After several years, the U.S. has finally decided to crack down on aluminum subsidies by China. China has been selling aluminum and raw steel at subsidized prices for years, playing all kinds of games to pretend it is not selling the goods directly to the US. You will remember the 2016 hoopla surrounding the discovery of large quantities of aluminum staged in Mexico. That was done by China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd. and was said to be 6% of the world’s total inventory - sent to avoid tariffs imposed by the U.S. Transshipping has been around for a long time, but rarely on that scale. It was an in-your-face kind of deal that must have been forgiven by the Obama Administration.
Surprisingly, the Chinese press states the case for this issue very much the same as the world’s press. Although they cite it in the context of avoiding a “trade war” the substance of the presentation is much the same. They must know that is not just a simple case of a few metric tons being offloaded to another country to make a few $ on a single transaction. This was wholesale manipulation on a large scale, and more than Mexico was involved.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Microsoft Cloud Case Forever
In what seems like the longest running criminal case in history, drug runners are waiting for an outcome in Microsoft’s cloud email case. Two stories in the Wall Street Journal (one an editorial and one a news report ) show the interest in this case. We don’t get two stories on anything in a single issue very often.
The editorial says that Microsoft is right on the law on the issue of territoriality, i.e. a U.S. warrant doesn’t apply outside the U.S. but is wrong on the law in all the other issues. It cites a limitation expressed this way: “Google cuts up emails into “shards,” which can move between countries within seconds without human intervention. U.S. internet users aren’t entitled to know where in the cloud their records are stored, let alone to recourse under U.S. law if a company moves them.”. That may be true of Internet users, but may not be true of clouds per se. I have always said that public cloud services were devised as a way to avoid any liability for services provided by a vendor, and it seems like this case is doing just that. Drug runners know that too. Microsoft says it has no idea where some things are stored, but can point to the fact that emails in this case were stored in Ireland, a dichotomy the courts can’t help but notice. They can’t have it both ways.
Microsoft is more than happy to help China with the most intrusive environment in the world, but won’t help their country of origin. That part is not just about profits in China. It is about law. China forces coooperation by making laws that require businesses to turn over all control the Central government. It gets source code and other proprietary information that way, all in the name of national security, providing a version of their own operating system which China can modify as it sees fit. Apple has found itself in the same quandary this week with the keys to its own Apple accounts in China. China wanted the keys and got them, something they have not done for the U.S. government. China then uses that to get its intelligence services into the world’s networks. Not just those of the United States. I hope the courts take some of that into account.
The editorial says that Microsoft is right on the law on the issue of territoriality, i.e. a U.S. warrant doesn’t apply outside the U.S. but is wrong on the law in all the other issues. It cites a limitation expressed this way: “Google cuts up emails into “shards,” which can move between countries within seconds without human intervention. U.S. internet users aren’t entitled to know where in the cloud their records are stored, let alone to recourse under U.S. law if a company moves them.”. That may be true of Internet users, but may not be true of clouds per se. I have always said that public cloud services were devised as a way to avoid any liability for services provided by a vendor, and it seems like this case is doing just that. Drug runners know that too. Microsoft says it has no idea where some things are stored, but can point to the fact that emails in this case were stored in Ireland, a dichotomy the courts can’t help but notice. They can’t have it both ways.
Microsoft is more than happy to help China with the most intrusive environment in the world, but won’t help their country of origin. That part is not just about profits in China. It is about law. China forces coooperation by making laws that require businesses to turn over all control the Central government. It gets source code and other proprietary information that way, all in the name of national security, providing a version of their own operating system which China can modify as it sees fit. Apple has found itself in the same quandary this week with the keys to its own Apple accounts in China. China wanted the keys and got them, something they have not done for the U.S. government. China then uses that to get its intelligence services into the world’s networks. Not just those of the United States. I hope the courts take some of that into account.
Monday, February 26, 2018
China’s Own Business
We have a press that thinks it has a say in every issue that comes up in the world, so when the Party Chairman in China wants to change the rules and become Emporer for Life, the press gives reasons why it should not be so. This is really China’s business and no others. They have done pretty well by President Xi, and thinking about holding onto him past his two terms is probably not out of line. The one thing about it is - it is none of our business.
We recognize a lot of differences between ourselves and the Chinese, not the least of which is a difference in governance. Most countries could not live in a society like the one China has created for itself, but it does what it is supposed to do: it gives opportunities for business, provides for a national defense, and creates harmony within its borders. In the last few years, most of the credit for that goes to Xi. If they really want to keep him in power, it is their decision to make.
Let me amend that remark and say that it is not their decision in a the plural context, i.e. they are not having a referendum calling for the extension of Xi’s tenure. The people don’t get to make that kind of decision. If they did a poll and asked what the feeling would be about keeping him on for life, the results would favor such a decision. Where information is controlled like it is in China, polls show what they are supposed to show. Sina Weibo, the knock-off Twitter, has already started to filter out (censor) the words “two term limit”. That is a clear indication the people will have no say in whether the term is extended, and will not be discussing it on-line. When the government wants no discussion, it has the power to limit that discussion, and that is one of the major contributions the Party has made to governance. The ability to censor, both internally and externally, is one of Xi’s great achievements.
So, whether the Chinese people favor such a move is not of concern to the government. Xi is not the first Chinese leader to become Emperor for Life, and with the controls on thought, he won’t be the last.
We recognize a lot of differences between ourselves and the Chinese, not the least of which is a difference in governance. Most countries could not live in a society like the one China has created for itself, but it does what it is supposed to do: it gives opportunities for business, provides for a national defense, and creates harmony within its borders. In the last few years, most of the credit for that goes to Xi. If they really want to keep him in power, it is their decision to make.
Let me amend that remark and say that it is not their decision in a the plural context, i.e. they are not having a referendum calling for the extension of Xi’s tenure. The people don’t get to make that kind of decision. If they did a poll and asked what the feeling would be about keeping him on for life, the results would favor such a decision. Where information is controlled like it is in China, polls show what they are supposed to show. Sina Weibo, the knock-off Twitter, has already started to filter out (censor) the words “two term limit”. That is a clear indication the people will have no say in whether the term is extended, and will not be discussing it on-line. When the government wants no discussion, it has the power to limit that discussion, and that is one of the major contributions the Party has made to governance. The ability to censor, both internally and externally, is one of Xi’s great achievements.
So, whether the Chinese people favor such a move is not of concern to the government. Xi is not the first Chinese leader to become Emperor for Life, and with the controls on thought, he won’t be the last.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Russia, China and North Korea
Gordon Chang was on Fox News today talking about the real obstacles to getting North Korea to bend to sanctions- Russia and China. He said, just in the last couple of days, China has been using ships to get goods to the North transferring them at sea. China acts like nobody can see what it does in its ports and at sea, when they should know satellites cover all of the earth and a number of countries watch what is going on. Chang said the United States has to put emphasis on getting Russia and China to comply with sanctions they voted for in the UN. He thinks that is going to happen.
It seems to me sanctions on shipping companies and ships should follow. Cut them off from banking and trade with any country that voted for the sanctions. So far, how countries vote has little to do with how they trade. We can’t live with that farce any longer.
It seems to me sanctions on shipping companies and ships should follow. Cut them off from banking and trade with any country that voted for the sanctions. So far, how countries vote has little to do with how they trade. We can’t live with that farce any longer.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Clash of the Titans
The Editorial team at the Wall Street Journal puts a different slant to the clash of forces in Syria where some Russian “ contractors” were killed in US air strikes. Their view is that the attack was intended to kill US servicemen who support the Kurds. Hezbollah came along for the attack, which made it more interesting for Syria which is not exactly best of friends with those guys. The Journal saw this an intentional attempt to kill Americans so the US would back out of Syria altogether - and since it failed, to repeat it and try again. That is an interesting view. I wonder where they got that idea?
If they are right Mr. Putin is putting his forces out with the intent of promoting a fight with the US, a fight he would have to believe he can win. Perhaps that is a little presumptuous, given that the US is teamed up with a group of Kurds who win more often than they lose. Sooner or later, if the Russians insist on this conflict being resolved by direct action, the US and Russia will be engaged in an escalating conflict where their bombs will fall on the others forces. Putin seems to underestimating the pilots and ground forces. The US has a lot of capabilities they have yet to show, and they haven’t given the Kurds all the weapons they could use to fight.
Israel, Turkey, Iran and Syria itself have conflicting interests that can draw them into this fight. Putin needs to consider the broader conflict that might result. The Saudis are not likely to stand by if Iran is involved. Many wars have been fought over that land and in most conflicts somebody thought they could win an outright victory by killing a few opposition troops. That has turned out to almost always be wrong.
If they are right Mr. Putin is putting his forces out with the intent of promoting a fight with the US, a fight he would have to believe he can win. Perhaps that is a little presumptuous, given that the US is teamed up with a group of Kurds who win more often than they lose. Sooner or later, if the Russians insist on this conflict being resolved by direct action, the US and Russia will be engaged in an escalating conflict where their bombs will fall on the others forces. Putin seems to underestimating the pilots and ground forces. The US has a lot of capabilities they have yet to show, and they haven’t given the Kurds all the weapons they could use to fight.
Israel, Turkey, Iran and Syria itself have conflicting interests that can draw them into this fight. Putin needs to consider the broader conflict that might result. The Saudis are not likely to stand by if Iran is involved. Many wars have been fought over that land and in most conflicts somebody thought they could win an outright victory by killing a few opposition troops. That has turned out to almost always be wrong.
Friday, February 23, 2018
How Much China Corruption
The arrest last year of Wu Xiaohui the head of Anbang Insurance Group was yet another high-profile person charged with crimes. This time it is “fraudulent fundraising and abuse of his position”. A Journal article today tells the story of another high flyer brought down to earth by the Central Committee. I had the story of Lu Wei last week. You can’t make a living in China without taking risks.
Given the number of mighty who have bitten the dust, we would have to ask if there is really so much corruption in China that the senior leaders of some of the largest companies and the military could be prosecuted on such a regular basis? I don’t even take the time to keep articles about all of them because there have been so many. So, are they really criminals, or do they get charged as criminals to get them out of the way? It has to be the latter.
What is not fair about this is that it takes a certain style of leadership in Chinese business to get ahead. What the Central Committee is charging them with is living by the style and doing what it takes to get ahead. They are being charged with crimes that get them to the positions they hold, and behaviors that would likely have gotten them to the top of the food chain. If that makes the other leaders nervous, it should. It keeps them off balance and looking over their shoulder all the time. It is a hell of a way to live, but a necessary one where political and Party loyalty are valued over any economic achievement a person can have.
Given the number of mighty who have bitten the dust, we would have to ask if there is really so much corruption in China that the senior leaders of some of the largest companies and the military could be prosecuted on such a regular basis? I don’t even take the time to keep articles about all of them because there have been so many. So, are they really criminals, or do they get charged as criminals to get them out of the way? It has to be the latter.
What is not fair about this is that it takes a certain style of leadership in Chinese business to get ahead. What the Central Committee is charging them with is living by the style and doing what it takes to get ahead. They are being charged with crimes that get them to the positions they hold, and behaviors that would likely have gotten them to the top of the food chain. If that makes the other leaders nervous, it should. It keeps them off balance and looking over their shoulder all the time. It is a hell of a way to live, but a necessary one where political and Party loyalty are valued over any economic achievement a person can have.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Second Edition: Chinese Information War
The second edition of my first book will be out in the Spring. I added the Russian contributions to Information War. About 75% of it is new, and the rest is updated. The publisher is McFarland, Inc and the book is listed in their Spring Catalog.
Reaper: North Korea
The new report by FireEye is interesting reading because it is North Korean hackers. There is very little known about them that makes it into the public domain. There is a business summary of the report and the surrounding comments about it in the Journal today. [note: The on-line version of the FireEye report is hard to read on mobile. It has light, small-font text that needs a bigger screen.]
There are a couple of things worth noting here. First, the North Koreans no longer care if they can be identified as hackers from the North. They may get a certain amount of propaganda value from people knowing that the attacks and collection activity come from the North. That seems to be par for the course from these guys. The North does physical and cyber attacks without trying to hide the source, thus give any deniability to the government. Apparently, they don’t care.
Second, they are using known exploits of common vulnerabilities. The attacks are not very sophisticated, but the FireEye report says they are getting better over time, improving command and control to avoid normal detection. Anyone would do that just to save themselves effort in switching attack vectors because of detection.
There are a couple of things worth noting here. First, the North Koreans no longer care if they can be identified as hackers from the North. They may get a certain amount of propaganda value from people knowing that the attacks and collection activity come from the North. That seems to be par for the course from these guys. The North does physical and cyber attacks without trying to hide the source, thus give any deniability to the government. Apparently, they don’t care.
Second, they are using known exploits of common vulnerabilities. The attacks are not very sophisticated, but the FireEye report says they are getting better over time, improving command and control to avoid normal detection. Anyone would do that just to save themselves effort in switching attack vectors because of detection.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Infant Mortality in Pakistan
Pakistan is not exactly a third world country, so I found it odd that it would have a higher infant mortality than say Afghanistan. Only, it does. In a published study today, Pakistan has the highest (1-22) deaths for its young. So, what is going on there that causes so many unnecessary deaths? In general, an article in the Tribune Lack of basic medical care is part of the problem. I saw the same excuse in the 2012 report which said Pakistan was the worst place to be born, if you want to live to age 5. Maybe we should reconsider whether Pakistan is a third world country. After 5 years they seem to have made no progress. What kind of country is that?
Monday, February 19, 2018
For the Defense
So, the Counsel for Facebook says that the Russians only spent “a drop in the bucket” compared to all of he money the two parties spent. Facebook has been playing this game from the beginning, downplaying what the Russians really did, when Facebook, among others, has no clue how much the Russians spent. I’m not sure that the US Intelligence Community does right now. It is too soon for that level of analysis.
Facebook intentionally distorted the money spent, pretending that Russian IPs and payment in rubles was necessary, when it is clear now that neither of those was necessary or required. Nobody yet can do anything but guess at how big this campaign was. It is still going on. In the meantime, we might wonder why Facebook spends more time defending themselves than cooperating with intelligence agencies to stop the ads.
Judging from the public reaction to the head of Advertising at Facebook over the weekend, the general public is not buying their reaction either.
Facebook intentionally distorted the money spent, pretending that Russian IPs and payment in rubles was necessary, when it is clear now that neither of those was necessary or required. Nobody yet can do anything but guess at how big this campaign was. It is still going on. In the meantime, we might wonder why Facebook spends more time defending themselves than cooperating with intelligence agencies to stop the ads.
Judging from the public reaction to the head of Advertising at Facebook over the weekend, the general public is not buying their reaction either.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
U.S. Indictment of Russian Conspirators
For those who are reading stories about the indictment of 13 Russians pretending to be U.S. persons, I would ask you to read the indictment . Too many news organizations have slanted the purpose and intent of the indictment to reflect their political views, either Left or Right. The indictment is pretty clear about how the money was facilitated, how it was funneled into the United States, and how it was intended to disrupt both sides of the 2016 Presidential election. Just the fact that the Russians could devote only a few people to such an activity and have as much success as they did - on the disruption side, at least, they did good work - is amazing.
Another thing it shows is that the operations were carried out so as to make it appear that the transactions and ad payments were coming from the US. So while Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were looking for rubles and Russian IPs, the Russians were smart enough to do it right. The social media outlets were grossly underestimating the amount of paid advertising going on their networks - and they probably knew, and underplayed it.
Another thing it shows is that the operations were carried out so as to make it appear that the transactions and ad payments were coming from the US. So while Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were looking for rubles and Russian IPs, the Russians were smart enough to do it right. The social media outlets were grossly underestimating the amount of paid advertising going on their networks - and they probably knew, and underplayed it.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Video Violence
In one day, over the weekend, I killed 138 people, most of them teenagers and younger. I felt good that day.
That is the way teens grow up on the Internet, killing a few people every day with guns, rockets and electric bolts. Most of the time, I don’t think about the killing, just about whether I’m good or bad at it at any particular moment. There are some people out there who are much better killers than me. I can’t help but think that we find killing more acceptable because we do it every day - we even pay to do it since playing on line is not free.
Suppose we killed aliens or cartoon characters like in Who’s Afraid of Roger Rabbit? Would it matter that the violence was directed at something that is not human? Some vendors have done that with zombies. There you kill zombies who are already dead anyway, so it doesn’t matter. The thing is, I don’t get the kick from killing a stupid zombie that I get from shooting some 15-year old kid who has shot me 5 times before that same morning. I look for that guy and try to kill him. I have asked myself more than once if there is something wrong with liking this kind of entertainment, and he answer was always no. I know it isn’t real because those same people are back the next day.
The American Psychologial Association says this kind of behavior “increases aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affects” but they cannot show a relationship between that and real criminal or violent behavior. They might want to look at that again. My intuition says that 15-year old is going to be damned good at killing if he decides to start doing it for real.
That is the way teens grow up on the Internet, killing a few people every day with guns, rockets and electric bolts. Most of the time, I don’t think about the killing, just about whether I’m good or bad at it at any particular moment. There are some people out there who are much better killers than me. I can’t help but think that we find killing more acceptable because we do it every day - we even pay to do it since playing on line is not free.
Suppose we killed aliens or cartoon characters like in Who’s Afraid of Roger Rabbit? Would it matter that the violence was directed at something that is not human? Some vendors have done that with zombies. There you kill zombies who are already dead anyway, so it doesn’t matter. The thing is, I don’t get the kick from killing a stupid zombie that I get from shooting some 15-year old kid who has shot me 5 times before that same morning. I look for that guy and try to kill him. I have asked myself more than once if there is something wrong with liking this kind of entertainment, and he answer was always no. I know it isn’t real because those same people are back the next day.
The American Psychologial Association says this kind of behavior “increases aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affects” but they cannot show a relationship between that and real criminal or violent behavior. They might want to look at that again. My intuition says that 15-year old is going to be damned good at killing if he decides to start doing it for real.
Huawei and ZTE Sales Banned
Two of the world’s largest telecom equipment makers are again being pointed to as the maker of equipment that poses a threat to the United States. Yesterday, several news outlets quoted our Intelligence Community as warning against using Huawei’s phones. Today, we have a similar story about ZTE. Legislation has been proposed in the Senate by Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio that would ban the purchase of telecom equipment from either Huawei or ZTE by the U.S. government.
In my first book I had a section on these two companies because they had both come under scrutiny by the Intelligence agencies, and not just those in the United States. That was written six years ago. Huawei hired some US business people to try to settle this down. ZTE was quiet about the accusations and must have thought they would blow over. But, ZTE was caught bypassing sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and selling computers to support that program. Another company was accused but never named by the Obama Administration. Speculation at the time was that it was Huawei.
Remember that Marco Rubio was the one who first openly asked about the antivirus software maker Kaspersky Labs, which was done in the same meeting with the leaders of the Intelligence Committee last year. That was in response to information that the software was used to obtain information from people in the United States, including one contractor of NSA. That alone would not have been adequate to ban the sale of the software from all government agencies. There had to have been something else. We never found out what that was.
To talk about not buying phones from Huawei is a completely different thing. In January AT&T decided not to sell Huawei phones in the US and they were the only vendor that was lined up to sell the new Mate 10 Pro. I wondered then why a vendor with 10% of world market in phones could not get into the market in the US. The re-sellers must know something about those phones that we don’t. It certainly is no secret that Chinese browsers are sending information about users back to China; that news is 5 years old, published by the University of Toronto in a series of detailed studies. There must be more than that.
I for one would like to know what this is really about. Nothing like this gets to a point where legislation is introduced by members of the Intelligence Committee unless something really, really bad is going on. We have to balance the legislation with some background, and not speculation about what Huawei and ZTE might be able to do if they chose to. That is not what drives this to the point of a bill that will get voted on. If what they are doing is so egregious that the US government should not buy their phones, we need to know what that is so we too might be discouraged from buying them. I can’t make an informed decision about speculation, though I doubt that I would buy a phone made by Huawei or ZTE anyway. I read the documents that were published on how they violated the Iran sanctions. They were, in the words of my niece, “creepy”.
In my first book I had a section on these two companies because they had both come under scrutiny by the Intelligence agencies, and not just those in the United States. That was written six years ago. Huawei hired some US business people to try to settle this down. ZTE was quiet about the accusations and must have thought they would blow over. But, ZTE was caught bypassing sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and selling computers to support that program. Another company was accused but never named by the Obama Administration. Speculation at the time was that it was Huawei.
Remember that Marco Rubio was the one who first openly asked about the antivirus software maker Kaspersky Labs, which was done in the same meeting with the leaders of the Intelligence Committee last year. That was in response to information that the software was used to obtain information from people in the United States, including one contractor of NSA. That alone would not have been adequate to ban the sale of the software from all government agencies. There had to have been something else. We never found out what that was.
To talk about not buying phones from Huawei is a completely different thing. In January AT&T decided not to sell Huawei phones in the US and they were the only vendor that was lined up to sell the new Mate 10 Pro. I wondered then why a vendor with 10% of world market in phones could not get into the market in the US. The re-sellers must know something about those phones that we don’t. It certainly is no secret that Chinese browsers are sending information about users back to China; that news is 5 years old, published by the University of Toronto in a series of detailed studies. There must be more than that.
I for one would like to know what this is really about. Nothing like this gets to a point where legislation is introduced by members of the Intelligence Committee unless something really, really bad is going on. We have to balance the legislation with some background, and not speculation about what Huawei and ZTE might be able to do if they chose to. That is not what drives this to the point of a bill that will get voted on. If what they are doing is so egregious that the US government should not buy their phones, we need to know what that is so we too might be discouraged from buying them. I can’t make an informed decision about speculation, though I doubt that I would buy a phone made by Huawei or ZTE anyway. I read the documents that were published on how they violated the Iran sanctions. They were, in the words of my niece, “creepy”.
The Mighty Fall Hard
Not long ago, Lu Wei was the head of the Cyberspace Administration, the regulator and planner for the Internet in China. Time Magazine named him one of the world’s most influential people in 2015. Xi Jinping, Chairman of the Communist Party, personally took an interest in progress in his work, but now oversees his removal from the Party and eventual prosecution in court. Friends in high places takes on a whole new meaning at that level of government.
The Internet under Lu’s direction was the most monitored of any country in the world. It is bound, watched, and filtered. It is used to attack foreign websites and disrupt operations of those criticizing the Chinese government. There are almost a billion users on that net, so it is not an easy task to monitor and censor them all, but he oversaw it. His influence got him into many U.S. businesses and he got to sit in Mark Zukerburg’s chair at Facebook, famously recorded by the PR folks there. Facebook never did get to China.
So how does a person fall so fast from grace? The allegations shown below from the South China Morning Post, are not so easy to interpret. In China, the charges seldom match what a person has really done. At one level he sounds like a Harvey Weinstein soliciting “sex for power”, but at another, more vague than that:
“Other alleged misconduct and failings included using all means to build personal fame, making false and anonymous accusations against others, deceiving the top Communist leadership, extreme disloyalty, duplicity, trading power for sex, improper discussion of the party and a lack of self control.”
In most countries that would not be enough to oust a person from such a lofty post. Imagine politicians you voted for being accused of doing these kinds of things while in office, and think if you would vote for them again. You probably have voted for people who did all of those things. Deceiving the top Communist Leadership is probably the worst one. What could he possibly deceived them about that would get him exorcised from government?
The Internet under Lu’s direction was the most monitored of any country in the world. It is bound, watched, and filtered. It is used to attack foreign websites and disrupt operations of those criticizing the Chinese government. There are almost a billion users on that net, so it is not an easy task to monitor and censor them all, but he oversaw it. His influence got him into many U.S. businesses and he got to sit in Mark Zukerburg’s chair at Facebook, famously recorded by the PR folks there. Facebook never did get to China.
So how does a person fall so fast from grace? The allegations shown below from the South China Morning Post, are not so easy to interpret. In China, the charges seldom match what a person has really done. At one level he sounds like a Harvey Weinstein soliciting “sex for power”, but at another, more vague than that:
“Other alleged misconduct and failings included using all means to build personal fame, making false and anonymous accusations against others, deceiving the top Communist leadership, extreme disloyalty, duplicity, trading power for sex, improper discussion of the party and a lack of self control.”
In most countries that would not be enough to oust a person from such a lofty post. Imagine politicians you voted for being accused of doing these kinds of things while in office, and think if you would vote for them again. You probably have voted for people who did all of those things. Deceiving the top Communist Leadership is probably the worst one. What could he possibly deceived them about that would get him exorcised from government?
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
MFR
I have written more than a few Memoranda For the Record, but rarely did I write one unless I wanted to make sure my own view of an event was recorded. It was almost always because something bad happened and I was covering my backside in case the thing blew up and was discovered later. This is almost never because I thought the course of action was correct and nobody would question it later. Nobody needs cover for something that was done correctly and above board.
No wonder Susan Rice’s memo written 2 weeks after the event writes a memo saying the President told her to do things the wtay everyone is supposed to. Nobody does that. They don’t have a reason to do it, but there have been many posed in the last few hours since its discovery. It is however, the first time I have heard of this planting email so it could be discovered later. Very clever.
No wonder Susan Rice’s memo written 2 weeks after the event writes a memo saying the President told her to do things the wtay everyone is supposed to. Nobody does that. They don’t have a reason to do it, but there have been many posed in the last few hours since its discovery. It is however, the first time I have heard of this planting email so it could be discovered later. Very clever.
Monday, February 12, 2018
Schools Don’t Teach Cybersecurity
One of my early responsibilities in cyber was trying to get schools to teach more cyber in their curriculums and it seems sometimes that may be more consequential than it first appears. In an article produced at the University of Toronto, references an article from Columbia ‘s School of Jounalism saying some sources are not protected because journalists don’t understand what it takes to protect a source from discovery. Hack journalists and you hack their sources. See: https://www.cjr.org/innovations/journalism-schools-behind-cybersecurity.php.
Journalism is only one of the places that needs more education. Business people fall into giving money to scammers, giving away private data of their employees, and a lot more that could be prevented. Computer and IT classes make cyber an afterthought and rarely have people teaching it who know the subject. Institutions have not done well at teaching concepts used to rip off their students while they attend school, and after they graduate. Nothing much has changed. A professor once told me not to worry about that kind of stuff because “anybody can teach that sort of thing”. That made the quality of the curriculum easier to understand.
Journalism is only one of the places that needs more education. Business people fall into giving money to scammers, giving away private data of their employees, and a lot more that could be prevented. Computer and IT classes make cyber an afterthought and rarely have people teaching it who know the subject. Institutions have not done well at teaching concepts used to rip off their students while they attend school, and after they graduate. Nothing much has changed. A professor once told me not to worry about that kind of stuff because “anybody can teach that sort of thing”. That made the quality of the curriculum easier to understand.
Sorting Out Syria
We finally have some sorting out going on in Syria. The Israelis shot down a drone that came from an area held by Iran’s military, the Turkish forces gained ground against some of the Kurds in Afrin, and the US bombed some Syrian military forces trying to get the Syrian Democratic forces in the East. This puts US, Russian, Iranian, Syrian and Turkish forces all in the mix in a highly volatile confined space. The proxies have not gone away, but the major protagonists have stepped things up so they stand a greater chance of directly engaging.
The Russians try to pretend they are not playing this game, but probably have become more adept at hiding their efforts. They still have some pretty big bases in Syria and those are not going away. There are several news stories today saying the US bombing of Syrian troops killed some “Russian contractors”. These are not like the contractors in the Ukraine who showed up in military uniforms to fight, and didn’t even bother to take them off. This is crude and ineffective if you trying to have deniability. This new group of contractors is a little more sophisticated. Iran is not hiding its participation very well in the last few days. They got a drone shot down in Israel for their trouble, and attacked directly by Israeli fighter jets, one of which was shot down by “Syrian forces” in the area. At any given moment, there is no telling who is fighting whom there. Don’t bet against the Kurds. It is kind of like betting on the opponent playing against the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl. They win now and again, but in the long run, the Patriots win more than they lose. So do the Kurds. Some Kurds are fighting on both sides and will come out ahead in the end, no matter who wins.
The Russians try to pretend they are not playing this game, but probably have become more adept at hiding their efforts. They still have some pretty big bases in Syria and those are not going away. There are several news stories today saying the US bombing of Syrian troops killed some “Russian contractors”. These are not like the contractors in the Ukraine who showed up in military uniforms to fight, and didn’t even bother to take them off. This is crude and ineffective if you trying to have deniability. This new group of contractors is a little more sophisticated. Iran is not hiding its participation very well in the last few days. They got a drone shot down in Israel for their trouble, and attacked directly by Israeli fighter jets, one of which was shot down by “Syrian forces” in the area. At any given moment, there is no telling who is fighting whom there. Don’t bet against the Kurds. It is kind of like betting on the opponent playing against the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl. They win now and again, but in the long run, the Patriots win more than they lose. So do the Kurds. Some Kurds are fighting on both sides and will come out ahead in the end, no matter who wins.
Friday, February 9, 2018
Globalization and the Infraud Organization
People in Cybersecurity knew a long time ago that card theft and scams were global, but I don’t think it really hits home until you see the list of countries that are involved in this kind of card theft. When the Justice Department announced the arrest of many principals in the Infraud Organization, I had to stop to take note of how many different places these criminals came from. Maybe I need a geography refresher, because I’m not sure I can point to them on a map.
The group was started in the Ukraine in 2010, so some of the members came from there. We all know the Ukraine pretty well. All the other usual suspects are there: Russia, Pakistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Moldova, Bangladesh, and five from all over the USA. Then we have one from France, Italy, Australia, Macedonia, Ivory Coast, Canada, United Kingdom, and Egypt. Then, there is another category even more interesting - not known. Several of the individuals are listed as “AKAs” also known as, and the person’s Internet name - no country, no nothing. They even had Six John Doe’s i.e. people who are being indicted but they don’t yet know who these people are, nor where they reside. These are the ones who are known only by their activities and hide themselves very well on the Internet. We put a stake in the ground and say, “If we ever find you, you will be arrested and brought to trial.” That may seem like a hollow threat to somebody in Russia, but it has happened.
This is a true multinational organization which has been operating for along time. Credit Justice and the FBI which had to coordinate with cooperating police activities in many countries. The list of them is in the indictment and is amazingly long. It takes months to work just one country. The nice thing is they did. Now we have to see how many of them actually get to trial. I would love to be there for that, but it looks like the case is going to be tried in Nevada. Puzzle me that one.
The group was started in the Ukraine in 2010, so some of the members came from there. We all know the Ukraine pretty well. All the other usual suspects are there: Russia, Pakistan, Kosovo, Serbia, Moldova, Bangladesh, and five from all over the USA. Then we have one from France, Italy, Australia, Macedonia, Ivory Coast, Canada, United Kingdom, and Egypt. Then, there is another category even more interesting - not known. Several of the individuals are listed as “AKAs” also known as, and the person’s Internet name - no country, no nothing. They even had Six John Doe’s i.e. people who are being indicted but they don’t yet know who these people are, nor where they reside. These are the ones who are known only by their activities and hide themselves very well on the Internet. We put a stake in the ground and say, “If we ever find you, you will be arrested and brought to trial.” That may seem like a hollow threat to somebody in Russia, but it has happened.
This is a true multinational organization which has been operating for along time. Credit Justice and the FBI which had to coordinate with cooperating police activities in many countries. The list of them is in the indictment and is amazingly long. It takes months to work just one country. The nice thing is they did. Now we have to see how many of them actually get to trial. I would love to be there for that, but it looks like the case is going to be tried in Nevada. Puzzle me that one.
Thursday, February 8, 2018
The Trouble with Informants
I never trusted paid informants.
We have two prime examples of FBI informants in the news today, Christopher Steele and Douglas Campbell. Unless you were sleeping the last year or so, you know the name Christopher Steele because he was the one paid to put together “the dossier” which turned out to have been paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Party she represented. But, you may not have heard of Campbell. He is the “Uranium One” informant which is in the Hill article today (well worth reading, by the way) and he too says Mrs. Clinton is up to no good in helping the Russians get control of a part of the uranium market. Neither of these guys were atypical when it comes to informants who get paid for what they provide. There is a natural inclination to want to provide more so they can make more money, though they seldom get as much as we would think.
Both of these guys were being paid by more than one party in all of the political mess, and the Russians were probably paying them too. They would also have been paying Russians for information, or getting it from other sources - like the State Department, as it turns out. They will take what they can get, and bill for it back to more than one customer. It’s just business, and for a few of them, it pays well.
You can’t really blame the informant for the information you get from them. They do the best they can within the constraints of the consequences of getting caught. If they are snitching on the local drug cartel, the information is worth more than gold, which they may never get the chance to spend. If they are snitching on drug companies (The Informant) they are not just going to walk away and count their money. Neither one of these guys will be able to make a living at providing accurate information again, since everyone knows they were knee-deep in Russia, Trump, and Clinton.
So who benefits from the information these two have brought into the U.S. Congress? The Russians. Now, we have everybody who can read questioning the appointment of a Special Counsel, and the dealings of the Clinton Foundation with its hands in the uranium cookie jar. It is churn, bought into by both sides of the political spectrum and perpetuated by the press, who sells content based on this stuff. We need a little more of a suspicious nature to asked questions of these two. We need a little less political posturing on both sides. Paid informants are the FBI’s problem. They get good ones and bad ones, but somebody ought to be vetting the information they are providing. Maybe they don’t do that anymore.
We have two prime examples of FBI informants in the news today, Christopher Steele and Douglas Campbell. Unless you were sleeping the last year or so, you know the name Christopher Steele because he was the one paid to put together “the dossier” which turned out to have been paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Party she represented. But, you may not have heard of Campbell. He is the “Uranium One” informant which is in the Hill article today (well worth reading, by the way) and he too says Mrs. Clinton is up to no good in helping the Russians get control of a part of the uranium market. Neither of these guys were atypical when it comes to informants who get paid for what they provide. There is a natural inclination to want to provide more so they can make more money, though they seldom get as much as we would think.
Both of these guys were being paid by more than one party in all of the political mess, and the Russians were probably paying them too. They would also have been paying Russians for information, or getting it from other sources - like the State Department, as it turns out. They will take what they can get, and bill for it back to more than one customer. It’s just business, and for a few of them, it pays well.
You can’t really blame the informant for the information you get from them. They do the best they can within the constraints of the consequences of getting caught. If they are snitching on the local drug cartel, the information is worth more than gold, which they may never get the chance to spend. If they are snitching on drug companies (The Informant) they are not just going to walk away and count their money. Neither one of these guys will be able to make a living at providing accurate information again, since everyone knows they were knee-deep in Russia, Trump, and Clinton.
So who benefits from the information these two have brought into the U.S. Congress? The Russians. Now, we have everybody who can read questioning the appointment of a Special Counsel, and the dealings of the Clinton Foundation with its hands in the uranium cookie jar. It is churn, bought into by both sides of the political spectrum and perpetuated by the press, who sells content based on this stuff. We need a little more of a suspicious nature to asked questions of these two. We need a little less political posturing on both sides. Paid informants are the FBI’s problem. They get good ones and bad ones, but somebody ought to be vetting the information they are providing. Maybe they don’t do that anymore.
Chinese Break New Ground in Surveillance
The Chinese have broken new ground with the use of facial recognition. They use it everywhere, in expensive stores for purchases, in train stations to find terrorists, and on the streets of any city to find people traveling on someone else’s travel papers. So clever, these people.
I wonder if anyone cares that China has the most intrusive society of any country in the world. They control movement of their people inside the country, they censor bad thoughts that people write to one another, and they limit reproduction of human beings. No other country does that, and certainly no other country does it as well.
We can say that it is their country and they can do what they want, but that is like saying it is OK to carry out the little social experiment in North Korea that makes robots out of people. They do what they are told to do and don’t question the authorities. China calls that harmony.
So, it is OK to human beings that China equips its police with Google-glass like camera glasses which look at people’s faces as they pass by, make a purchase, or buy a train ticket? It is easy to find a wanted person because those faces will match up - maybe a little slower than they would like - and let someone know that person is in the area. Think about how nice it would be to be able to pick out an illegal alien in the crowd at the Kennedy Center, or getting on the Metro. Wanted felons would have no chance against that kind of surveillance. Violating a restraining order? We got you. That would be nice. Buying a gun when you shouldn’t be? That too.
What we forget is the database that allows all of those things to happen. A database of every face of every person in the country, subdivided and replicated so it can be accessed quickly at the local level. So those who are wanted for any reason, or write the wrong kinds of stories, can be taken into custody and questioned, we take those pictures and keep them. The iPhone X fits perfectly into that model, even if it is just one piece. Is China’s model how we want to live? For that matter, is it how they want to live?
I wonder if anyone cares that China has the most intrusive society of any country in the world. They control movement of their people inside the country, they censor bad thoughts that people write to one another, and they limit reproduction of human beings. No other country does that, and certainly no other country does it as well.
We can say that it is their country and they can do what they want, but that is like saying it is OK to carry out the little social experiment in North Korea that makes robots out of people. They do what they are told to do and don’t question the authorities. China calls that harmony.
So, it is OK to human beings that China equips its police with Google-glass like camera glasses which look at people’s faces as they pass by, make a purchase, or buy a train ticket? It is easy to find a wanted person because those faces will match up - maybe a little slower than they would like - and let someone know that person is in the area. Think about how nice it would be to be able to pick out an illegal alien in the crowd at the Kennedy Center, or getting on the Metro. Wanted felons would have no chance against that kind of surveillance. Violating a restraining order? We got you. That would be nice. Buying a gun when you shouldn’t be? That too.
What we forget is the database that allows all of those things to happen. A database of every face of every person in the country, subdivided and replicated so it can be accessed quickly at the local level. So those who are wanted for any reason, or write the wrong kinds of stories, can be taken into custody and questioned, we take those pictures and keep them. The iPhone X fits perfectly into that model, even if it is just one piece. Is China’s model how we want to live? For that matter, is it how they want to live?
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
The Post Office Idiocy
There is an opinion piece in the Journal that summarizes how complex trade really is. The piece points out that his company cannot compete with China in the sale of mugs because China pays less in shipping costs than his company in the United States. How stupid is that, Post Office?
This is partly due to the Postal Service using rates based upon a United Nations council on rates. How stupid is that? The list of countries rates China the same as a third world country. The UN is never going to get its act together. This is the type of thing we get from them for all the money we put into it. Stupid on all counts.
This is partly due to the Postal Service using rates based upon a United Nations council on rates. How stupid is that? The list of countries rates China the same as a third world country. The UN is never going to get its act together. This is the type of thing we get from them for all the money we put into it. Stupid on all counts.
For Turkey a New Dilemma
Turkey started something it may have difficulty stopping. Some Kurds and Syrians have stopped fighting ISIS and begun to reorient their bullets to Turkish forces coming down to Afrin. Turkey is going to regret this incursion for many years to come. As I said several weeks ago, these fighters have been under funded and often outgunned, yet fought ISIS and won. Russia, Iran and Turkey hate them for it, and Syria fears them for the same reason. They will not mind being hated, given their history.
When Turkey started for Afrin, they had to know the Syrian rebels and the Kurds would be waiting. They had to know that there was going to be a fight, as there has been. But, Turkey did not think this through. In fights like this, the aftermath will leave large groups of semi-permanent enemies who are experienced fighters with a tough opponent in ISIS. They may not be located in Syria, but most of them are going to live. Turkey knows they will not forget, since the PKK has been a thorn in their side for generations. In spite of that, they insist on making more enemies. I’m sure they will live to regret that.
When Turkey started for Afrin, they had to know the Syrian rebels and the Kurds would be waiting. They had to know that there was going to be a fight, as there has been. But, Turkey did not think this through. In fights like this, the aftermath will leave large groups of semi-permanent enemies who are experienced fighters with a tough opponent in ISIS. They may not be located in Syria, but most of them are going to live. Turkey knows they will not forget, since the PKK has been a thorn in their side for generations. In spite of that, they insist on making more enemies. I’m sure they will live to regret that.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Chinese Company Ownership
A piece last week in the Wall Street Journal gave us reason - again - to question the ownership of Chinese companies buying assets in the U.S. The line I liked the best was a quote by Bruno Rashchle, vice chair of private-equity firm Schroeder Adveq - no stranger to these kinds of deals - “You never know who is really behind a company - an individual or the government - or somethings the government using individuals or making use of individuals.”
This particular case is that of XIO, the purchaser of J.D. Powers. That company we know as the one that regularly publishes quality surveys about cars, among their other businesses. Apparently, it is a little difficult to find the funding stream that allows the billion dollar sale, which had already gone through before it was questioned.
The rest of the article sounds like it was written by a Chinese news outlet, focusing on all the potential cultural differences that make the Chinese financing appear to be suspect. Maybe it is suspect because it is so hidden, mixes Goverment financing with private equities, and denies any government involvement in companies we know are being financed by the central government.
The Chinese have a long history of adapting to changes in global policies. They know that government involvement in businesses buying on the commercial market is a bad thing. We have lately questioned the purchases of several businesses in the US because China was subsidizing an industry, or had large stakes in firms. These are foreign influence over businesses that in the US would be independent of such influence. We stop sales by some of them. The Chinese have adapted and hide the source of their funding, pretending they are independent companies with no ties to the government. I think Mr. Rashchle is right. We should be suspicious of any Chinese company buying anything in the US. We don’t know if the Chinese government is buying, or someone else.
This particular case is that of XIO, the purchaser of J.D. Powers. That company we know as the one that regularly publishes quality surveys about cars, among their other businesses. Apparently, it is a little difficult to find the funding stream that allows the billion dollar sale, which had already gone through before it was questioned.
The rest of the article sounds like it was written by a Chinese news outlet, focusing on all the potential cultural differences that make the Chinese financing appear to be suspect. Maybe it is suspect because it is so hidden, mixes Goverment financing with private equities, and denies any government involvement in companies we know are being financed by the central government.
The Chinese have a long history of adapting to changes in global policies. They know that government involvement in businesses buying on the commercial market is a bad thing. We have lately questioned the purchases of several businesses in the US because China was subsidizing an industry, or had large stakes in firms. These are foreign influence over businesses that in the US would be independent of such influence. We stop sales by some of them. The Chinese have adapted and hide the source of their funding, pretending they are independent companies with no ties to the government. I think Mr. Rashchle is right. We should be suspicious of any Chinese company buying anything in the US. We don’t know if the Chinese government is buying, or someone else.
Bombing Hospitals in Syria
There are several news reports on attacks on hospitals in Syria, but the most current one speculates that the Syrians bombed the targets and gassed people with chlorine in Saraqed. The Syrians and Russians both deny doing either of those things. So what would they have us believe?
The Russians bombed hospitals before; then denied it; then bombed the same ones again just to be sure they were out of commission. That part is fairly difficult to deny since the Syrians do not fly the jets with Russian markings on them. We know where they came from, and where they returned. That is not very difficult to confirm in that limited airspace. We may also remember that the last time the Syrians did it, cruise missiles came down on them from US ships. The Russians made sure that won’t happen again by putting some ships of their own in that area. That was just a deterrent, but seems to have worked. Perhaps we could say the Syrians bombed the hospitals this time, though it is likely the Russians were helping them out in choosing targets. They chose to bomb hospitals, in spite of international conventions against it. Both of them are guilty in allowing it.
In 2015, an American C-130 gunship hit a hospital in Afghanistan and the world press was incensed. It pushed for criminal prosecutions of the US forces involved. Sixteen US military personnel were disciplined over that incident. Do we somehow think the Russians are different? The Syrians are different?
The Russians bombed hospitals before; then denied it; then bombed the same ones again just to be sure they were out of commission. That part is fairly difficult to deny since the Syrians do not fly the jets with Russian markings on them. We know where they came from, and where they returned. That is not very difficult to confirm in that limited airspace. We may also remember that the last time the Syrians did it, cruise missiles came down on them from US ships. The Russians made sure that won’t happen again by putting some ships of their own in that area. That was just a deterrent, but seems to have worked. Perhaps we could say the Syrians bombed the hospitals this time, though it is likely the Russians were helping them out in choosing targets. They chose to bomb hospitals, in spite of international conventions against it. Both of them are guilty in allowing it.
In 2015, an American C-130 gunship hit a hospital in Afghanistan and the world press was incensed. It pushed for criminal prosecutions of the US forces involved. Sixteen US military personnel were disciplined over that incident. Do we somehow think the Russians are different? The Syrians are different?
Monday, February 5, 2018
Trying Too Hard
We have the case of a General who tried too hard to get his position adopted. It wouldn’t be the first time, but it can be the last, especially when you are on the National Security Council. Air Force Brig. Gen Robert Spalding was moved off the NSC for pushing a little too hard on the idea that the government should take over the 5G core network in the US so the Chinese could not get into the one we are going to build. Too late for that, but that is not what got him in trouble. [note: it seems Fox is the only news outlet carrying this story this morning
I saw many Generals, especially the Service Chiefs, spend their spare time on the Hill trying to get programs approved. The Secretary of Defense can stop that, but they frequently don’t. Looks like our current one does not approve of that kind of positioning. When I worked for DoD , it was always a good idea to check back with the folks who paid my salary before making statements about what I was going to do to help out on the Hill. You are committing your superiors to a path they might not want to go down. It is only fair to consult them. Even business people are wise to keep their Congressional Offices informed about their projects and if their is any political exposure to what you are doing.
I was walking down the hall one day and a Congressman stopped to talk to my boss who was from a big company I won’t name. The Congressman said, “Oh, I remember you from that software project. I thought I would never see anyone from your place up here again.” Then he walked off. “It’s a long story” doesn’t really tell it very well, but it was five years before that this software was cancelled because it did not work the way it was supposed to.
It is a very unforgiving environment to work in, but nobody gives any training before sending you over there. That wouldn’t hurt. General Spalding probably was a smart guy who had a good idea. That sometimes can get pushed up the chain in the military, but when it gets to the NSC there are 400 of those to consider. Somebody should have told him.
I saw many Generals, especially the Service Chiefs, spend their spare time on the Hill trying to get programs approved. The Secretary of Defense can stop that, but they frequently don’t. Looks like our current one does not approve of that kind of positioning. When I worked for DoD , it was always a good idea to check back with the folks who paid my salary before making statements about what I was going to do to help out on the Hill. You are committing your superiors to a path they might not want to go down. It is only fair to consult them. Even business people are wise to keep their Congressional Offices informed about their projects and if their is any political exposure to what you are doing.
I was walking down the hall one day and a Congressman stopped to talk to my boss who was from a big company I won’t name. The Congressman said, “Oh, I remember you from that software project. I thought I would never see anyone from your place up here again.” Then he walked off. “It’s a long story” doesn’t really tell it very well, but it was five years before that this software was cancelled because it did not work the way it was supposed to.
It is a very unforgiving environment to work in, but nobody gives any training before sending you over there. That wouldn’t hurt. General Spalding probably was a smart guy who had a good idea. That sometimes can get pushed up the chain in the military, but when it gets to the NSC there are 400 of those to consider. Somebody should have told him.
Saturday, February 3, 2018
The FSB Short Story
BBC has published a short, casual, but nice piece on the FSB. It was he last sentence that got my attention. It pertains to sources they quote which say the Russian FSB is taking over the Russian Mafia. I had seen that before and wrote about it in my last book. It is a little scary to see an Intelligence Service running organized crime. See this claim at the reference
A Case of Counterfeiting
There is quite a bit of counterfeiting in China, so that part seems to come of no surprise. Very few countries open up their own Apple stores that are not even remotely related to real Apple products. But, the case talked about by The Department of Justice goes another step because it treads on two sensitive areas at once. “Jianhua “Jeff” Li, 43, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey to one count of conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and labels and to smuggle goods into the United States, and one count of trafficking in counterfeit goods. Li will be sentenced on May 30.”
First, this Chinese National is in the US on a student visa, at the ripe old age of 43. He must be in a program that takes a long time to complete, or he overstayed a student visa and has taken the last few semesters off. We could find out, and should. It seems this Chinese person has found the solution to the DACA problem- make them all students. We need to know when someone overstays a visa, and this is only one kind that should concern us.
Second, this student is selling counterfeit Apple products made in China - iPhones and iPads. There is some justice to this since iPads and IPhones are already made in China, and China has done nothing to stop the sale and use of counterfeit devices. This undermines one of the biggest - and over the years, one of the most loyal businesses in China. I hope they do bring their manufacturing back to the US. I already pay more for Apple, but will continue to if they do. China does not deserve Apple.
First, this Chinese National is in the US on a student visa, at the ripe old age of 43. He must be in a program that takes a long time to complete, or he overstayed a student visa and has taken the last few semesters off. We could find out, and should. It seems this Chinese person has found the solution to the DACA problem- make them all students. We need to know when someone overstays a visa, and this is only one kind that should concern us.
Second, this student is selling counterfeit Apple products made in China - iPhones and iPads. There is some justice to this since iPads and IPhones are already made in China, and China has done nothing to stop the sale and use of counterfeit devices. This undermines one of the biggest - and over the years, one of the most loyal businesses in China. I hope they do bring their manufacturing back to the US. I already pay more for Apple, but will continue to if they do. China does not deserve Apple.
Friday, February 2, 2018
FISA Court Bounce
While everyone is thinking about the possible political consequences of the Memo, I’m thinking about the legal consequences. Supposed the FISA judge decides the warrant was fraudulently entered into? The consequence could be that any case that arose from it would be fruit of the poisoned tree. That would mean, guilty or not, nobody could be prosecuted. Even the ones who got a plea deal could get off.
Chasing Russians
Reuters is carrying a story today that tells us what the Russians want us to believe and little more. The story line is that the US is chasing Russians all over the globe to arrest them. That would be a good story, if true, but it is not.
They mention only two names, both cyber criminals who operated in Russia with complete impunity. In order to try to bring them to justice, and by inference, take them out of circulation for a bit, we have to wait until the come to a country with an extradition treaty with the US. That doesn’t always work, but the options are limited to cooperating officials in those countries.
The Russians have come close to undermining the international banking system, something Janet Yellen was warning about two years ago. It is under attack from North Korea, Russia and Iran. We should be concerned and we should take more aggressive action. Banks, even the big international banks, have not been involved in improving the security of this critical infrastructure. Some of them continue to operate antiquated systems with antiquated security. North Korea has already exposed some of that in their attacks on the South’s major banks.
The fact that China and Russia harbor the people doing this indicates there is more to it than just thieves looking to make a dollar. These are organized attempts to demonstrate a capability to disrupt the financial systems that we need to do business. What country would not respond to that?
They mention only two names, both cyber criminals who operated in Russia with complete impunity. In order to try to bring them to justice, and by inference, take them out of circulation for a bit, we have to wait until the come to a country with an extradition treaty with the US. That doesn’t always work, but the options are limited to cooperating officials in those countries.
The Russians have come close to undermining the international banking system, something Janet Yellen was warning about two years ago. It is under attack from North Korea, Russia and Iran. We should be concerned and we should take more aggressive action. Banks, even the big international banks, have not been involved in improving the security of this critical infrastructure. Some of them continue to operate antiquated systems with antiquated security. North Korea has already exposed some of that in their attacks on the South’s major banks.
The fact that China and Russia harbor the people doing this indicates there is more to it than just thieves looking to make a dollar. These are organized attempts to demonstrate a capability to disrupt the financial systems that we need to do business. What country would not respond to that?
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Back in the Caribbean
There was a short piece on Russia”s return to the Caribbean in the Journal yesterday. That part is somewhat unusual, since the Russians cut back, but never left the area after the revolution. You may remember that when President Obama decided to open up travel to Cuba, the first ship that was at the dock was a Russian intelligence collector to watch the diplomatic staff as it arrived. They haven’t left.
What is different about this one is the emphasis about Grenada, which now has visa-free travel between the two countries. It should become a spy haven with that kind of arrangement. People will be shuttled in and out with no records of when they came or went.
What is different about this one is the emphasis about Grenada, which now has visa-free travel between the two countries. It should become a spy haven with that kind of arrangement. People will be shuttled in and out with no records of when they came or went.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)