【04.16.10 紐約時報】︰我在北京被黑了-- Andrew Jacobs
本帖最后由 下个月 于 2010-4-20 20:05 编辑【中文标题】紐約時報︰我在北京被黑了-- Andrew Jacobs
【原文标题】I Was Hacked in Beijing - NYTimes.com
【登载媒体】纽约时报
【来源地址】http://www.mirrorbooks.com/wpmain/?p=29101
【译者】 Rita Lee
【翻译方式】人工
【原文库】http://bbs.m4.cn/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=239337&extra=
【译文】
作者ANDREW JACOBS 發表時間︰2010年4月9日 譯者︰Rita Lee
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/04/11/weekinreview/11jacobs_CA0/11jacobs_CA0-articleInline.jpg
圖片︰Jim Wehtje/Photodisc — Getty Images, and Stephen Shaver, via Bloomberg News
北京報道——在現實面前，我的焦慮和恐懼才剛剛開始。
幾周以來，我的同事和朋友們一直在埋怨我不回他們的郵件。可我發誓我根本沒有收到過它們。
我的電子郵件系統幾乎每天都會崩潰。不過直到我的全部聯系人第二次莫名消失後，我才開始懷疑這種崩潰的性質，並開始調查和改進我的郵箱設置。 在仔細研究了雅虎郵箱設置後，我不寒而栗。 我的來信一直被轉發到一個陌生的電子郵件地址，這個地址有可能是某個入侵我郵箱的人在轉發設置中輸入的。
我被黑客攻擊了。
“黑客攻擊”這個詞語在中國境內最近的網聊和飯局中屢屢出現，很多外國記者都曾發現他們的郵箱賬戶被非法侵入了。
但與為了盜取銀行賬戶密碼和窺探隱私以期騙取艷遇的那些惡意軟件不同的是，這類攻擊看起來是更像是傳統間諜行動。最近，多倫多大學的反網絡偵測研究結果暴露了一系列在100多個國家的電腦中偷竊文件和信件的電子間諜行為。 這些間諜行為有一些共性︰ 其中很多來自于位于中國境內的電腦，這些黑客似乎對印度國防部、西藏人權行動支持者、達賴喇嘛和負責報道中國大陸和台灣消息的外國記者們有著特殊的興趣。
雖然作者謹慎的未在報告中對中國進行譴責， 但報告的潛台詞並不難解讀︰ 中國的什麼人——可能是一個單干的網絡流氓，也可能是一個政府機構——正使用高科技監視和偷竊潛在的國家敵對勢力的網絡信息。
如果真的是這樣，這將意味著︰中國在企圖管理在華工作和生活的400多名外國記者的悠久歷史又進入了新的篇章。
這種對外國記者的監視和操縱 ——讓他們和他們的消息源時刻坐立不安 — 從早先有套著不合身的夾克的大塊頭尾隨記者去采訪地點，或打電話時不得不用某種敲擊方式來代表“黨章”開始，已經由來已久了。
可能最讓人心煩的是，這些攻擊完全是匿名的，這意味著我們和我們的消息源永遠也會不知道我們到底面對著怎樣的敵人，到底應該向誰問責。
加拿大研究員納爾特.維爾納夫(Nart Villeneuve)專業從事分析黑客攻擊，並成功鑒別過一封用來欺騙那些外國記者助手的傳染性郵件。他警告說，現在無法證明是中國人，或者說，至少沒有足夠的證據來證明中國政府應該為這些網絡襲擊負責。
"黑客們試圖隱藏他們的所在地," 互聯網安保公司SecDev.cyber的首席研究員維爾納夫先生說， "可話說回來，你不得不懷疑還有誰會在針對這些人群的黑客攻擊上花費時間和精力。"
對于我們這些生活和工作在中國的人來說，懷疑是東道國，或至少是那些所謂的愛國主義紅客軍團發動了這樣的襲擊大概是可以理解的。 雖然沒法確定，但很有可能是這些民族主義獨狼們上周攻擊並關閉了駐外記者協會在中國的網站。
澄清一點︰ 近年來，駐華外國記者的境況已經有了很大的改善。 但不可否認的是，從古至今，很多頑固的中國人始終認為駐華記者都是能言善道的間諜。 (這點是我最近才深刻體會到的︰一個朋友的母親居然要求他離我遠點，以免墮入我的圈套。)
雖然現在還沒有足夠的證據，但大多數外國記者們開始相信我們的電話被監听了。 我們已經學會了在接觸政見不同者時，要把手機SIM卡拔出。 在辦公室里，我們在談論到“政治敏感”話題時，會自覺自發的把音量降低。
這只是我們在疑神疑鬼麼？ 或許吧。 不過最近發生的事情為政府非法侵入駐華記者及其雇員事務的看法提供了不少實證。 因涉嫌欺詐罪而被當局監禁3年的《紐約時報》北京辦事處研究助理趙岩2007年剛剛出獄。 對他毫無根據的指控——說他泄露國家機密——源于一篇發表在《紐約時報》上的文章，這篇文章正確的預測了中國高級國家領導人退休時間。 （譯注︰http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E8%B5%B5%E5%B2%A9）
最終，趙岩泄露國家機密的罪名並未成立，而是變成了嚴重程度遠遠低于原指控的詐騙罪。但這是在原告引用了《紐約時報》職場內辦公桌上的一份文件後才更改的——老大哥一直在看著我們。
即便是現在，西方新聞組織仍因安保人員為了打听他們的雇員正在進行的報導而請其去“喝茶”而怨聲載道。
大家都認為，對駐華記者的對抗和監視在過去的數年里逐漸低調下來。
最對立的時候應該是1967年，中國政府允許入境的第一名外國記者——路透社的英裔通訊員安東尼格雷（Anthony Grey）——被在其北京住所限制行動長達兩年之久。
他被控間諜罪，但從未正式審判。普遍認為對他的拘留是當局對兩名中國記者在香港——當時的英屬殖民地——被捕的報復行為。 這兩名記者在一次抗議過程中被扣押，並且在格雷獲釋前很久就被釋放了。
當作家兼新聞記者的夏偉（Orville Schell）在1975年到達文化大革命中的中國時，無時不在的恐懼威懾著中國公民，在經過當局長達十年過激的反西方宣傳後，他們不敢與外國人進行任何意義上的接觸。 夏偉先生說，即使有幾次他從他的中國監護身邊離開，安保官員仍會找到他，並護送他回旅館。
有一次，他剛成功的與一個山西隻果園里的果農交談了一會兒， 謝爾先生就被有關方面稱病並關在了當時分配給他居住的窯洞里。即使他設法攔著行人想要提出一些問題，也經常被人擺擺手拒絕或干脆無視。 "人們與我們隔閡極深，幾乎對我們完全無視," 他說， "我們這些外國人對他們而言，就像生活在氣泡中一樣，看得見听不著。"
對外國人的態度和限制在80年代的改革開放時期緩和了下來，但卻在1989年學生運動被鎮壓後再次變得緊張。 當時攜眷駐京的《紐約時報》特派記者紀思道（Nicholas Kristof） 回憶起當時晨跑時，曾被車輛尾隨的情形。 "他們有時有些大意，" 他說， "我們留有所有當時跟蹤過我們的車輛的牌號清單。"
雖然紀思道先生說他們學會了從樓梯井溜出大廈以躲避監視及用暗語進行采訪的技巧， 但當他得知一個密友（一位中國記者）居然是政府的間諜時，他實在受不了了。 "我們沒法對被監視這件事見怪不怪，" 談及監控時，他這樣說， "我們總會擔心哪個中國朋友會因為我們遇到麻煩，有驚無險的事情發生過幾次。"
中國政府不會審查駐華記者的派遣令， 但是當局經常采取不予更新某個記者的簽證的方式來表達對他工作的不滿。 在極個別情況下, 當局還會將駐華記者驅逐， 1986年，《紐約時報》北京分社社長約翰泊思（John Burns) 就曾經受到過這種待遇，當時當局譴責他非法進入軍事管轄區並拍了不該拍的照片。多數當今的駐華記者都會同意，對這個群體明目張膽的監控行為比起當初已經顯著的減少了。 不過有些人則認為，這只是因為當局的監控技術越來越完善，難以察覺罷了。話說回來，這讓我們又回到了最近的黑客攻擊事件。
由于雅虎拒絕對這次事件進行定性，到底是怎麼回事我們不得而知。 雅虎只告知一些被攻擊者他們的賬戶被強行進入了，但拒絕進一步的信息披露。 這些賬戶的電子郵件被別人讀過了麼? 他們的信息提供者受到威脅了麼? 他們無從得知。
雖然不知道黑客到底來自何方，但這次攻擊讓很多記者（包括我自己在內）感到很緊張。 一個在中國工作多年的記者朋友 說，她得知自己的郵箱被攻擊後，感到被侵犯了，十分惱怒。 可更讓人泄氣的是, 她說, 我甚至都不知道應該去向誰問責。 "我為一些給我寫過郵件的中國朋友擔憂，他們的郵件內容可能會給他們帶來麻煩，" 她說, 她要求不在文中透露姓名，以免引來黑客攻擊。 "我寧願黑客竊取的是我的信用卡資料。"
A version of this article appeared in print on April 11, 2010, on page WK1 of the New York edition.
April 9, 2010
I Was Hacked in Beijing
By ANDREW JACOBS
BEIJING — The reality — and my fears — dawned only slowly.
For weeks, friends and colleagues complained I had not answered their e-mail messages. I swore I had not received them.
My e-mail program began crashing almost daily. But only when all my contacts disappeared for the second time did suspicion push me to act.
I dug deep inside my Yahoo settings, and I shuddered. Incoming messages had been forwarding to an unfamiliar e-mail address, one presumably typed in by intruders who had gained access to my account.
I’d been hacked.
That phrase has been popping up a lot lately on Web chats and at dinner parties in China, where scores of foreign reporters have discovered intrusions into their e-mail accounts.
But unlike malware that trawls for bank account passwords or phishing gambits that peddle lonely and sexually adventurous Russian women, these cyberattacks appear inspired by good old-fashioned espionage.
Recent probes by cyber-countersleuths at the University of Toronto have unmasked electronic spy rings that have been pilfering documents and correspondence from computers in 100 countries. A few patterns have been noted: many of the attacks originated on computers located in China and the spymasters seemed to have a fondness for the Indian Defense Ministry, Tibetan human rights advocates, the Dalai Lama and foreign journalists who cover China and Taiwan.
Although the authors of the reports were careful not to blame the Chinese, a subtext in their findings was not hard to discern: Someone in China — maybe a rogue individual or perhaps a government agency — has been engaged in high-tech surveillance and thievery against perceived enemies of the state.
If that is indeed happening, it would represent a new chapter in the long history of Chinese attempts to manage the foreign journalists who live and work here, who now number more than 400.
The monitoring and manipulation of foreign reporters — the ability to keep them and their sources on edge — would have come a long way since the days when thick-set men in ill-fitting blazers would trail correspondents to interviews, and when unmistakable clicking noises during phone calls gave new meaning to the expression “party line.”
Perhaps most disturbing would be the anonymity of the attacks — the prospect that we and our sources will never know just what we are facing or whom to blame.
Nart Villeneuve, a Canadian researcher who helped analyze the attacks, including an infectious e-mail message designed to dupe the assistants of foreign reporters in Beijing, cautioned there was not enough hard evidence to blame the Chinese, or at least the Chinese government.
“The attackers tend to mask their location,” said Mr. Villeneuve, who is the chief researcher at SecDev.cyber, an Internet security company. “On the other hand, you have to wonder who has the time and interest to produce these kinds of targeted attacks.”
Those of us who live and work in China might be forgiven for suspicions that focus on our hosts, or at least on the legion of so-called patriotic hackers who take umbrage at our coverage and use their computer skills accordingly. While impossible to know for sure, it may have been these nationalistic lone wolves who last week shut down the Web site of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China, the association that represents overseas journalists in China.
To be clear, the lot of the foreign journalist has greatly improved in recent years. But there is an undeniably contentious edge to our relationship with China, one rooted in history and a stubborn conviction held by many Chinese that reporters here are spies with an ability to turn a phrase. (This point was driven home recently by a friend’s mother, who warned him to stay away from me lest he be ensnared by my subterfuge.)
Even if we have scant evidence, most foreign journalists have come to assume our phone conversations are monitored. We have learned to remove our cellphone SIM cards when meeting dissidents. At the office, we often reflexively lower our voices when discussing “politically sensitive” topics.
Is that just paranoia? Perhaps. But recent history provides plenty of examples of government intrusion into the affairs of overseas journalists and their employees. It was only in 2007 that Zhao Yan, a researcher in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times, emerged from three years of detention after he was convicted of fraud. The unrelated accusations that led to his arrest — that he had revealed state secrets — were based on a Times article that correctly predicted the impending retirement of a senior Chinese leader. The state secrets charge, which was far more serious than fraud, eventually was dismissed, but not before the prosecutors introduced documents that had come from a desk in the Times office — an indication that we were never truly alone.
Even now, Western news organizations complain when their employees are called in for tea-drinking sessions with security personnel who ask about the stories they are working on.
The antagonism and surveillance, by most accounts, have become less harsh and blatant over the years. The nadir may have been in 1967, when one of the first foreign reporters allowed into the country, Anthony Grey, a British correspondent for Reuters, spent more than two years confined to a room of his Beijing home. Accused of being a spy but never formally charged, his detention was widely thought to be retaliation for the arrest of Chinese journalists in Hong Kong, then a British colony. They had been detained during a protest, and were released long before he was.
When the author and journalist Orville Schell arrived in 1975, in the waning days of the Cultural Revolution, fear effectively deterred Chinese citizens from having any meaningful interaction with foreigners, whose reputations had been thoroughly maligned by a decade of extravagant anti-Western propaganda. Mr. Schell said that the few times he wandered away from his minders, security officers would find him and escort him back to his hotel.
On one occasion, after he managed to chat up a man tending an apple orchard in Shanxi Province, Mr. Schell was pronounced sick and locked in his accommodations, which at the time happened to be a cave. Even when he managed to pose questions to pedestrians, his queries were often waved away or ignored. “People were almost completely standoffish and unreceptive,” he said. “We foreigners lived in a bubble.”
Restrictions and attitudes relaxed during the reforms of the 1980s but then tightened up again after the student-led protests of 1989 ended in a violent crackdown. Nicholas Kristof, then the Times Beijing correspondent along with his wife, Sheryl WuDunn, recalls early morning jogs shadowed by a small caravan of vehicles. “Sometimes they weren’t very subtle,” he said. “We had lists of all the license plates of the cars that were following us.”
Although Mr. Kristof said they learned to evade some of the monitoring by sneaking out of their building through a stairwell or speaking in code to arrange interviews, he was devastated to find out that one of his closest friends, a Chinese journalist, was actually working as a government spy. “We didn’t really get used to it,” he said of the surveillance. “We were always terrified that a Chinese friend would get into trouble and we had some close calls.”
The Chinese government does not censor the dispatches of foreign correspondents, but the authorities can express disapproval of a writer’s work by withholding visa renewals — a not uncommon practice. In extreme cases, there is always the option of expulsion, which is what happened to a Times bureau chief, John Burns, after he was accused of illegally entering a military zone and taking pictures in 1986. (His interpreter, whose career never recovered from the incident, was jailed for a year.)
Most journalists working in China today would agree that outward signs of surveillance have decreased markedly. Some, however, say that the monitoring has become more sophisticated and subtle, which brings us back to the recent rash of hacking.
Because Yahoo will not discuss the nature of the incidents, it is unclear exactly what happened. The company informed some victims that their accounts had been breached, but declined to be more specific. Were their e-mail messages read? Were their sources endangered? They do not know.
Even if poorly understood, the intrusions have left many reporters, including myself, feeling unnerved. One reporter, a friend with many years of experience in China, said she felt violated and angry after learning her e-mail account was compromised. Even more frustrating, she said, was not knowing whom to blame.
“I worry about Chinese friends who may have written things they could come to regret,” she said, asking that her name and affiliation not be printed for fear of drawing the attention of freelance hackers. “I’d be more relieved if they had just stolen my credit card information.”
Q60)犯贱的代价 读了他刚写的关于玉树地震的文章，不免使人对于这一篇的内容的客观性也持怀疑态度。 这文章的作者真是不理解黑客 黑盗 和间谍哇！
如果是间谍做的手脚 会让你水平一般的人找到痕迹吗？
只知道在网上 能盗取您的个人信息的东西太多 要不然你装杀木马的软件做什么?!
还不是怕账号被盗取? 怀疑此人登录过黄网，中了小黑客的招。 每个上网的人都有“中毒被黑”的风险，这位的优越感再次流露出来：我是记者我在北京我是美国人，我收不了邮件，这是大事儿...大事儿。
另外，他真的去玉树了吗？ 是美国人，是记者电脑就不会中病毒了？
真不知道那么多防病毒软件被设计出来是干嘛用的！
改日他生了痔疮
难道也是中国政府的错？ 杜撰专家中招了？报应呀！{:12_549:} 不清楚到底是什么……但是理由仅仅是中国境内的电脑发动的黑客攻击，这就比较怪异了……众所周知，中国大陆有着估计是世界最大规模的肉鸡群，如果需要进行黑客活动，估计世界上相当多数的人会选择用中国的肉鸡……这如果就是中国在网上搞间谍活动的证据那就不靠谱了……因为美国的IP也经常作为黑客活动的发起地……这是不是更能证明间谍活动是美国发起的，其实这位记者估计遭遇的是CIA的反策反审查吧，哈哈。 我猜大概过程是这样的
一开始他收到一封邮件，说有什么PLMM之类的XX网站，他经不住诱惑去访问了，谁知下载了插件，被黑了！然后邮件就不能收了！
电脑盲分析完毕！o3O147) 让黑暗来得更猛烈些吧~~~红客同志们请继续攻击！！ 好，让这帮白皮猪疑神疑鬼去吧。 无语！！ 该记者翻墙下不健康内容中毒了 纽约时报真是和中国干上了，我在美国还被黒呢，FBI干的？ 滚出中国，
人渣~~~~ 回复 7# 朝露晨光
说得好 本帖最后由 下个月 于 2010-4-20 13:26 编辑
傻子 一定是中国政府干的。
这位作者信誓旦旦的说 这些居住在中国的外国佬，