Okay, I think I understand what they're saying. First of all, a little side question, but it really annoys me when an article is updated and they don't indicate what the update is. At least Engadget will simply post any additional updates to the end of the article, not just put the word "UPDATE" in big bold letters and then post the article like normal. Was it just the first paragraph? Was it some random text elsewhere in the article? We have no way of knowing. That really bugs me.

Anyway, I understand their point, and can see why there's not a lot of evidence connecting the attacks to China. But the focus of the article seems to be the language issue, which doesn't seem to be strong proof to me. Only at the end do they talk about masking the origination.

As long as we're talking evidence, which is always going to be a lot more difficult than it was in the physical world, we should also talk about motive. It seems strange that another country would be spearfishing for dissident supporters. I suppose that other country could want to weaken relations between the countries, but that seems much less likely to me.

I don't know, I would love more evidence too, but I'm not a fan of how China treats its people, so I see little reason to trust them. I don't want to blindly trust our government either, and especially not a corporation, but if we're talking about ranking them all, I probably trust Google more than the other two

There is, however, one thing that I agree with most of the tech news people about: Google did a great job of covering their asses on this whole thing. They managed to shift the whole conversation off of "look how insecure the cloud can be."

In the end, regardless of the reasons, I support Google's decision to withdraw, and I hope they do.