you have a moment.

Speaking of Bruce, he declares this whole flap non-newsworthy but I know he is into good food and I bet he hasn’t taken into account the criminal treats.