obvious commentard comment:
Myanmar disappears from Internet. Rest of world fails to notice.
Nothing against Myanmar, just somebody had to say it.
That should give the military junta a sense of perspective:
Junta: "We're big boys and are to be taken seriously. We have our own country."
Rest of World: "Yeah, right. One that's less important than Twitter......."
Any fool knows its Burma not Myanmar
Being a British publication you should realise that the British Government didn't recognise the change in name of the country by the military regime and still officially refer to it as Burma.
In fact even here in Thailand, we still call it Burma as well!
Critics of the government say it launched the attacks...
... in an attempt to manipulate the outcome. Others have blamed external forces. The data flood began 10 days ago, according to The People's Daily in China, which borders Myanmar.
And the Chinese Government provides the Military Junta in Burma with military aid, as well as economic support.
So which nation do you think has the capacity to launch such sustained attacks without anything being done to shut them down...?
Why is the Reg calling it Myanmar?
The name was changed from Burma by the illegitimate military Government after thousands of people were killed by them.
The UK doesn't, or didn't recognise the name.
To quote the BBC:
"A statement by the Foreign Office says: "Burma's democracy movement prefers the form 'Burma' because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognised."
It's general practice at the BBC to refer to the country as Burma, and the BBC News website says this is because most of its audience is familiar with that name rather than Myanmar. The same goes for Rangoon, people in general are more familiar with this name than Yangon."
So why are the Reg choosing to do otherwise? Is it a conscious policy decision?
I'd say it's a bad one.
Are you trying to stir something up by not referring to Burma as Burma?
It's still known as Burma as far as I'm aware ?
There's only so many ways the traffic could have reached Burma, if it wasn't internally generated. If it was external then the traces should be there in the states that they're connected to (but dispersed off course). I would be very surprised if those organisations that like to monitor the shit out of people weren't aware of the pattern of traffic within hours of it starting. And if that isn't the case, then we're a long long way from anyone Mastering the Internet.
It was almost certainly launched from a botnet
in which case, tracing it to unwilling victims' infected PCs is unlikely to find you the culprit. You may be able to identify the specific botnet involved, and maybe find the relevant C&C server but good luck figuring out who's controlling that...
A fair point. It leads me to conclude that it is almost impossible (short of using traditional intelligence gathering) to point the finger reliably. Perhaps it's better to concentrate on how to guard against such attacks.
I wondered what that Maya whatever place was as I have never heard of it
Where's the outrage ?
When attacks were made against official sites in Georgia and Estonia, «everybody» was up in arms blaming - without evidence to that effect - the Russian government. Now another country has been attacked, but nobody seems particularly disturbed, and speculation on who did the dirty deed is notably lacking. Are DDoS attacks OK, as long as it is the bad guys who bear the brunt ?...
yeah but there's a difference here
"nobody seems particularly disturbed, and speculation on who did the dirty deed is notably lacking"
Could the possible explanation for that be that Burma isn't currently involved in any disputes with neighbours states that have a track record of security agencies co-opting organised crime groups (and vice versa)?
This is what's unclear about the present attack - cui bono. It doesn't seem like the military regime attempting to cut off voters' access to t'internet because they don't really have much access in the first place. The opposition seems pretty feeble and disrupting the internet would only reduce their access to the Burmese people. And no-one else seems to be agitated enough about the situation in Burma to actually bother doing anything.
Could it just be someone doing for the lolz?
of what the previous posters said!
Everyone hates the military Junta except the Chinese (oil and minerals)
Governments have a duty to protect their citizens. the dumb military rulers have another use for them - target practice.
It;s high time the US deployed a couple of drones over the military capital and had some target practice on the military.
P.S. If you go to Burma don't take GPS or cell phones - they are seized at the border.
Add another vote for "Burma" not "Myanmar".
They may, etymologically speaking, mean the same thing -- but until the name is legitimately changed by a real government it's still Burma.
notch one up for Burma.
As I understand it the rightful ruler of the country, Aung San Suu Kyi, has asked that it be referred to as Burma as well.
I doubt the junta implemented the DDoS attack, as they have rather more direct means of suppressing sedition as they see it. The election will be, as in all recent elections, a farce, and a lot of decent people will be hurt in the process. They have some mineral wealth, but no infrastructure, and a next door neighbour no one wishes to upset, so it is highly unlikely anything will be done about it. It is very depressing.
of two minds
While the military junta in Burma is truly terrible and there are few as worthy of being attacked as them, this seems a bit akin to dropping Tsar Bomba on a gigantic empty, barren field; ie pointless.
I'm sure this won't do much damage to them, and it won't slow down their genocide against the Karen.
Where the flying fishes play...
"The Union of Burma is ruled by a military body called the "State Peace and Development Council" (SPDC). The SPDC changed the name of the country to "Myanmar," but some members of the democratic opposition and other political activists do not recognize the name change and continue to use the name "Burma." Out of support for the democratic opposition, the U.S. Government likewise uses "Burma.""
From the US DoS website's 'background notes' on the place.
Essentially, choosing to continue to call it Burma is a political decision in the UK or the USA.
The United Nations, meanwhile, goes with Myanmar as that is the short form name preferred by the current government there (Union of Myanmar, previously Union of Burma).
El Reg has apparently gone with the weird idea of journalistic neutrality and stuck to the name recognised by the UN. This is not a political statement, as far as I can see - in fact, there's a good case for calling it an apolitical statement!