However, the agreement ignored the promise to avoid traditional government-to-government cyberespionage for intelligence purposes. If China has reduced its economic cyberespionage, there are a number of possible explanations as to why it did so. Some observers have argued that China did begin to cut a few months before last fall`s summit agreement and may have taken steps to exert greater control over the military pirate community. Other observers believe that Chinese hackers may have diverted their efforts to other more valuable or vulnerable targets in other countries. Despite its obvious restrictions, the so-called agreement appears to be a victory for the United States to the point of pushing China to recognize that it is wrong to steal PIs for commercial purposes. If this did happen yesterday (which I ask a little below), the United States will treat the event as a sign of progress in developing cyber-standards that promote the position of the United States, although the “agreement” (if it were) took place in an informal and non-binding context, and even if China`s measures are not up to the agreement. The United States has made concessions. Xi stressed the need for cooperation between the United States and China. “Our two sides should work together, because cooperation will benefit them and confrontation will result in losses on both sides,” he said. Cooperation is one-way.
I have often found that China would probably not give up advantageous cyber activities against the United States unless the United States moderated its cyber activities against China. It is possible that the only threat from the United States has pushed China to back down unilaterally. But another possibility, and in fact of probability, is that the United States, in exchange for cancelling China in the event of cyber theft (or at least agree with the U.S. statement in the Fact Sheet), have made concessions to China in some dimension. Many issues were addressed this week in U.S.-China relations. If China really changes its position in ip deriscyber theft, it probably has something, and probably something important, in return, either in the cyber domain or along another dimension. In addition, the question arises as to whether cyberattacks have actually decreased or whether these attacks are more sophisticated and more difficult to track. Cyberattacks appear to be developing from other nations, and while traffic from China has decreased, these attacks can instead be outsourced.
While it is difficult to prove that this type of outsourcing exists, it poses an additional challenge to the sophistication of cyberattacks. A report said the number of compromised networks rose from 60 in February 2013 to less than 10 in May 2016, but the decrease in attacks could be the result of more advanced and less frequent attacks. “While it is not black and white, (China) has reached the agreement or they have not complied with the agreement, it is clear that they go far beyond the limits of today`s agreement, which was forged between our countries,” Joyce said. Nothing substantial happened yesterday. The first possibility is that yesterday`s event was less important than it seemed. The claim that China agreed to steal (or support) any IP addresses for private commercial purposes was made by the White House and the President, not by China. The President`s fact sheet and language closely follow – in a strangely precise way – the us`s position on the types of cyber-theft allowed and those that are not. But neither Xi himself nor any other Chinese official said what the United States was saying. Xi simply said that “China opposes and strongly fights the theft of trade secrets.” This is a more vague and narrow statement than the American statement.
Moreover, Xi`s statement is identical to China`s long-standing position during the long period during which China flew (or supported) the United States.