Bits and Bytes

Two interesting items today: Shane Harris has a look inside the FBI's efforts to track the Chinese hackers.  Here's the intro: "SolarWorld was fighting a losing battle. The U.S. subsidiary of the German solar panel manufacturer knew that its Chinese competitors, backed by generous government subsidies, were flooding the American market with steeply discounted solar panels and equipment, making it practically impossible for U.S. firms to compete. What SolarWorld didn't know, however, was that at the same time it was pleading its case with U.S. trade officials, Chinese military hackers were breaking into the company's computers and stealing private information that would give Chinese solar firms an even bigger unfair advantage, including the company's pricing and marketing strategies." Laurie Blank has an op-ed entitled "Drones, Transparency and Legitimacy:" "Those calling for transparency argue that it is a legal obligation. But the law of armed conflict — the law that applies to U.S. strikes against al Qaeda as long as the conflict is ongoing — does not require transparency. It does mandate that parties engaged in armed conflict comply with the legal obligations and fundamental principles set forth in the Geneva Conventions, their additional protocols, and customary international law, including minimizing harm to civilians and using lawful means and methods of warfare. Attacks must be carried out in a lawful manner against lawful targets, but the reasons and legal justifications for the attacks do not need to be made public."