There is an interesting story in the Wall Street Journal today about the use of cameras made by Dahua Technology Company. The cameras and video recorders were used to launch a denial of service attack against Brian Krebs, a well-known security writer, who makes a habit of exposing credit card scams, skimmers and other devices or tricks to steal information from us. Not very many nice people want to see him off-line.
Dahua says it might be a good idea to set strong passwords and update the firmware of their devices, which if you have ever tried to do that, is not as easy as it sounds. Most of the people who buy these cameras and video recorders have never heard of firmware, or know about the need for software changes. They are, after all, just cameras that can't do anything but take video of your backyard or basement. The problem is that they also connect to your home WIFI.
My refrigerator and washing machine want me to connect to my home network too, but we declined. My security cameras have to be connected and until now I didn't think much about it. The Chinese have had a series of browsers that sent back all kinds of information to China about the networks home computers attach themselves to. Now, I wonder about those cameras. They know my password to the network, which makes it difficult to keep them out of other devices also connected. The browsers also wanted my hard drive serial number, the names of other routers around me, and my unique identifiers for other devices. These hackers may have done us a favor in one respect - We need to look more closely at what some of those devices are sending back and storing in Chinese systems. Besides their intelligence services, there are hackers out there who can have a lot of information about a lot of people if they can hack those stores of information. If that information is as secure as their cameras and recorders, we are in a lot of trouble.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Syrian Army Hacker Update
In a Justice Department press release today was the announcement that Peter Romar, 37, a Syrian national affiliated with the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiring to receive extortion proceeds and conspiring to unlawfully access computers. Romar was previously extradited from Germany on request of the U.S. This whole story would make a good movie.
"According to the statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, beginning in approximately 2011, co-defendant Firas Dardar, known online as “The Shadow,” and other members of the SEA engaged in a multi-year criminal conspiracy to conduct computer intrusions against perceived detractors of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, including media entities, the U.S. government and foreign governments. Dardar remains at large.
Beginning in approximately 2013, Romar and Dardar engaged in an extortion scheme that involved hacking online businesses in the U.S. and elsewhere for personal profit. Court documents further allege that the conspiracy gained unauthorized access to the victims’ computers and then threatened to damage computers, delete data, or sell stolen data unless the victims provided extortion payments to Dardar and/or Romar. If a victim could not make extortion payments to the conspiracy’s Syrian bank accounts due to sanctions targeting Syria, Romar acted as an intermediary in Germany to evade those sanctions."
In case this looks like just one of many extortion schemes done for profit, it isn't. This is a new slant on hacking. They are hacking the political opponents of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and disrupting their lives. They are hacking a person for what they believe and speak out about. The Chinese and Russians do the same. It is the suppression of ideas through intimidation by various means. Can they make a person change his mind about how he feels? No, but they can make it inconvenient to say it out loud.
"According to the statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, beginning in approximately 2011, co-defendant Firas Dardar, known online as “The Shadow,” and other members of the SEA engaged in a multi-year criminal conspiracy to conduct computer intrusions against perceived detractors of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, including media entities, the U.S. government and foreign governments. Dardar remains at large.
Beginning in approximately 2013, Romar and Dardar engaged in an extortion scheme that involved hacking online businesses in the U.S. and elsewhere for personal profit. Court documents further allege that the conspiracy gained unauthorized access to the victims’ computers and then threatened to damage computers, delete data, or sell stolen data unless the victims provided extortion payments to Dardar and/or Romar. If a victim could not make extortion payments to the conspiracy’s Syrian bank accounts due to sanctions targeting Syria, Romar acted as an intermediary in Germany to evade those sanctions."
In case this looks like just one of many extortion schemes done for profit, it isn't. This is a new slant on hacking. They are hacking the political opponents of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and disrupting their lives. They are hacking a person for what they believe and speak out about. The Chinese and Russians do the same. It is the suppression of ideas through intimidation by various means. Can they make a person change his mind about how he feels? No, but they can make it inconvenient to say it out loud.
Russians Make News on MA flight 17
You might ask yourself how long it takes to do a criminal investigation in a war zone like the eastern part of the Ukraine where this airliner was shot down, killing 298 people. That is 298 counts of murder, or some invented lesser offense like "accidental shooting" that will surely follow. The one thing that comes out clearly in this first announcement to the press is that the missile was a Russian missile, which in spite of evidence to the contrary, the Russians continue to deny. They further claim that the investigation ignores "evidence" supplied by them which shows clearly that the missile did not come from rebel held territory.
On Friday, the Russians released what they say is a satellite photo of a fighter jet shooting down the aircraft. It does look like a satellite photograph, but it is hard to tell if it is real or photoshopped. There are probably a few experts pouring over that aspect right now. If it proves to be faked, I think we have more to write about than just the investigation. We are tired of the Russians "making news" which they once admitted. There is a difference between making things up, and slanting a news story to give an impression that fits a narrative. The Russians don't seem to be able to see the difference.
Our national elections have given us reason to question the press and motives of some station owners who clearly favor one candidate over another. They show clips of only those things that put one candidate in a more favorable light. We all understand that being done. Only occasionally do we see editing of a clip to remove or fake a response with voice-over. That is the kind of thing we are talking about here.
The Russians seem to have no sense of credibility at all. There is a limit to what people will rationally accept. At some point they say "incredible" either out loud or internally. Incredible things are rejected as false, sometimes even without conscious thought about it. Is there something different about the Russians that they believe these incredible things? I doubt it. They don't even believe their own press.
On Friday, the Russians released what they say is a satellite photo of a fighter jet shooting down the aircraft. It does look like a satellite photograph, but it is hard to tell if it is real or photoshopped. There are probably a few experts pouring over that aspect right now. If it proves to be faked, I think we have more to write about than just the investigation. We are tired of the Russians "making news" which they once admitted. There is a difference between making things up, and slanting a news story to give an impression that fits a narrative. The Russians don't seem to be able to see the difference.
Our national elections have given us reason to question the press and motives of some station owners who clearly favor one candidate over another. They show clips of only those things that put one candidate in a more favorable light. We all understand that being done. Only occasionally do we see editing of a clip to remove or fake a response with voice-over. That is the kind of thing we are talking about here.
The Russians seem to have no sense of credibility at all. There is a limit to what people will rationally accept. At some point they say "incredible" either out loud or internally. Incredible things are rejected as false, sometimes even without conscious thought about it. Is there something different about the Russians that they believe these incredible things? I doubt it. They don't even believe their own press.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Front Companies Doing for China
You may have forgotten about the use of front companies to establish trade routes to Iran from Chinese businesses trying to avoid sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. The same thing is about to be repeated with another groups of companies dealing with North Korea. During the tussle with Chinese companies over Iran I wrote this segment:
The Iranian nuclear deal has become one of the cornerstones of the Obama administration, enough that ransom payments were characterized in different ways to hide exactly how they were paid. It is a simple attempt, gone wrong, to avoid tarnishing the deal with Iran.
So too, the ZTE sanctions levied in March and put on hold the week after, are avoiding the tarnishing of China's second largest electronics company which sold electronics to Iran while the rest of world did not because it honored the sanctions. There was no doubt at the time those sanctions were let that the Chinese government allowed ZTE to violate the sanctions with Iran and a few other countries. ZTE internal documents outlining the scheme to avoid sanctions were published along with the announcement of the sanctions. In June, records from Huawei were requested, suggesting that they were also being investigated as a second company doing the same things - actually using the same documents that explained how to not get caught.
The sanctions from March were twice delayed, first "to give ZTE a chance to restore its reputation" and this time, "to give additional time for the investigation" until November 28. This is a clear attempt to dump it on the next President and avoid the possibility of tainting the Iran agreement again. I would guess that it will be delayed one more time- at least until the end of January. It is clearly politics over the national interest.
Now, take a look at the following press release from the Justice Department and see if you can see the similarities I did:
The Iranian nuclear deal has become one of the cornerstones of the Obama administration, enough that ransom payments were characterized in different ways to hide exactly how they were paid. It is a simple attempt, gone wrong, to avoid tarnishing the deal with Iran.
So too, the ZTE sanctions levied in March and put on hold the week after, are avoiding the tarnishing of China's second largest electronics company which sold electronics to Iran while the rest of world did not because it honored the sanctions. There was no doubt at the time those sanctions were let that the Chinese government allowed ZTE to violate the sanctions with Iran and a few other countries. ZTE internal documents outlining the scheme to avoid sanctions were published along with the announcement of the sanctions. In June, records from Huawei were requested, suggesting that they were also being investigated as a second company doing the same things - actually using the same documents that explained how to not get caught.
The sanctions from March were twice delayed, first "to give ZTE a chance to restore its reputation" and this time, "to give additional time for the investigation" until November 28. This is a clear attempt to dump it on the next President and avoid the possibility of tainting the Iran agreement again. I would guess that it will be delayed one more time- at least until the end of January. It is clearly politics over the national interest.
Now, take a look at the following press release from the Justice Department and see if you can see the similarities I did:
Four Chinese Nationals and China-Based Company Charged with Using Front Companies to Evade U.S. Sanctions Targeting North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile Programs
Company Allegedly Violated Sanctions by Facilitating U.S. Dollar Transactions on Behalf of a North Korean Bank with Ties to Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators
Four Chinese nationals and a trading company based in Dandong, China, were charged by criminal complaint unsealed today with conspiring to evade U.S. economic sanctions and violating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations (WMDPSR) through front companies by facilitating prohibited U.S. dollar transactions through the United States on behalf of a sanctioned entity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and to launder the proceeds of that criminal conduct through U.S. financial institutions.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman of the District of New Jersey and Assistant Director E.W. Priestap of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division made the announcement.
On Aug. 3, 2016, a U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson of the District of New Jersey signed a criminal complaint charging Ma Xiaohong (Ma) and her company, Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co. Ltd. (DHID), and three of DHID’s top executives, general manager Zhou Jianshu (Zhou), deputy general manager Hong Jinhua (Hong) and financial manager Luo Chuanxu (Luo), with conspiracy to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and to defraud the United States; violating IEEPA; and conspiracy to launder monetary instruments.
Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also imposed sanctions on DHID, Ma, Zhou and Hong for their ties to the government of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction proliferation efforts.
In addition, the department filed a civil forfeiture action for all funds contained in 25 Chinese bank accounts that allegedly belong to DHID and its front companies. The department has also requested tha the federal court in the District of New Jersey issue a restraining order for all of the funds named in the civil forfeiture action, based upon the allegation that the funds represent property involved in money laundering, which makes them forfeitable to the United States. There are no allegations of wrongdoing by the U.S. correspondent banks or foreign banks that maintain these accounts.
“The charges and forfeiture action announced today allege that defendants in China established and used shell companies around the world, surreptitiously moved money through the United States and violated the sanctions imposed on North Korea in response to, among other things, its nuclear weapons program,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “The actions reflect our efforts to protect the integrity of the U.S. banking system and hold accountable those who seek to evade U.S. sanctions laws.”
“The charges unsealed today reflect our nation’s commitment to using all tools to deter and disrupt weapons of mass destruction proliferators,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin. “One of the strengths of our sanctions programs is that they prevent sanctioned wrongdoers from engaging in U.S. dollar transactions. Denying the use of the U.S. financial system can greatly curtail illegal activities and disrupt efforts to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists and rogue nations. Those who seek to evade our financial sanctions will be fully prosecuted, and we will be unflagging in our efforts to bring them to justice.”
“The FBI takes violations of these laws extremely seriously and will not hesitate to use our full investigative resources to stop this type of illegal activity,” said Assistant Director Priestap. “In this case agents, analysts and forensic accountants from field offices in Phoenix and Newark, as well as FBI Headquarters, all contributed to a successful investigation.”
According to criminal and civil complaints, DHID is primarily owned by Ma and is located near the North Korean border. DHID allegedly openly worked with North Korea-based Korea Kwangson Banking Corporation (KKBC) prior to Aug. 11, 2009, when the OFAC designated KKBC as a Specially Designated National (SDN) for providing U.S. dollar financial services for two other North Korean entities, Tanchon Commercial Bank (Tanchon) and Korea Hyoksin Trading Corporation (Hyoksin). President Bush identified Tanchon as a weapons of mass destruction proliferator in June 2005, and OFAC designated Hyoksin as an SDN under the WMDPSR in July 2009. Tanchon and Hyoksin were so identified and designated because of their ties to Korea Mining Development Trading Company (KOMID), which OFAC has described as North Korea’s premier arms dealer and main exporter of goods and equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons. The United Nations (UN) placed KOMID, Tanchon and Hyoksin on the UN Sanctions List in 2006. In March 2016, KKBC was added to the UN Sanctions List.
In August 2009, Ma allegedly conspired with Zhou, Hong and Luo to create or acquire numerous front companies to conduct U.S. dollar transactions designed to evade U.S. sanctions. The complaints allege that from August 2009 to September 2015, DHID used these front companies, established in offshore jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands, the Seychelles and Hong Kong, and opened Chinese bank accounts to conduct U.S. dollar financial transactions through the U.S. banking system when completing sales to North Korea. These sales transactions were allegedly financed or guaranteed by KKBC. These front companies facilitated the financial transactions to hide KKBC’s presence from correspondent banks in the United States, according to the allegations in the complaints.
As a result of the defendants’ alleged scheme, KKBC was able to cause financial transactions in U.S. dollars to transit through the U.S. correspondent banks without being detected by the banks and, thus, were not blocked under the WMDPSR program.
A complaint is merely an allegation and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Aixtron and China's Investments
There was a good article in the New York Times on Saturday that describes the turmoil for a company called Aixtron, a German high-tech business. Several business news outlets reported the sale of this company to China's Fujian Grand Chip Investment Fund LP (FGC) in May. What the Times article does is give the back story to how this purchase came to be. If we want to play with Chinese investments, it is a good thing to know how they play. More important however is the central question the article poses: How do we treat bids that cross between private investment and state-orchestrated takeovers?
The cancellation of an order at the last minute put Aixtron's stock on a downward spiral. The company that pulled the plug on that order was San’an Optoelectronics, another Chinese company with funding from some of the same people who worked out the M&A on Aixtron. The story in the Times documents the connections between the different companies that were related both to the purchaser and the business relationships Aixtron had in China. This purchase and one other major one made Germany the biggest recipient of Chinese capital in Europe. German concerns about technology transfer are well founded.
The biggest mistake we make in dealing with China is believing their businesses are just like ours - independent of government, managed by Boards with their own independence, and acting in their own self-interest. The only interests they serve are those of the central government.
The cancellation of an order at the last minute put Aixtron's stock on a downward spiral. The company that pulled the plug on that order was San’an Optoelectronics, another Chinese company with funding from some of the same people who worked out the M&A on Aixtron. The story in the Times documents the connections between the different companies that were related both to the purchaser and the business relationships Aixtron had in China. This purchase and one other major one made Germany the biggest recipient of Chinese capital in Europe. German concerns about technology transfer are well founded.
The biggest mistake we make in dealing with China is believing their businesses are just like ours - independent of government, managed by Boards with their own independence, and acting in their own self-interest. The only interests they serve are those of the central government.
Chinese IPOs
Not too many people follow IPos unless they have money in the new company and want to see how much they will make when it goes public. Chinese IPOs have less worry about little things like free enterprise because most of the investors are Chinese state-owned enterprises. It is not hard to figure out who is making money on these insider trades. When the stock rises after the initial offering they offer it for sale to an unsuspecting world public.
Friday, September 23, 2016
A link to read
A letter from many members of the House Permanent Select Comittee on Intelligence to President Obama to ask him not to pardon Edward Snowden. http://fas.org/irp/congress/2016_cr/hpsci-snowden-let.pdf
Thursday, September 22, 2016
The Big Fight
In a curious set of circumstances, the BBC covered 3 instances of brawling between politicians in Turkey, Georgia, and the Ukraine. These were punching and grappling not unlike the typical bar fight. The Georgian event was on national television. 'Tis the Season of elections. US politicians never seem to get that fired up over their elections, and it might be nice to see them explode into fisticuffs now and again just to be sure they were not being politically correct. After four years up on the Hill, I know they want to do it, but would be afraid to be on camera whacking another person equal in stature. The rule of the House was "Never speak ill of a seated Congressman" and I'm sure it extends to fistfights as well. A shame in some ways. It looks like an adventure we would hate to miss.
Information War in Miniature
We got a tiny piece of Information War in the news today with a Russian press conference that reminds me a lot of the ones they held with one of their missiles shot down a civilian airliner in the Ukraine. Although, they are getting better at it with more professional graphics and better tight shots of military officers who speak like they aren't reading from a screenplay.
This time, they are trying to explain that it was not Russian planes that bombed the UN convoy of food and aide that was going to the long-suffering people in Aleppo. The US says it was them. The Russians deny it.
Rarely is denial enough, so we have the new "evidence" that the US had a drone in the area of that convoy. Never mind that drones are principally for surveillance and not for attacking many vehicles at one time. Drones are a little short on ordinance to be attacking multiple vehicles. Never mind that, watch this video where the convoy is clearly seen, then we overlay that track of that drone and we can "prove" that drone was up to no good. The inference is that the US must have blown up that convoy and not us. They know most people will not believe that.
This serves two purposes. First, a few people will believe that this is sufficient evidence of wrong doing on the part of the US, but most of them are probably Russians in Russia. That is OK if you are playing to that domestic audience, but international audiences are not listening to this kind of stuff. Second, it takes attention away from the inquiry which is leading back to Russian bombers attacking that convoy for reasons that almost anyone with a brian would have to think insane. The Russians are going to need a coverup at least as good at the one in the Ukraine for anyone to believe their story, and unlike Ukraine, they don't control the territory where it happened. People saw those planes and know what they are. Radars saw where they came from and where they went. Trying to get out in front of this one is going to take more than a few inferences of drones in the area. It sounds too much like the story they invented for the airliner which said the Ukrainians shot it down while trying to hit Putin's aircraft as it flew through. Totally incredible.
This time, they are trying to explain that it was not Russian planes that bombed the UN convoy of food and aide that was going to the long-suffering people in Aleppo. The US says it was them. The Russians deny it.
Rarely is denial enough, so we have the new "evidence" that the US had a drone in the area of that convoy. Never mind that drones are principally for surveillance and not for attacking many vehicles at one time. Drones are a little short on ordinance to be attacking multiple vehicles. Never mind that, watch this video where the convoy is clearly seen, then we overlay that track of that drone and we can "prove" that drone was up to no good. The inference is that the US must have blown up that convoy and not us. They know most people will not believe that.
This serves two purposes. First, a few people will believe that this is sufficient evidence of wrong doing on the part of the US, but most of them are probably Russians in Russia. That is OK if you are playing to that domestic audience, but international audiences are not listening to this kind of stuff. Second, it takes attention away from the inquiry which is leading back to Russian bombers attacking that convoy for reasons that almost anyone with a brian would have to think insane. The Russians are going to need a coverup at least as good at the one in the Ukraine for anyone to believe their story, and unlike Ukraine, they don't control the territory where it happened. People saw those planes and know what they are. Radars saw where they came from and where they went. Trying to get out in front of this one is going to take more than a few inferences of drones in the area. It sounds too much like the story they invented for the airliner which said the Ukrainians shot it down while trying to hit Putin's aircraft as it flew through. Totally incredible.
Hackers Who Get Caught
There was another in a long series of articles about Russian hackers having their magic fingers caught in the cookie jar of a political system, much like the Democratic National Committee a few months ago. This time it was the Germans and most particularly, the major parties in opposition and the party of Angela Merkel. There is nothing new in hackers going after political parties because just about every intelligence service in the world wants to know what these parties are up to and should make them targets. [See http://www.wsj.com/articles/german-parties-targeted-in-cyberattack-1474470695
What we should be wondering is why the Russians are getting caught. I know that sounds strange, but hackers who are good at what they do, especially ones who work for governments, do not usually get caught. They use tools that would not be traceable to their own government; they are careful and do not get in a hurry. The main reason for this is plausible deniability, the ability of a government to say, "It wasn't me." Most intelligence collection requires this ability because all countries that are advanced spy on one another, but the honor code of thieves of information requires that governments do it covertly, i.e without getting caught and with the ability to deny such a thing occurred using resources of this country. Even when it is hard to do, we still need plausible denial. So, how is it that Russian hackers who are getting into governments and political parties get caught? I think these are the best reasons that is happening:
1. We have to believe that the Russian intelligence services, especially the FSB and GRU, want to be seen to be attempting to influence elections of other countries. This is an odd use of Information War but one that does have an effect. The Chinese did this when they helped North Korea steal email from Sony and selectively release some those documents. It is a warning of what can be if the same thing happens to them. If you try to influence our election process, which took place last week, we will try to influence yours. To be of much use, the recipient has to know they are being hacked by a known entity. OK, we know who you are.
2. Maybe the FSB and GRU are not very sophisticated at hacking, so they stumble through these attacks and get caught. It is possible, but unlikely. There are probably more skilled hackers in Russia and China than in any two other countries in the world. They are both thick with them. With that many, there has to be some pretty good ones that can train or work with others who might not be so good. Eventually, their workforce is skilled and good enough to not get caught. So, maybe they are in that transition period when they are not yet skilled enough. Those who believe that, hold up your hand.
3. Maybe the world is wrong about the source of these attacks and it is not really Russia, but somebody using tools developed and hosted in Russia. That is a possibility since there are a few places in Russia that will handle that for you, giving the operation safe haven and tools to do the work. The Russian government knows where these places are, and can limit what that work entails and who is doing it. They could cooperate with some countries and not others.
Or, it could be a combination of those things. If we look at the mostly likely idea of why they are getting caught, it seems to be the first one. We will find out soon, because the Russian elections are over and it is time for them to move on. If it is just a warning of things to come, the main reason for continuing is now past. If the attacks continue, we might need to look for other alternatives.
What we should be wondering is why the Russians are getting caught. I know that sounds strange, but hackers who are good at what they do, especially ones who work for governments, do not usually get caught. They use tools that would not be traceable to their own government; they are careful and do not get in a hurry. The main reason for this is plausible deniability, the ability of a government to say, "It wasn't me." Most intelligence collection requires this ability because all countries that are advanced spy on one another, but the honor code of thieves of information requires that governments do it covertly, i.e without getting caught and with the ability to deny such a thing occurred using resources of this country. Even when it is hard to do, we still need plausible denial. So, how is it that Russian hackers who are getting into governments and political parties get caught? I think these are the best reasons that is happening:
1. We have to believe that the Russian intelligence services, especially the FSB and GRU, want to be seen to be attempting to influence elections of other countries. This is an odd use of Information War but one that does have an effect. The Chinese did this when they helped North Korea steal email from Sony and selectively release some those documents. It is a warning of what can be if the same thing happens to them. If you try to influence our election process, which took place last week, we will try to influence yours. To be of much use, the recipient has to know they are being hacked by a known entity. OK, we know who you are.
2. Maybe the FSB and GRU are not very sophisticated at hacking, so they stumble through these attacks and get caught. It is possible, but unlikely. There are probably more skilled hackers in Russia and China than in any two other countries in the world. They are both thick with them. With that many, there has to be some pretty good ones that can train or work with others who might not be so good. Eventually, their workforce is skilled and good enough to not get caught. So, maybe they are in that transition period when they are not yet skilled enough. Those who believe that, hold up your hand.
3. Maybe the world is wrong about the source of these attacks and it is not really Russia, but somebody using tools developed and hosted in Russia. That is a possibility since there are a few places in Russia that will handle that for you, giving the operation safe haven and tools to do the work. The Russian government knows where these places are, and can limit what that work entails and who is doing it. They could cooperate with some countries and not others.
Or, it could be a combination of those things. If we look at the mostly likely idea of why they are getting caught, it seems to be the first one. We will find out soon, because the Russian elections are over and it is time for them to move on. If it is just a warning of things to come, the main reason for continuing is now past. If the attacks continue, we might need to look for other alternatives.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
China and the North Korea Bomb
If we were to believe the story in the Wall Street Journal today, we have to belive that the Chinese and US governments have suddenly noticed that a Chinese conglomerate is helping North Korea build a better bomb and that neither government emcouraged them to do it. That isn't the way Chinese business works. The government has a role in every Chinese business and knows what it is doing. The intelligence services are aware of what North Korea is doing and how that is being facilitated through Chinese industry. It would not be a surprise to anyone.
There is complicity on both sides to allow the view in this article to be disseminated as an official view. We want to pretend that the Chinese government is not aware of what this conglomerate was up to, and that it officially does not support the development of nuclear weapons by the North. The North would not have missiles or weapons without the guidance and support of China. To accept any less is to live in a dreamland of political correctness.
There is complicity on both sides to allow the view in this article to be disseminated as an official view. We want to pretend that the Chinese government is not aware of what this conglomerate was up to, and that it officially does not support the development of nuclear weapons by the North. The North would not have missiles or weapons without the guidance and support of China. To accept any less is to live in a dreamland of political correctness.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Little Bears in Medical Records
I had a little trouble trying to figure out why a group of Russian hackers would care about the medical records of people who go through the World Anit-Doping Agency. There is really no comparison to what might have happened in the administation of the various exceptions to drug policies that come from living every day with some illness and the outright manipulation of urine samples by Russian labs during the Olympics. They are trying hard to make a connection, even making an inference that all the athletes take some drugs under controlled circumstances, but very few people in the world are buying the argument.
This kind of smacks of totally underestimating the intelligence of people. Even if you just glance at the headlines, you can tell the difference between state-sponsored mainpulation and prescribed medications of a person with ADHD. But, they are going to play this up and move on to other records they have stolen or new subjects that might attribute more abuses to other types of athletes, until people stop listening and reading. This is, after all, just information war. They pledged their allegiance to Anonymous but not even that group likes playing on the edges this kind of war. They know what can happen.
I'm sure the little bears know what an interesting game this is. The world's governments quickly get tired of it and, as David Sanger said in his New York Times article on the response to North Korea in Sony, they respond in kind. In that article, he says the U.S. actually considered a strategy to get around China's Great Firewall so information could flow freely. The Russians have a lot more to hide than the manipulation of lab results during the Olympics.
This kind of smacks of totally underestimating the intelligence of people. Even if you just glance at the headlines, you can tell the difference between state-sponsored mainpulation and prescribed medications of a person with ADHD. But, they are going to play this up and move on to other records they have stolen or new subjects that might attribute more abuses to other types of athletes, until people stop listening and reading. This is, after all, just information war. They pledged their allegiance to Anonymous but not even that group likes playing on the edges this kind of war. They know what can happen.
I'm sure the little bears know what an interesting game this is. The world's governments quickly get tired of it and, as David Sanger said in his New York Times article on the response to North Korea in Sony, they respond in kind. In that article, he says the U.S. actually considered a strategy to get around China's Great Firewall so information could flow freely. The Russians have a lot more to hide than the manipulation of lab results during the Olympics.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Campaign for Snowden's Pardon
BBC carried a story today indicating the ACLU and Amnesty International are starting a campaign to get President Obama to grant a pardon to Edward Snowden. This is much like asking President Washington, our first President, to pardon Benedict Arnold, the infamous traitor.
I am never amazed by anything the sanctimonious ACLU does in the name of civil liberties, but this one is stretching even the limits of that group. The man is a traitor, clear and simple. There has never been a more clear case than the one he represents. He stole material that causes, by definition, "grave harm to the United States" and gave it to a foreign power. He can hide behind newspapers and video interviews, but not from the law. He did it and no power in the world can save him..... Except.
At the end of the term of a President, he can give out pardons to people who he thinks need them. It falls on Presidents to pardon people for transgressions that were illegal, immoral, or otherwise prosecutable. There may have been a reason for this in history, but I am loathe to try to find out what it was. It seems antiquated and a misuse of executive privilege. That doesn't mean anyone will try to change it. We can't stop a President from pardoning someone such as a cold-blooded killer, because he can't be impeached after he leaves office. He becomes a non-person then who is forgiven for everything. So, nothing can be done to stop him if this campaign succeeds.
We need to lend our voices to our Congressional leaders, government officials, and anyone who will listen to try to influence this President to not do something so stupid. Maybe a few editorials in newspapers might help. Maybe we could appeal directly to the White House, if someone there would listen. The people in the ACLU and Amnesty International think they will.
I am never amazed by anything the sanctimonious ACLU does in the name of civil liberties, but this one is stretching even the limits of that group. The man is a traitor, clear and simple. There has never been a more clear case than the one he represents. He stole material that causes, by definition, "grave harm to the United States" and gave it to a foreign power. He can hide behind newspapers and video interviews, but not from the law. He did it and no power in the world can save him..... Except.
At the end of the term of a President, he can give out pardons to people who he thinks need them. It falls on Presidents to pardon people for transgressions that were illegal, immoral, or otherwise prosecutable. There may have been a reason for this in history, but I am loathe to try to find out what it was. It seems antiquated and a misuse of executive privilege. That doesn't mean anyone will try to change it. We can't stop a President from pardoning someone such as a cold-blooded killer, because he can't be impeached after he leaves office. He becomes a non-person then who is forgiven for everything. So, nothing can be done to stop him if this campaign succeeds.
We need to lend our voices to our Congressional leaders, government officials, and anyone who will listen to try to influence this President to not do something so stupid. Maybe a few editorials in newspapers might help. Maybe we could appeal directly to the White House, if someone there would listen. The people in the ACLU and Amnesty International think they will.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Snowden's Second Thoughts
The Financial Times over the weekend has an interesting story by Geoff Dyer about Edward Snowden. Snowden is not a friend to the U.S but he needs to think before he opens his mouth in Russia, especially to criticize his host. The article claims he has blamed Russia, inferring that they were making an implicit threat against the U.S by releasing software that was said to be from the National Security Agency. It was said to be an indirect threat related to blaming Russia for the theft of information from the Democratic National Committee. The thought goes that if we criticize them for hacking, they might show what the U.S has been hacking. That does seem a little far fetched, not because it may not be accurate about what was said, but because the Russians are not likely to get much sympathy from anyone over that issue.
Snowden also had claimed the Russians went too far in their control over their populations and failed in human rights. I'm sure this did not come as much of a surprise to anyone, but the real surprise may be for him. The Russians are not very forgiving. He is there as their "guest" says the Kremlin's leader. Guests generally do not criticize their host while they are still dependent upon them. Perhaps the publicity is related to the new Oliver Stone film, which is mostly Stone's usual fantasy view of the world and not the most accurate of portrayal. We will have to see, but my guess is the interviews and criticism are trying to fit the narrative of the Stone story and not reality.
Snowden also had claimed the Russians went too far in their control over their populations and failed in human rights. I'm sure this did not come as much of a surprise to anyone, but the real surprise may be for him. The Russians are not very forgiving. He is there as their "guest" says the Kremlin's leader. Guests generally do not criticize their host while they are still dependent upon them. Perhaps the publicity is related to the new Oliver Stone film, which is mostly Stone's usual fantasy view of the world and not the most accurate of portrayal. We will have to see, but my guess is the interviews and criticism are trying to fit the narrative of the Stone story and not reality.
No News is Better News
There are days when no news is better than some of the "news" we see on the front pages of our newspapers. Being older, I can remember the days when newspapers and television news broadcasters prided themselves on neutrality in their reporting. It is sad to see that era go, replaced by a new kind of information war that plays to politics, not neutrality.
Media can say what they want and the First Amendment to our Constitution will protect them. Some are more careful than others, using their Opinion section appropriately. I use the front page of Saturday's New York Times as evidence. There are two stories right in the center that demonstrate and the headlines are as follows:
Country Spurns Trump but Can't Warm to Clinton
Giuliani Role Risks Legacy to Aid Trump
The first implies that a political candidate who poll numbers are rising is being spurned by the electorate which cannot seem to come to support the other candidate. Graceful, but biased as can be. It should, as the text of the article alludes to, suggest focus on a system that produces two candidates that a majority of the voting public does not like or trust. We have to ask ourselves if the narrative that says the elections are "rigged" has some truth to it. Anywhere but a Fantasy Land these two candidates would have fallen out in the first round of the selection process.
The second article is worse in its presentation. It is a direct slap at a New York Hero on the day before his most important triumph, September 11. But, the implication is that his support for Donald Trump will diminish our view of Giuliani's dedication to the city and to his country during those awful days when the World Trade Center went down. That is blatant bias that does not belong on the front page of a paper. That is what the Opinion page is for.
There is a difference between being Liberal, which the Times has been accused of before, and being biased. These two stories are bias and on the front page, where even people who don't buy it would see it.
Media can say what they want and the First Amendment to our Constitution will protect them. Some are more careful than others, using their Opinion section appropriately. I use the front page of Saturday's New York Times as evidence. There are two stories right in the center that demonstrate and the headlines are as follows:
Country Spurns Trump but Can't Warm to Clinton
Giuliani Role Risks Legacy to Aid Trump
The first implies that a political candidate who poll numbers are rising is being spurned by the electorate which cannot seem to come to support the other candidate. Graceful, but biased as can be. It should, as the text of the article alludes to, suggest focus on a system that produces two candidates that a majority of the voting public does not like or trust. We have to ask ourselves if the narrative that says the elections are "rigged" has some truth to it. Anywhere but a Fantasy Land these two candidates would have fallen out in the first round of the selection process.
The second article is worse in its presentation. It is a direct slap at a New York Hero on the day before his most important triumph, September 11. But, the implication is that his support for Donald Trump will diminish our view of Giuliani's dedication to the city and to his country during those awful days when the World Trade Center went down. That is blatant bias that does not belong on the front page of a paper. That is what the Opinion page is for.
There is a difference between being Liberal, which the Times has been accused of before, and being biased. These two stories are bias and on the front page, where even people who don't buy it would see it.
Friday, September 9, 2016
China Protests Another Nuclear Test
In case you are wondering why China speaks up on the matter of nuclear testing by North Korea, it is because the rest of the world sees China as complicit in that testing. China gets a pass on development of nuclear weapons because the real work is being done by North Korea, which you may remember, brought in Iran to observe the last one.
China wonders why we need to put ballistic missile defense systems in South Korea, while they carry on with nuclear testing. We have to wonder why China would care about that under these circumstances. They have to take us for fools.
Just in case you think there is no possibility that China can influence the North, look at this MIT chart on trade . Roughly 85% of every trade deal done by North Korea is done with China, either imports or exports. That alone is enough leverage to stop anything from happening that China does not want to happen, including every nuclear test North Korea has ever done. So, when the Chinese say "that was bad" they are only saying what is needed to deflect blame from the only country in a position to stop it.
I said in my Congressional testimony that I believed the same thing about North Korea and China in the hacking of Sony. China wanted to demonstrate a capability for a new kind of information war, the kind where theft of information is followed by selective release of stolen material. Business leaders must wonder what would happen in that kind of attack were run on their corporate infrastructures. It makes a very good deterrent, something the U.S does not have.
The nuclear testing is just another step in this information war. They want to see how the world reacts. By focusing on North Korea, we make a serious mistake. We should focus on how China uses proxies to further its policies. North Korea doesn't do anything that China would not agree to.
China wonders why we need to put ballistic missile defense systems in South Korea, while they carry on with nuclear testing. We have to wonder why China would care about that under these circumstances. They have to take us for fools.
Just in case you think there is no possibility that China can influence the North, look at this MIT chart on trade . Roughly 85% of every trade deal done by North Korea is done with China, either imports or exports. That alone is enough leverage to stop anything from happening that China does not want to happen, including every nuclear test North Korea has ever done. So, when the Chinese say "that was bad" they are only saying what is needed to deflect blame from the only country in a position to stop it.
I said in my Congressional testimony that I believed the same thing about North Korea and China in the hacking of Sony. China wanted to demonstrate a capability for a new kind of information war, the kind where theft of information is followed by selective release of stolen material. Business leaders must wonder what would happen in that kind of attack were run on their corporate infrastructures. It makes a very good deterrent, something the U.S does not have.
The nuclear testing is just another step in this information war. They want to see how the world reacts. By focusing on North Korea, we make a serious mistake. We should focus on how China uses proxies to further its policies. North Korea doesn't do anything that China would not agree to.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
When Stupidity Rules
I am still reading the report of the House Oversight Committtee on the loss of security clearance data from OPM. Having the Chinese get access to security clearance data was the most significant theft of data, on a par with the undermining of SWIFT and the central bank of Bangledesh. It is difficult to read for any person with extensive government security experience because it brings back a flood of bad memories. What is obvious to all reading this report is how important it is for government leaders to cover up incidents rather than do what should be done to protect the data. "Make me look good" is more important than doing the right thing.
In 2014 I was preparing for a speech on China and its theft of data. I went back to the Inspector General (IG) reports issued on the systems in OPM and found other reports going back to 2012 that were equally illuminating. OPM did not know how to secure its systems and didn't listen to its own IG about how to implement some of these basic security mechanisms I have a few examples listed below, that illustrate the point:
1. There was no two-factor authentication on critical systems. This was a mandated requirement that was not implemented, probably because someone said it was "an unfunded requirement". We used to hear that often. We don't do it because we don't have the money. One of my bosses once said the inability to do what it required is a management resource problem, not a security problem. Get the money and get it fixed.
2. Some systems (23) were not accredited, meaning the senior leaders had not accepted the risk of operating them with the deficiencies they identified. This is an old management trick - don't acknowledge the risk so you can later say you didn't know about it, or the full extent of it. Policy should establish a penalty for managers who don't acknowledge risk and ignore it. We did the same thing for Boards of Directors, so it can be done.
3. They had no equipment inventories on their systems, nor did they map their networks to establish where there equipment was.
4. They had no aggregated audit or intrusion detection capabilities.
5. There was little to no remediation of identified deficiencies. In other words, they identified things that needed to be corrected, but had no plan to correct them.
So, once a hacker got in, the likely hood of ever finding him were slim to none. The ability to do what basic security programs require could not be done there, even by people who might be motivated to do those things. They had a fragmented security program that wasn't integrated at the top with a CSO. When things finally started to come apart, top management tried to cover it up. This is when they get to find out that there are people working for them who put their country over the reputation of some of the leadership. We can't have leadership that puts itself above the needs of the people paying their tax dollars to our government. We have a right to expect better.
In 2014 I was preparing for a speech on China and its theft of data. I went back to the Inspector General (IG) reports issued on the systems in OPM and found other reports going back to 2012 that were equally illuminating. OPM did not know how to secure its systems and didn't listen to its own IG about how to implement some of these basic security mechanisms I have a few examples listed below, that illustrate the point:
1. There was no two-factor authentication on critical systems. This was a mandated requirement that was not implemented, probably because someone said it was "an unfunded requirement". We used to hear that often. We don't do it because we don't have the money. One of my bosses once said the inability to do what it required is a management resource problem, not a security problem. Get the money and get it fixed.
2. Some systems (23) were not accredited, meaning the senior leaders had not accepted the risk of operating them with the deficiencies they identified. This is an old management trick - don't acknowledge the risk so you can later say you didn't know about it, or the full extent of it. Policy should establish a penalty for managers who don't acknowledge risk and ignore it. We did the same thing for Boards of Directors, so it can be done.
3. They had no equipment inventories on their systems, nor did they map their networks to establish where there equipment was.
4. They had no aggregated audit or intrusion detection capabilities.
5. There was little to no remediation of identified deficiencies. In other words, they identified things that needed to be corrected, but had no plan to correct them.
So, once a hacker got in, the likely hood of ever finding him were slim to none. The ability to do what basic security programs require could not be done there, even by people who might be motivated to do those things. They had a fragmented security program that wasn't integrated at the top with a CSO. When things finally started to come apart, top management tried to cover it up. This is when they get to find out that there are people working for them who put their country over the reputation of some of the leadership. We can't have leadership that puts itself above the needs of the people paying their tax dollars to our government. We have a right to expect better.
Just 10 Feet Away
There are stories in several papers [see Reuters ] telling the tale of a near collision of two jets in the Black Sea. One was a US P-8, a pretty big and not very maneuverable jet and a Russian SU-27 fighter which is pretty quick on its wings. The incident is described as a close encounter but that does not tell us much about how close it really was. Ten feet is close when two jets are so big. In civilian airliner circles that is called a near miss and the collision avoidance systems would be wailing away long before they got that close.
The Russian pilots are reckless. It has been demonstrated more than one recently when fighters flew low over our ships in international waters and with this one where really close doesn't do it justice. It is a microsecond from a crash they probably kills crew members on both sides. They can't do this forever without a mistake happening. Ten feet is not far enough for an error to be corrected in time. A little burst of wind shear could make that ten feet close fast. No pilot in the world is good enough to stop it.
So, what are we doing about it? So far, nothing. Our servicemen and women continue at risk on both sides until the military leaders show some sense. That sense is brought by leadership on the political level that says "Nobody needs to die to prove we have resolve." We can show the same resilience at 1000 feet that we show at 10. These hot shots need a kick in the pants.
The Russian pilots are reckless. It has been demonstrated more than one recently when fighters flew low over our ships in international waters and with this one where really close doesn't do it justice. It is a microsecond from a crash they probably kills crew members on both sides. They can't do this forever without a mistake happening. Ten feet is not far enough for an error to be corrected in time. A little burst of wind shear could make that ten feet close fast. No pilot in the world is good enough to stop it.
So, what are we doing about it? So far, nothing. Our servicemen and women continue at risk on both sides until the military leaders show some sense. That sense is brought by leadership on the political level that says "Nobody needs to die to prove we have resolve." We can show the same resilience at 1000 feet that we show at 10. These hot shots need a kick in the pants.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Missed Opportunities
In the world of Inspector General reports words are very carefully chosen. As we shall see over the next couple of days, the Congressional report words describing the debacle of losing 20+ million security clearance records from the Office of Personnel Management will be spun and doctored by competing politicians who only know how the present one side of a two sided issue. The first press reports of the report due out today have described the fiasco as "a series of missed opportunities". This is much like saying the sinking of the Titanic was a series of missed opportunities, which almost means someone turned their head for a moment and missed what was going on. It could happen to anyone, we might think.
I listened to a recording of a speech given by one of the investigators of this mess and it didn't sound like something that just happened by accident and might have been prevented had someone just turned their head back in that instant. The Chinese were in that system for 3 years. They were in and out frequently and took information on the formatting and database structures of multiple databases inside the spaghetti network that made up OPM. They were into government systems and contractor systems. What that gave them the opportunity to do was falsify records, delete them, or take them. This is not a little thing that might have been prevented if only a few people had been paying attention.
Political spin will not make this gross negligence go away. The incompetence of their security team came out in the hearings after the events unfolded in the press, but the seniors who covered it up were the worst offenders. Given the seriousness of the data, that should have been pretty high up in the Administration. These people "missed opportunities" to correct the problems over a span of 3 years and they knew somebody was in the system over most of that time. The Director eventually resigned which is a clear indication of just how high up the paper-over of the attacks were. Like Debbie Wasserman Shultz, she "took one for the team" who knew what was going on but tried hard to keep it out of the press so they were not taken for fools.
I listened to a recording of a speech given by one of the investigators of this mess and it didn't sound like something that just happened by accident and might have been prevented had someone just turned their head back in that instant. The Chinese were in that system for 3 years. They were in and out frequently and took information on the formatting and database structures of multiple databases inside the spaghetti network that made up OPM. They were into government systems and contractor systems. What that gave them the opportunity to do was falsify records, delete them, or take them. This is not a little thing that might have been prevented if only a few people had been paying attention.
Political spin will not make this gross negligence go away. The incompetence of their security team came out in the hearings after the events unfolded in the press, but the seniors who covered it up were the worst offenders. Given the seriousness of the data, that should have been pretty high up in the Administration. These people "missed opportunities" to correct the problems over a span of 3 years and they knew somebody was in the system over most of that time. The Director eventually resigned which is a clear indication of just how high up the paper-over of the attacks were. Like Debbie Wasserman Shultz, she "took one for the team" who knew what was going on but tried hard to keep it out of the press so they were not taken for fools.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
A Picture Worth 1000 Words
This picture is worth the proverbial thousand words. http://time.com/4479763/g20-7-things-obama-china-staircase-plane/
These are two men with clearly some attitude, mostly bad, directed at each other. In diplomatic circles, and conferences like the G 20 where this was taken, even the worst of enemies will smile when they shake hands. The cameras are everywhere and will not miss a thing. There is protocol to it that says any person who represents their country can put aside differences with another country long enough for a photo. They can call each other names and shout back in the conference rooms with their interpreters.
These guys look like two prize fighters who are meeting at the weigh-in and trying to show their best "mean look" to try to intimate the other guys before the fight ever starts. It is not the kind of look that they want the world to see at an international party hosted by China. I kept waiting for Xi to show up and hug each of them to lighten things up.
There is something dark in that picture. Mull it over and tell me those two are not happy with one another and they cannot put that aside for this short period of time it takes for the press to finish their job. That is not very long. Maybe they say that the Russians really are messing in the US elections, and the President knows it. Maybe that little foray into the Ukraine and the capture of Crimea was important after all. Maybe Syria has them both uptight a little. Maybe they say they there is more than just diplomatic cables and letter writing going on. There is something more serious than the usual diplomacy between countries that don't and won't get along for very long. This is about things they can't say in public, so they say it another way. A picture worth much more than the usual thousand words.
These are two men with clearly some attitude, mostly bad, directed at each other. In diplomatic circles, and conferences like the G 20 where this was taken, even the worst of enemies will smile when they shake hands. The cameras are everywhere and will not miss a thing. There is protocol to it that says any person who represents their country can put aside differences with another country long enough for a photo. They can call each other names and shout back in the conference rooms with their interpreters.
These guys look like two prize fighters who are meeting at the weigh-in and trying to show their best "mean look" to try to intimate the other guys before the fight ever starts. It is not the kind of look that they want the world to see at an international party hosted by China. I kept waiting for Xi to show up and hug each of them to lighten things up.
There is something dark in that picture. Mull it over and tell me those two are not happy with one another and they cannot put that aside for this short period of time it takes for the press to finish their job. That is not very long. Maybe they say that the Russians really are messing in the US elections, and the President knows it. Maybe that little foray into the Ukraine and the capture of Crimea was important after all. Maybe Syria has them both uptight a little. Maybe they say they there is more than just diplomatic cables and letter writing going on. There is something more serious than the usual diplomacy between countries that don't and won't get along for very long. This is about things they can't say in public, so they say it another way. A picture worth much more than the usual thousand words.
I am Just a Peep
There seems to be a view in the White House that the people of our country are clueless. You can get a sense of this from reading some of the emails between the staff and the Democratic National Committee. Just for one example, some of them call the voters "peeps" a term of endearment the signifies the belief that they can be lead around like little chickens who follow any shiny object. So, people with that attitude can spend money anyway they think is a good idea, and not necessarily what the peeps think is good. These are two examples:
1. The U.S. Is going to pay Laos $900 million to help eradicate bombs that were dropped before most of the population of peeps was conceived. These are to correct a problem that most of the peeps did not even know about, and certainly did not care about. These 2,000,000 tons of ordinance were dropped during the Viet Nam war, which almost nobody from this generation remembers. Perhaps we should pay the Japanese for all the bombs that were dropped on them. The circumstances were the same for both.
2. The U.S paid a ransom for hostages of $400,000,000 tax-payer money. Today's Wall Street Journal says that number was really $1.3 billion, so that number was lower than the White House said. We have a national policy of not paying for hostages but the peeps would never know since it was to be accounted for by a trick of deception over money "owned" to Iran. We spent millions getting our hostages back, but we owed them money. The peeps would never know that period anyway, since most of them were not born then.
Underestimating the American public is something politicians frequently do, especially when they think of them as peeps. There are days, like ones when I see the "man-in-the-street" segments where they ask the person about the President's speech last night and they ramble on for 5 minutes about a speech that was never given. If you asked their opinion, they will tell you, even when they are wrong. In neither of these cases did they ask anyone if it was a good idea to spend tax-payer money on something so ridiculous. Did I mention brining in 85,000 more Syrian refugees? It is offensive to me to think that any elected official could do these kinds of things with my tax dollars, but then I am just a peep.
1. The U.S. Is going to pay Laos $900 million to help eradicate bombs that were dropped before most of the population of peeps was conceived. These are to correct a problem that most of the peeps did not even know about, and certainly did not care about. These 2,000,000 tons of ordinance were dropped during the Viet Nam war, which almost nobody from this generation remembers. Perhaps we should pay the Japanese for all the bombs that were dropped on them. The circumstances were the same for both.
2. The U.S paid a ransom for hostages of $400,000,000 tax-payer money. Today's Wall Street Journal says that number was really $1.3 billion, so that number was lower than the White House said. We have a national policy of not paying for hostages but the peeps would never know since it was to be accounted for by a trick of deception over money "owned" to Iran. We spent millions getting our hostages back, but we owed them money. The peeps would never know that period anyway, since most of them were not born then.
Underestimating the American public is something politicians frequently do, especially when they think of them as peeps. There are days, like ones when I see the "man-in-the-street" segments where they ask the person about the President's speech last night and they ramble on for 5 minutes about a speech that was never given. If you asked their opinion, they will tell you, even when they are wrong. In neither of these cases did they ask anyone if it was a good idea to spend tax-payer money on something so ridiculous. Did I mention brining in 85,000 more Syrian refugees? It is offensive to me to think that any elected official could do these kinds of things with my tax dollars, but then I am just a peep.
Saturday, September 3, 2016
A Death Sentence for an Opinion
In most countries of the world, a press reporter can be a nuisance - an annoyance - and can be banned from political events and not invited to dinner with anyone in a target administration. In the US, the Trump campaign banned a few from their events, and the other candidates did too without making much of it. They rarely end up dead for their way of reporting a story. The possible exceptions are few, but Russia is one of them. In early September, a bomb cremated a reporter in downtown Kiev. His main offense was being critical of Russia's handling of events in the Ukraine, something hardly worthy of a death sentence for Pavel Sheremet.
Russia's news service RT has a different slant on most of the others reporting the story: "Sheremet was a well-known Russian journalist and political analyst specializing in relations between Russia and Ukraine, as well as developments in former Soviet republics. Over the last five years, Sheremet lived and worked in Ukraine, employed by the UP.
The media company was founded in 2000 by Pritula and Georgy Gongadze, a Ukrainian journalist of Georgian origin who was assassinated on September 17, 2000.
The Ukrainian system has become a 'mass grave' for journalists, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said Wednesday."
Most of the Western press says Sheremet was a critic of the Kremlin. That statement alone seems to characterize the reason for his death, although he was driving his boss' car and not his own. Perhaps he did that often, but there is no mention of it one way or another. On the Russian side, characterizing the Ukraine as a "mass grave" has a ring to it but it not very accurate. The arrests and killing of journalists were mostly done by the "friends of Russia" Living in the eastern part of the country where Russian-speaking natives do most of the killing.
The Russians clearly lack the patience of the Chinese or the subtlety of other advanced countries. There is not reason a person has to die for what he writes in a blog or in a news story.
Russia's news service RT has a different slant on most of the others reporting the story: "Sheremet was a well-known Russian journalist and political analyst specializing in relations between Russia and Ukraine, as well as developments in former Soviet republics. Over the last five years, Sheremet lived and worked in Ukraine, employed by the UP.
The media company was founded in 2000 by Pritula and Georgy Gongadze, a Ukrainian journalist of Georgian origin who was assassinated on September 17, 2000.
The Ukrainian system has become a 'mass grave' for journalists, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said Wednesday."
Most of the Western press says Sheremet was a critic of the Kremlin. That statement alone seems to characterize the reason for his death, although he was driving his boss' car and not his own. Perhaps he did that often, but there is no mention of it one way or another. On the Russian side, characterizing the Ukraine as a "mass grave" has a ring to it but it not very accurate. The arrests and killing of journalists were mostly done by the "friends of Russia" Living in the eastern part of the country where Russian-speaking natives do most of the killing.
The Russians clearly lack the patience of the Chinese or the subtlety of other advanced countries. There is not reason a person has to die for what he writes in a blog or in a news story.
Friday, September 2, 2016
Why Apple, Margarthe Vestager?
I will repeat my previous post on Margarthe Vestager, in light of her recent case with Apple:
Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but I had never heard of Ms Vestager until last week when the EU Competition Commissioner, decided to bring antitrust charges against Google. Lately she has been spending a lot time with the press and public forums where she can explain the actions which were several years in the making. [ see Natasha Singer and James Kanter, Google's Steely Adversary, New York Times, 19 April 2015 ]. She tries hard to justify bringing these kind of charges against Google, but not many others doing exactly what Google does as a part of their commercial business. A more interesting slant on the whole thing comes from The Financial Times [Richard Waters, Christian Oliver and Alex Barker, How Google ended up 'on the wrong side of history']
So now, she takes on another U.S company, Apple, with the same crudeness shown in her keeping of that statue with the raised middle finger. She decides that Ireland cannot enter into a an arrangement with Apple and that because Ireland chose to do so, Apple will pay the price for it. It is almost as stupid as the case against Google. Success in this view of the world, deserves to be punished. I don't see her spending a lot of time on uniquely European monopolies like those in her home country or in France.
I hope Apple does what Tim Cook alluded to yesterday, and bring home most of that money they were stashing over there. It will serve the EU right to have the outcome be a wholesale withdrawal of capital from their countries. Oh, wait a minute, Ireland is in the Brexit deal and can do what it wants soon enough. They won't be in the EU. She and the rest of the over-regulating mass of paid bureaucrats can play this game among themselves.
Perhaps I lead a sheltered life, but I had never heard of Ms Vestager until last week when the EU Competition Commissioner, decided to bring antitrust charges against Google. Lately she has been spending a lot time with the press and public forums where she can explain the actions which were several years in the making. [ see Natasha Singer and James Kanter, Google's Steely Adversary, New York Times, 19 April 2015 ]. She tries hard to justify bringing these kind of charges against Google, but not many others doing exactly what Google does as a part of their commercial business. A more interesting slant on the whole thing comes from The Financial Times [Richard Waters, Christian Oliver and Alex Barker, How Google ended up 'on the wrong side of history']
This article says it took a long time to bring charges because Ms Vestager's predecessor, Joaquin Almunia, slow-rolled the whole thing because he "... grew convinced the anti-Google campaign was largely driven by arch-rival Microsoft, leading him to discount some compalints. Collegues recall him grumbling: if Steve Balmer of Mircrosoft has a problem, why is he sending proxies to see me?" He also had his staff expressing doubts about the strength of the case, on the basis that the arguments were too novel.
The FT article leads us to believe that Edward Snowden's disclosures has a lot to do with Germany turning on the heat with Google and it partly came from a belief in Europe that the U.S. was managing too much of the Internet. This latter being something that comes up from time to time, especially when the Russians engage on the issue. Putin expressed his opinion when he said the Internet was a "CIA project" without any explanation of what he meant.
As to what she really is, the NY Times has more understanding of the real person. She sharply cut Denmark's social benefits, especially unemployment. A group of unemployed builders gave her a life-sized sculpture of a hand with the middle finger raised, and she keeps it in her office. That must surprise a lot of visitors. I don't know many government employees who could get away with something like that. A reporter who covers her said she "is seen as a very tough, cold-hearted politician." The kind who would bring charges against Google for doing what every search engine does, especially one managed by a business. I don't find many Google products mentioned in Bing, Microsoft's own. Yahoo doesn't give equal prominance to Google products. Why would they? When the U.S. decided not to pursue anti-trust charges against Google, they were right. While the Europeans might find it the equivalent of a crime to put their own products first, we certainly don't. If they want to play this game, we should do the same to them.
I hope Apple does what Tim Cook alluded to yesterday, and bring home most of that money they were stashing over there. It will serve the EU right to have the outcome be a wholesale withdrawal of capital from their countries. Oh, wait a minute, Ireland is in the Brexit deal and can do what it wants soon enough. They won't be in the EU. She and the rest of the over-regulating mass of paid bureaucrats can play this game among themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)