Playmaker China
Deflect
Deflect: DF
Definition
The attempt by a player to divert a rival's attack, either to avoid or minimize its impact. Deflects typically bend - they do not break or significantly alter - an opponent's play action. They are usually run under duress and on-the-fly by a player with inferior resources against a superior threat.
Mirror
Mirror: MI
Definition
A specialized form of a Call Out, a Mirror introduces new facts or information into a marketplace which contradicts a rival's position or point of view. Like forcing someone to look at her own reflection, a Mirror typically prevents a rival from credibly pursuing its agenda.
America’s Strained Relations with China
Chinese Universities are Connected with Security Breaches of American Companies
February 23, 2010
The United States’ arms sales to Taiwan and President Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama have given US-China relations a rough start in 2010. Last Thursday, The New York Times widened the divide when it issued a Mirror by announcing that two Chinese universities were directly linked to the attacks earlier this year on Google and various other companies.
Administrators at one of the school’s in question, Shanghai Jiaotong University – the equivalent to an Ivy League school – reacted with a Deflect by rejecting the accusations and being shocked about the news.
The other institution involved, Lanxiang Vocational School, reinterpreted the news with a Recast, by denying that students don’t have the ability to hack into those companies.
What moves will be made next in the US versus China chess game?
-
As the investigation continues, the universities may go on the offensive and run a Red Herring + Recast, saying these accusations damage the reputations of the schools.
-
The United States may Bait + Preempt the Chinese government to trace the hackers and punish them.
-
The companies that were attacked may run a Pause to see if China will extend an olive branch and offer their resources to assist in the investigation.
With both universities having close ties with the government, it seems that this play could be more than a Mirror. This playmaker thinks that it could be a Ping that suggests that the Chinese government had a role in the hackings.
Posted by: Alice Hu
Photo Credit: CBSNews.com
- Login to post comments
(permalink |
Comments
Comm 483
It seems to me that the United States' next action in this situation would be a challenge, not a bait play as is suggested. A bait is described by playmakers as a provocation of an opponent through action or information, usually intended to draw an emotional, rather than rational response. In this situation, the U.S. would be using the bait strategy to provoke the Chinese government to investigate the hacker situation and try to trace the culprits. While the U.S. provoking the Chinese government to trace the hackers is a good idea, I don't believe that they should do so by trying to draw an emotional response.
The challenge strategy is defined as a public appeal, suggestion or demand designed to mobilize and/or inspire action. This strategy seems to be similar to the bait strategy, but different in that it uses public appeal to inspire action without involving the emotional aspect attached with the bait. With tensions already on edge between the United States and China I don't believe that the bait strategy and drawing an emotional rather than rational response is the best tool to use.
COMM483
This incident has brought renewed attention to the fact that the Chinese government censors their citizens' internet searches. If Google takes a Pause and suspends its business in China, then there will be more world pressure on China. As a large company, Google has the responsibility to help bring access to information. A censored internet is not a way to spread information. These attacks should trigger Google to suspend its business in China with the hopes that the Chinese government will loosen its censorship.
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment-->483
It is obvious that some of the actions performed by the U.S. and subsequently the suspected actions of China. I find it interesting, yet not surprising the reactions that the Chinese have towards the New York Times accusations. The first potential action listed may be a good idea because of the difference in culture. Similar to Japan with the Toyota issues, pride is a strong indicator of actions whereas in America, action needs to take priority. The appeal to China's reputation may insigate some sort of action by the Chinese to save face. Using a Bait + Preempt strategy may be best in determining whether or not China was responsible, however it has the potential to continue the strain on the China-America relationship.
Comm 483: Chinese Reactions to US Accusations
Given the deflect + mirror that were implemented by the New York Times and by university administrators, I think that the universities will take an offensive position and run a red herring + Recast to state that the reputations of their schools could be damaged by accusations. The article implies that the initial play may have been more than a Mirror, but actually a Ping. If this is the case I think that it is even more likely that the Chinese government would encourage an offensive position as a result continued investigations into the Mirror or Ping.
483 - "Pause" or "Bait + Preempt"?
<!--[if gte mso 9]>
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<![endif]-->
I think both sides need to “Pause” before taking any more action. If they don’t take a breather theU.S . and China are going to continue using “Mirror” and “Deflect” strategies, respectively, over and over again.
However, it does not seem that China has used an offensive play in this situation at all. They have solely been defending themselves against theU.S . accusations. If a “Pause” is taken, the U.S . may give China the opportunity to finally take an offensive stance and make a play against the U.S .
If this is a possibility, the most strategic move for theU.S . seems to be the “Bait + Preempt.” These plays require swift , quick action in order to use their element of “surprise” on the opponent. When using this play, the U.S . must make sure they have a “surprising” attack because more accusations will only continue the “Deflection.”
<!--Session data-->Prediction That "Bait" and "Ping" Will Be Used
I believe the "Deflect" and "Recast" moves, which the two institutions identified as sources of hacking, are only natural responses to sudden "Mirror" moves, as they are defense mechanisms by the identified organizations/institutions. The question becomes what is the next best move for either the U.S. or China?
In my opinion, the U.S. will "Bait" the Chinese government to trace the origin of the hackers. Because the U.S. is aware that Jiaotong studies not only Internet security, but also methods of filtering content the Chinese government deems innapropriate, I do not think the U.S. expects China to announce an investigation. Futhermore, initial stories from The New York Times stated that the hacking meant to steal trade secrets, computer codes and e-mails of Chinese human rights activists, which one can only assume would be the target of Chinese government prosecutions. The expectation that the Chinese government will respond to the "Bait" seems relatively low when knowing these facts. This lack of response would only serve to undermine the Chinese government's stance as an upstanding body, a "Ping" in itself if the U.S. should bait the Chinese.
483
With foreign relations an important goal in this situation, a pause would be the best play, at least for the time being. Giving Chinese officials the chance to assist US investigators in solving the problem could help relations between the two countries. If the Chinese do not offer help, escalate to a bait + preempt and urge the Chinese to investigate. Finally, if incidents don't improve, a red herring + recast would be the final solution.
COMM 483
I think it is quite unlikely that the companies attacked will run a pause to see if China will offer their resources to assist in the investigation. Google has complied with China's censorship regulations in the past but has decided it no longer wants to follow the Chinese government's Internet rules - so I doubt they will expect the Chinese government to help. I also agree that this is probably a ping rather than a mirror.
COMM483
"Bait" the Chinese government
Alice Hu’s post about the Chinese universities’ connection with security breaching of American companies mentions two types of diversion: “deflect” and “red herring.” She mentions both as past reactions or possible future responses from the universities. I think a “red herring” from the universities with the response of saying the accusations damage the reputations of the schools is likely. However, I think that in this type of situation, a “bait” from the United States would be an appropriate type of response to the Chinese government. This type of action would draw an emotional, rather than rational, response from the opponent. In the realm of Chinese-U.S. relations, an emotional response would give the U.S. a bigger advantage, because the recent diplomacy between these two nations since President Obama’s visit to China has been on a very personal level. China would definitely not want the U.S. to continue pursuing its agenda of finding the universities guilty of the attacks.