One of the great legacies of Roman Emperor Justinian the Great (527 to 565) was a uniform revision of law. It has remained the basis of civil law in many parts of the world. In his Byzantine IUSTINIANI DIGESTA of the year 533, for example, it was written:

22.3.2

Paulus libro 69 ad edictum

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.

My Latin is a little rusty. Yet I am fairly certain that translates to a man named Paulus (Julius Paulus Prudentissimus, the most quoted Roman jurist in the Digest) saying the following:

Burden of proof (incumbit probatio) is on he who asserts (qui dicit), not on he who denies (qui negat)

Naming names

That old rule of law was the first thing that came to mind when I read the screeching opinion from CSO Publisher Bob Bragdon on “Naming names in APT”

Let’s call a spade a spade: China is the greatest threat to international cyber­security on the planet.

I’m tired of pussyfooting around this issue the way that I, and many others in security, industry and government have been for years. We talk about the “threat from Asia,” the attacks perpetrated by “a certain eastern country with a red flag,” network snooping by our “friends across the Pacific.” I swear, this is like reading a Harry Potter book with my daughter. “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” just attacked our networks.

Let me be absolutely, crystal clear here. In this scenario, China is Voldemort. Clear enough?

Crystal clear? Spade a spade? China is Voldemort? This article must be tongue-in-cheek because it is so obviously self-contradictory it can’t possibly be serious.

The author then offers us an example from a report by NPR. It names China as one of two great threats to business information in the U.S.:

The report is explicit: “Chinese actors are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage,” it concluded, while “Russia’s intelligence services are conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from U.S. targets.”

The author’s example in the article thus contradicts his complaint about naming names. The fact is China has been explicitly named in security reports for a long time, as I have written about before. Here is what I found in just a few seconds of searching:

• Chinese hackers suspected of interfering with US satellites …
• China hacked India’s intel network: Assange
• Massive Cyber Attack Adds to Suspicions of Concerted Chinese Hacking
• China: hacking into US computer networks
• U.N., multinational networks hacked from China

So naming names is hardly a problem for “many others in security, industry and government” and should be set aside. China is obviously getting named both officially, unofficially and even when there is only suspicion.

Burden of proof

What if we accept the author’s argument, setting aside the naming names complaint, that “China is Voldemort”? Now we face a problem of proof.

I’m not talking about proof that China meets the Dictionary definition of Voldemort. I mean why doesn’t the author drop in a couple examples to show that China, even under any other name, is the “greatest threat to international cybersecurity on the planet”. Incidentally, I have to wonder what is the greatest threat off the planet but I’ll leave that alone for now.

Let’s look again at the one example provided.

The report is explicit: “Chinese actors are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage,” it concluded, while “Russia’s intelligence services are conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from U.S. targets.”

This report fails to say that China is the greatest threat to international cybersecurity. Is China a threat to U.S. economic interests? Obviously, as mentioned in CSO before in an article on “Byzantine Hades” (coincidental name, no?). There are many, many examples. One of the economic and social conflict areas between China and the U.S. most interesting to me is the Sudan, as I have written about before. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that the successful American effort to split a country in Africa into separate nations with a clear border was led by a U.S. General?

I see border dispute, tension, and conflict as a very tangible and long-standing indicator of threat. Take as another example the 2009 prediction in the Indian Defense Review.

China will launch an attack on India before 2012.

There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century. The recession that shut the Chinese exports shop is creating an unprecedented internal social unrest. In turn, the vice-like grip of the communists over the society stands severely threatened.

The arguments made were interesting because they actually went so far as to try and prove the foundation of Chinese aggression and thereby predict an escalation. Even more interesting was the response and attempt to disprove the arguments for aggression, as illustrated by an article in ChinaStakes.

Mr Verma’s reasoning rests on a lack of documentation. Looking into the past 60 years, China has no record of launching a war to divert public attention from anything. Moreover, while Mr. Verma supposes the Chinese Communist Party has no cards to play other than “invading India,” the Party, widely experienced in dealing with domestic disputes, will hardly in only three years have run out of all options facing potential social instability. Moreover, even if Chinese leaders considered such an option, they would certainly be aware that an external war would severely jeopardize domestic affairs.

After review of those two sides of the argument I neither believe that China will invade India before 2012 (easy to say now) nor that a lack of a record launching attacks prevents China from changing policy and taking a more aggressive stance. And while I discount both I find myself reviewing the arguments and contemplating a third option.

What if 60 years of American past is what China is actively studying to weigh strategic options? What if they are drawing lessons from the American long-range missile pre-emptive strike doctrine as well as the deterrence doctrine? I have no doubts that there are hawks in the Chinese government studying a history of similarly hawkish plans abroad and trying to find a best-fit for their own country. Whether they can achieve a fit or even emulate/fake one is another story.

Now I’m off talking about awesomely scary missile and invasion conspiracy theories. How did I get here? Oh, right, the Chinese get blamed in name. At least in border disputes, strike plans and missile-tests, there is an effort to provide evidence by authors to prove their point. Before I get too far into reality, let’s pull back to the the CSO article.

The author offers the reader nothing even remotely resembling an argument and thus ends up just name-calling in an article against name-calling. Greatest threat to cybersecurity on the planet? Let’s see some evidence or at least an argument to back that up. I’m not asking for predictions, just something Paulus might have approved — something that we can actually argue for or against.