Talk:GhostNet

infiltrated computers with malware

Why no mention that these 'computers' are almost always desktop machines running Microsoft Windows emacsuser (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because window is the most popular OS? --85.108.82.254 (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason it's not mentioned that they use electricity. 67.240.138.106 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

audio and video

this sounds very sensationalist: "The network possesses "Big Brother-style" capabilities, allowing it to turn on the camera and audio-recording functions of infected computers for in-room monitoring." If you infiltrate a computer, you can do anything you want with it, don't you? Open CD-Drive, print, and, yet yes, switch on cam and mike. To stress this fact for GhostNet sounds very much like disinformation to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe the phrase "Big Brother" is sensationalist, but the fact that the PC can be used for covert audiovisual surveillance is important to note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.185.96 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

this is surely an interesting feature, which was first widely noted in the coverage of GhostNet. But in my view, this seems to be a change in reporting, not a fundamental difference between GhostNet and other mal/spyware. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

US computers

presumably no evidence of infiltration was found for any countries not on the list of 103, why is the US mentioned? Nickmuddle (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably because most readers are American and they'll need that bit of extra reassurance... --candle•wicke 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it was taken from the New York Times article, verbatim. Also, many readers will probably be interested in knowing if American computers were affected, given the gravity of Sino-American relations. It's not a US-centric Wiki Cabal, jeez. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 13:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's taken verbatim from the NYT article then likely it's a copyvio. Incidentally, the version Nick was referring to was this [1] where it was taken from Reuters Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence was found that U.S. or U.K. government offices were infiltrated ===>> Proof of USA and UK spying operation! M Haoran (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Be aware this article is being targeted by Chinese

There will be attempts to hijack or propagandize the article by Hong Kong-based Chinese agents, China apologists and pussyfooters. J.J35k (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

connection with conficker possible?

Is it possible that this ghostnet is responsible for the conficker virus? 75.166.97.83 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How can you say the government is not involved?

How can you say the Chinese government is not involved when it was the Chinese government that acted on the stolen information, in the case of the Dalai Lama's emails??? Haiduc (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wiki community isn't stating the Chinese government is not involved. We're simply reiterating what the New York Times and The BBC are speculating, and quoting the Chinese response. It's more than possible that the Chinese government is behind this program; but it's far from definite; and untill that information is conclusive, it's best to represent all sides without assumptions. 92.13.134.192 (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)