David Sanger, as some of you know, is one of my favorite reporters because he has some of the best sources in Washington. I always wonder where he gets some of his ideas, especially those on our most sensitive subjects like the Stuxnet Worm deployment in Iran's closely controlled nuclear facilities.
I saw David on TV a couple of nights ago, and he was asked about the U.S. monitoring of calls made by Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor. He asked more questions than he answered, but his first one made me think: What head of state does not have an encrypted cell phone to use for communications? Why didn't she have one?
I'm not sure when Heads of State became so careless with information we should know is being monitored. The Chinese are building a raft of small satellites they sell to anyone interested in having one. They can put anything they want on one of these things, so a small country can get into the business of listening in to their neighbors and enemies. Are we so naive as to think the U.S. is monitoring everyone in the world, but nobody else can? The Russians were doing it many years ago, and it would be hard to believe they stopped. The Chinese have hacked every major business in the free world, and nobody has made as big a fuss as our allies have over cell phone monitoring.
An insecure cell phone is an open invitation to anyone with even a glimmer of capability to listen in. The French even admit they spy on everyone, though they seem to be indignant about being monitored themselves. On the Continent, there seems to be a mass of hypocrites, lined up, to say how terrible such a thing can be.
They seem to still believe the words of Henry Stimson, "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail." What we forget is, he used those words to shut down the U.S. code breaking capability for many years, the same capability that was used to break the Japanese codes during WW II.
For those who are squealing the loudest, we might remember another quote of Stimson: The only way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him; and the surest way to make him untrustworthy is to distrust him and show your distrust. There is a little of that on both sides right now.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
White House Leak Investigations
We used to have a saying about the Washington Post and secrets: "Don't let us see this on the front Page of the Post." In general, it was intended as a warning about whether a person could be employed after something appeared there. Usually, that answer was no. On the front page of today's Post are two examples of what we should see as career-ending disclosures of information.
I have always thought the White House could run a leak investigation when they wanted to, and there is proof positive on the front page today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stung-by-a-twitter-renegade-group-in-obama-administration-launched-sting-of-its-own/2013/10/23/3cb89d56-3c00-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?tid=pm_pop One of their own, a member of the National Security Council staff, was using an anonymous Twitter account to disparage White House officials and policies. They did what anyone should do when information leaks, they started a leak investigation and planted information with internal employees to see which pieces of it appeared in the press. This is not novel or unique - anyone should know how to do it. The found the person they were looking for, and by all indications, he will be unemployed.
At the same time, the lead story in the Post today is a more gripping tale of Top Secret agreements between Pakistan and the United States over how and where drone strikes are to be conducted. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?tid=ts_carousel
Now, how is it that the White House can run a fairly mature leak investigation when it involves slams to their own people and those right on their door step, but the can't find out who is leaking Top Secret documents to the people just down the street from them? We have yet to see who actually leaked the information about the new type of underwear bomb plucked out of an Al Qaeda bomb factory, who gave the information to the Times about the Stuxnet worm, or who was behind this latest disclosure about Pakistan and arrangements we had with them on drone strikes. Can anyone at that end of the street keep a secret? Sometimes.
I have always thought the White House could run a leak investigation when they wanted to, and there is proof positive on the front page today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stung-by-a-twitter-renegade-group-in-obama-administration-launched-sting-of-its-own/2013/10/23/3cb89d56-3c00-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?tid=pm_pop One of their own, a member of the National Security Council staff, was using an anonymous Twitter account to disparage White House officials and policies. They did what anyone should do when information leaks, they started a leak investigation and planted information with internal employees to see which pieces of it appeared in the press. This is not novel or unique - anyone should know how to do it. The found the person they were looking for, and by all indications, he will be unemployed.
At the same time, the lead story in the Post today is a more gripping tale of Top Secret agreements between Pakistan and the United States over how and where drone strikes are to be conducted. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?tid=ts_carousel
Now, how is it that the White House can run a fairly mature leak investigation when it involves slams to their own people and those right on their door step, but the can't find out who is leaking Top Secret documents to the people just down the street from them? We have yet to see who actually leaked the information about the new type of underwear bomb plucked out of an Al Qaeda bomb factory, who gave the information to the Times about the Stuxnet worm, or who was behind this latest disclosure about Pakistan and arrangements we had with them on drone strikes. Can anyone at that end of the street keep a secret? Sometimes.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Snowden's Leaks
On the 18th of October, Ed Pilkington wrote an article for the Guardian indicating Snowden had said he did not take any documents with him to Russia. According to the article (which is at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/18/edward-snowden-no-leaked-nsa-documents-russia ) all the documents were left with journalists, presumably to be let out a few at a time, over time, to increase the value of the goods to the publications they appear in. Releasing them all at once, has a narrow impact on circulation, which is the business part of the whole thing. The Guardian already admitted as much.
I want to ask my readers how plausible such a story sounds.
The Russians were taking a risk by accepting Snowden's appeal for asylum. Was he really afraid somebody was going to kill him to keep him from releasing the information, as he once insinuated would happen? If so, he has been watching too much television while sitting around the airport. Nobody is going to believe such a claim.
Was he going to be arrested and put in jail? Yes, he was. Human Rights Watch tried to make a case for this justification for asylum by saying whistleblowers don't have adequate protection in National Security cases (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/03/countries-should-consider-snowden-s-asylum-claim-fairly ) which may even be partially true, but hardly a reason for Russia to think he deserved asylum. They would have a fit if we used that as justification for allowing a Russian to defect to the U.S. It just isn't very convincing that the Russians jumped to his aid because they felt like he might be put in a U.S. jail for what he did. They put reporters in jail for lesser offenses.
Why leave the documents with journalists? For one reason, because the foreign spy agencies in China and Russia have finally figured out that journalists cannot be prosecuted for having them, and spies can. Even though that makes absolutely no sense at all, the law in the U.S. and England have allowed it to be. There will shortly be another case in the U.S. where a spy will be found to have given documents to a journalist and the journalist published stories about them. When the Justice Department made him a co-conspirator in the case, the journalist community raised holy hell. The journalists have a powerful lobby, but that isn't a good reason for their behavior.
If Snowden actually did leave all his sensitive documents with journalists, what could the Russians gain by giving Snowden asylum, that they couldn't get without giving him asylum? The answer would seem to be nothing, but we can't have an answer that runs contrary to every understanding we have the Russian politic. They never do anything like this without a reason. They have to be getting something.
Either they believe Snowden knows a lot he isn't telling yet, or he brought more with him than he is willing to admit. The Russians have to believe they will get more than the altruistic good feeling that comes from keeping a person from going to jail. Nobody, not even the Russians, likes a traitor enough to take one in with the idea that they will get nothing in return. It is too much for any of us to believe.
I want to ask my readers how plausible such a story sounds.
The Russians were taking a risk by accepting Snowden's appeal for asylum. Was he really afraid somebody was going to kill him to keep him from releasing the information, as he once insinuated would happen? If so, he has been watching too much television while sitting around the airport. Nobody is going to believe such a claim.
Was he going to be arrested and put in jail? Yes, he was. Human Rights Watch tried to make a case for this justification for asylum by saying whistleblowers don't have adequate protection in National Security cases (http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/03/countries-should-consider-snowden-s-asylum-claim-fairly ) which may even be partially true, but hardly a reason for Russia to think he deserved asylum. They would have a fit if we used that as justification for allowing a Russian to defect to the U.S. It just isn't very convincing that the Russians jumped to his aid because they felt like he might be put in a U.S. jail for what he did. They put reporters in jail for lesser offenses.
Why leave the documents with journalists? For one reason, because the foreign spy agencies in China and Russia have finally figured out that journalists cannot be prosecuted for having them, and spies can. Even though that makes absolutely no sense at all, the law in the U.S. and England have allowed it to be. There will shortly be another case in the U.S. where a spy will be found to have given documents to a journalist and the journalist published stories about them. When the Justice Department made him a co-conspirator in the case, the journalist community raised holy hell. The journalists have a powerful lobby, but that isn't a good reason for their behavior.
If Snowden actually did leave all his sensitive documents with journalists, what could the Russians gain by giving Snowden asylum, that they couldn't get without giving him asylum? The answer would seem to be nothing, but we can't have an answer that runs contrary to every understanding we have the Russian politic. They never do anything like this without a reason. They have to be getting something.
Either they believe Snowden knows a lot he isn't telling yet, or he brought more with him than he is willing to admit. The Russians have to believe they will get more than the altruistic good feeling that comes from keeping a person from going to jail. Nobody, not even the Russians, likes a traitor enough to take one in with the idea that they will get nothing in return. It is too much for any of us to believe.
Monday, October 14, 2013
China Warns U.S. Part II
CNBC reports today that Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao told reporters that he understands the White House is working to resolve the double-edged crisis, but expressed impatience with the lack of progress.
"We have to see that the clock is ticking," Zhu said, according to Agence France Presse."The executive branch of the U.S. government has to take decisive and credible steps to avoid a default on its Treasury bonds," he said.
Curious how the Chinese, who have a different view of the role of government, manage to blame the Executive Branch of government for the condition we are in with the shutdown and debt debate, but our own press tends to blame the Legislative Branch.
A few of our press stalwarts might think the Chinese are ill-informed about how the U.S. government actually works. They might chuckle at their ignorance.
A few might think the Chinese are just greedy, wanting to get the whole thing settled so their sizable investments and bonds are protected from default that would cost them money.
A few might applaud the Chinese for waiting until the "last minute" to engage in the game, when a trillion or two is at stake in this bet. It shows how tolerant they are.
Perhaps, it is more simple than any of these things. The Chinese are off at the APEC Summit while our President sits on the sidelines, and our Secretary of State keeps to Afghanistan trying to get them to agree to another few years of troop support.
The Chinese are quick to step into this area of South East Asia, because they want us out. Two years ago, countries like Japan and Thailand were wanting us to get back into the area because the Chinese were being too aggressive, threatening all of them and staking claims to islands all over the region. They haven't given up on those claims; they are going their best to engage all who live in that part of the world, and they press us to stay home and tend to our budget crisis.
Notice, we listen.
Curious how the Chinese, who have a different view of the role of government, manage to blame the Executive Branch of government for the condition we are in with the shutdown and debt debate, but our own press tends to blame the Legislative Branch.
A few of our press stalwarts might think the Chinese are ill-informed about how the U.S. government actually works. They might chuckle at their ignorance.
A few might think the Chinese are just greedy, wanting to get the whole thing settled so their sizable investments and bonds are protected from default that would cost them money.
A few might applaud the Chinese for waiting until the "last minute" to engage in the game, when a trillion or two is at stake in this bet. It shows how tolerant they are.
Perhaps, it is more simple than any of these things. The Chinese are off at the APEC Summit while our President sits on the sidelines, and our Secretary of State keeps to Afghanistan trying to get them to agree to another few years of troop support.
The Chinese are quick to step into this area of South East Asia, because they want us out. Two years ago, countries like Japan and Thailand were wanting us to get back into the area because the Chinese were being too aggressive, threatening all of them and staking claims to islands all over the region. They haven't given up on those claims; they are going their best to engage all who live in that part of the world, and they press us to stay home and tend to our budget crisis.
Notice, we listen.
.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
China Involved in US Debt Debate
Last week the Chinese warned the Obama White House that they "hold significant debt of the United States" . We can only hope that nobody forgets that China owns owns $1.28 trillion, that they admit to. They have beneficial ownership of a good deal more, but if we think of money as stock, they have as much influence over the U.S. as a share holder with 10% ownership of a company's stock.
Two years ago China made almost the exact same worded warning when Congress was debating what imports to tax. Then, they raised the price of their currency, at a time when we were trying to get them to lower it. So, what is next from China on this? You can bet the backchannels are humming, and the emphasis is on getting the debt debate over with, so they can back-fill their pockets with new payments. The debt ceiling debate is not about what bills we owe; it is just as much about who we owe that money. I am uncomfortable about China, though less so about Japan, owning equal chunks of our debt. Don't we care, or like the Obama White House, do we think China is our friend?
Two years ago China made almost the exact same worded warning when Congress was debating what imports to tax. Then, they raised the price of their currency, at a time when we were trying to get them to lower it. So, what is next from China on this? You can bet the backchannels are humming, and the emphasis is on getting the debt debate over with, so they can back-fill their pockets with new payments. The debt ceiling debate is not about what bills we owe; it is just as much about who we owe that money. I am uncomfortable about China, though less so about Japan, owning equal chunks of our debt. Don't we care, or like the Obama White House, do we think China is our friend?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)