Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government

I still strongly believe in the protection of information. What my opponent failed to realize is that the US government, while not having the best security in the world, seen through the attacks China has placed on us, has some of the best technology. We have traced back hacks before in the US and that is how we know who is responsible for these attacks. If you go this link (. http://origin.www.uscc.gov...) and take a look at page 8, you will be able to see some recent hacks, what it has done to US citizens, and how that the US government was able to find the group or person responsible. Before moving into any refutation points of the stock issues, I would prefer to focus on substance of why we should not do this. He has mainly focused on source kritiks and I am here to clear up some of this fogginess he has created. Inherency: So first off he said that the government is making advancements in this area of cyber security. I would like to tie this in with the "online cyber army point and show how this is completely relevant and worthy to be recognized in this debate round. He may not take the word of Time or Fortune, which I will get to in my next paragraph, but will he take the work of our Ex-NSA director Mike McConnell? Mike McConnell said that the Chinese government has hacked every major US corporation. In direct response to the cyber army being ridiculous, here what Mike McConnell has to say about that. "In his speech, McConnell also said that during the final years of the Bush administration, the Chinese government employed a jaw-dropping 100,000 hackers dedicated solely to breaking into computers. " That seems like a cyber army to me. In response to the sources, I wish my opponent would not only look at the publisher, but who wrote it. Scott Cendrowski has pretty good credentials, he has been writing about China basically his entire life. My opponents opinions on credibility should not be counted higher than what his credentials have to say. S Kumar, the writer of the Fortune article, has been a tech commentator his entire life. He has worked in technology, media, and telecom investment banking. I think his word is also credible. Harms: I would like my opponent to clarify who he thinks is plagiarizing because I put in my first speech that I was quoting. Ok, maybe he does not agree with Time"s word once again, and says they use squirrely phrasing, but let me direct you over to the DOJ"s site where it says that these men pleaded guilty and convicted of these trade secrets. . https://www.justice.gov... Since my opponent says that he doesn"t need to respond to the other harms, I will expect a response in the next round since I have provided him with an adequate link and article Solvency: This is simply not true, the US-China relations committee does not believe so. (. http://origin.www.uscc.gov...) They support the hack back system because China is taking advantage of our secrets and cyber security. We are obviously not on the offensive, when Chinese employed hackers steal the social security number, fingerprints, etc. of OVER 4 million current and former federal employees. I don"t know about you, but that does not seem like offense. Other systems: His other systems argument should not be relevant in this debate because the one system he has proposed, making peace agreements, has been tried and failed. In late 2015, a peace agreement was supposedly come to, but in the following two weeks, China carried out a number of cyber attacks against pharmaceutical companies. Crowdstrike, one of the organizations that identify hackers, has a "high degree of confidence" that these were Chinese backed hackers and is certain that one of these hackers was the Deep Panda, a Chinese backed hacking notorious for their large and detrimental attacks to the US. Finally, I have a few source citations kritiks for him as well. Wikipedia. Wiki has never been credible in a debate. Wiki can be written by anyone. It could even be written by my opponent. I ask my opponent to fix these sources with more credible sources in the next round. Please give me a source with some credentials or backing behind the author. And, yes I am getting this info about who can write Wiki from Wiki, but this page I am citing is a Wiki info page thereby meaning that this was written by one of the people who work at Wiki. . https://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion, all my opponent really did in the Inherency and Harms was attack sources. I have showed you how the sources are credible and even gave you additional sources. This is not something to be taken lightly, it is detrimental to the US and one day could be detrimental to you. We can fix this detrimental problem by passing the Affirmative team"s plan.