Category Archives: Military

January 15, 2014 · 02:44

My £13,000,000 invoice!

I got a ‘nice’ wakeup call just now, as I was reading an article in the guardian. It is at www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/ministry-of-defence-failed-computer-system. The title “Ministry of Defence ‘wasted millions on failed computer system’” got my attention. The UK is riddled with IT people trying to get a decent job. This article implied with quotes like “The recruitment partnering project, a £1.3bn scheme intended to enable the army to recruit online, is almost two years behind schedule and will not be fully operational until April 2015 at the earliest, the Times said.”

Now, I understand that the MoD does things a little different and that this online approach takes a little time and money, but the fact that the cost of this system is more than the personnel costs of an entire regiment for 50 years (take into account that most IT solutions are usually set for a lifetime span of no more than 10 years) gives weight to the issue that it is time to go public. The additional quote “the problems are so serious that defence secretary Philip Hammond is considering spending nearly £50m on a new solution.” gives weight to my response “You pay me 10% of that and I will assist in getting the issue sorted”

You see, any IT project is basically simple.

  1. What must be done and by what date?
  2. What must it cover?
  3. What are you willing to spend?
  4. Document the agreement and sign it by all parties!

The rest is usually political manoeuvring. (I apologise for oversimplifying the problem)

The fact that the article implied that the costs were a billion plus, gives the impression that the entire military network system got overhauled. This leaves us with the thought that there is a decent chance that Sir Iain Lobban of GCHQ is laughing himself to death reading about these events, so perhaps the loud honing laughter will move Defence to take a harsh look at themselves in the cold light of these events.

Do not get me wrong. I know that IT solutions tend to cost, and things get delayed, but this is about recruiting people, the price is implied to be set at thirteen hundred million pounds and it is already 2 years late. So, why was any amount paid in regards to a failed system? It is of course likely that those who delivered had a quality ironclad contract in place, yet the mentioned amount is extremely out of proportion compared to the non-working delivery.

The next quote is also one that opens debate “If the ICT hosting solution is not put in place then the MoD risks not gaining the appropriate number of recruits needed. Given recent criticism of army recruitment … and the use of reserves, this would lead to further negative media reporting and reputational damage for MoD.” So, the 2 year delay was not a clear indication of issues? I reckon that the spending of well over a billion on a non-working system is more than enough for laughter, ridicule and reputation damage for the MoD for a long time to come.

To put this all in perspective take a look at this quote from the Guardian made in August 2013 (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/01/gchq-spy-agency-nsa-edward-snowden). The quote is “GCHQ now has liaison officers working inside MI5, MI6 and the Soca, the serious and organised crime agency. It takes the lion’s share of the £1.9bn budget for Britain’s intelligence services” so basically, the MoD blew on a non-working recruitment option, the amount that GCHQ needs to keep it completely operational (for a year).

Seems a little out of whack, does it not?

Now for some other fun facts! Recruitment is all about creating interest. Now consider that the cost to make a multiplatform next-gen video game is £15-£25 million pound. So, the youthful player could get introduced to all kinds of positions, challenges, military functions and so on. The development is when compared to what is wasted less than 2% of those costs. More interesting, it could be sold at the newsagent for £5. The MoD could break even, or even make some money too (which would definitely be a nice change). It is a game and it might not have all of the information, but together with an information website loaded with PDF’s, application information and a registration bank should never have exceeded £80 million, from what I envision at present (including the game development). Why was this solution not hosted via GCHQ? The people at the MoD might know of the place, it is in Cheltenham and it looks like a massive donut (Yummy!). It has better security and more options for facilitation than most secure banks can dream of (GCHQ is not to be confused with the NSA, where you can copy all data to a USB stick at your own convenience).

So, do I have a case here? Actually, it was not me, but The Times, who started it, and the Guardian for giving it the visibility that goes far beyond the UK borders.

I must try to be neutral in these matters and very likely the article is missing key elements considering the amount involved, but seeing how 1 in 7 in the UK lives below poverty on one side, whilst on the other side a billion plus is wasted to this degree is extremely upsetting. I have proudly worked in IT since 1981 and seeing events like these, just do not cut it with me and it should not cut it with you, the reader either.

There is however a little more. “This leaked report points to the latest series of catastrophic failures at the Ministry of Defence on David Cameron’s watch.” is a quote I have an issue with. The fact that it is 2 years late means that this was supposed to be finished late 2011. When was the project started? Who were the people starting this, who was involved? It is of course possible that this was all on the conservative watch, yet, that must still be verified. The mention in the article of “after failing in 2011 to challenge a MoD policy” on the article gives rise to the thought that this has for a large part been an internal MoD failing. In addition “The project management team was inexperienced and under-resourced and the army failed to take charge when delays started and put in a suitable contingency plan.” gives way to my four step issue. The first two steps, as I mentioned it, also cover resources, the fact that this was not met means that the failing was on more than one level. Who at the MoD was involved? Was this person aware of the required skillset?

All questions that should have risen with any senior decision maker before the project was accepted and the checklists should have tripped several ‘alarms’ as the project was going forward. The fact that the large amount had been ‘lost’ indicates that none of these issues were factually dealt with.

The article raises a few more questions, but the horror should be clear. It will keep on costing more for now and before Labour starts ‘calling’ for botched jobs, they should take a look at the issues we saw in 2010 (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-computer-blunders-cost-16326bn-1871967.html). From that part we get the clear idea that infrastructure and policies alone are not getting IT choices done. Knowledge is likely to fix that; you just need to make sure the right person is on the job.

With the amount that has been spent, I feel comfortable sending them with my 13 million pound invoice.
(Payment within 30 days for this consult would be appreciated, as I have to pay my bar bill).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

January 3, 2014 · 05:12

Academic Discrimination?

The night was still young when my faithful iPad 1 was beeping me about an issue that had hit the Jerusalem Post (at http://www.jpost.com/International/92-universities-reject-academic-boycott-of-Israel-336771). I could not believe my eyes! A bucket of icy cold water could not have woken me any faster. I had to do some digging (not all sources are of the highest quality), so here is the rundown.

The Guardian had this headline “Why a boycott of Israeli academics is fully justified” (at http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/sep/12/boycott-israeli-academics-justified). And they call themselves academics?

Now, as a non-academic act, here is a wiki page (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks), showing a few issues with the entire endeavour. In addition, these are just the bombings. The list of Hamas ‘actions’ on other fronts are a lot longer and several governments would be very unwilling to confirm several of those acts on their soil. In addition, since 2010 close to 2500 rocket attacks had been made from Gaza by Hamas against Israel.

So, do these academics have ANY clue what they are doing, supporting or talking about? The fact that well over a 100 universities at this time all slammed the boycott brought by the ASA, might be an indication that the ASA could be in for a massive structural reshuffle. The fact that such an act of utter opposition to academic freedom even made it to a vote is already cause for concern in my view.

A quote from Dartmouth College by Paul Mirengoff stated “The ASA consists of approximately 5,000 members. 1,265 of them voted on the resolution, with 66 percent of them supporting it.”

So 66% of the 25% members that voted got this all carried?

The second quote “Among them are Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, New York University, Yale, and Dartmouth College.” (at www.powerlineblog.com) I reckon that under these circumstances, Mr Mirengoff should proudly mention his college next to those Ivy league big boys. Some of the names that Mr Mirengoff did not mention were Stanford, Brown, Duke and Georgetown, but he might not have had those names in any official way at that time. The list (as complete as can be) can be found here http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/12/list-of-universities-rejecting-academic-boycott-of-israel/

It is quite possible that at the time of my writing even more Universities and Colleges joined those ranks.

The issue that is even more paramount is the entire boycotting affair. Yes against Israel, but no opposition to Iranian or Russian Universities? How about Cuban Universities, like the University of Havana?

Now for my own ‘academic’ mistake! Should I have compared Palestinian Academics with Hamas? Is that just not as grievous an error? If we accept Reuters article of last June (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/02/us-palestinians-idUSBRE9510BK20130602) as a given, then there is a distance between some academics and Hamas and its goals, this does not mean that Hamas does not have within its ranks a fair number of distinguished academics (an assumption on my side). Any war has sides and an academic will just like others choose a side. His views and reasoning could be valid, sane and logical. So, when there is an alleged issue in Israeli Universities in regards to Palestinian scholars, then we need to see what actually is happening. The quote “the massive restrictions on academic freedom for Palestinian scholars” is misleading. Is there any restriction against scholars, or are there restrictions on those supporting Hamas? I do not claim to know the answer, or to even have a clue how that equation is in place (if it amounts to some equation that is in place). We do however have decades of acts by Hamas against Israel, most of it nicely mapped. The quote “Hamas and other Palestinian militant organizations contend that they will settle for nothing less than the dissolution of the entire Jewish state.” has reverberated over the media and the internet for almost half a century. It is interesting that the ASA has had little time to illuminate such a level of prosecution against Israel and its Jewish population.

In my view, academics need to remain outside of that entire political debacle for the simple reason that as long as there is one group that remains talking to each other, the option for any peaceful solution will remain a possible reality.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

November 8, 2013 · 20:00

Is SIGINT a joke?

The news has been rampant on several levels these last few days. Whether it is revelation 16 (roughly) by the traitor Snowden, whether it is the historic event that the top three in British intelligence were in one line, as requested by British parliament, or the fact of revelations we read in the press, whilst (former) press members find themselves prosecuted for blatant and indiscriminate invasion of privacy. The list goes on and on and on.

There is a lot more, but let us confine ourselves to these three events.

For the Commonwealth the event in Parliament was likely the ‘important’ one. Was it truly about the events there? Some might want to question the questions, the answers and what follows. I, with my sense of perspective wondered about the choice of the green tie that Sir John Sawers was wearing. Does it matter? It is all as trivial as choosing pancakes for breakfast!

Yes, we all think we know it, we all think we have an inkling of an idea. I did have an idea, but that was almost 29 years ago. Now, I still have an idea from my specialised view of data, data technologies as well as data collection techniques and none of that falls with MI-6 (only a small part of it). The gem of the event was with Sir Iain Lobban, director of GCHQ, which gave us the part we need to care about. You see, as the press was so willing to give out the details as the people had a right to know, as we have allowed our wrists to get cut because the press is all about advertising profits, gang bang sensation and visibility, it was willing to sacrifice safety and progress for PR and visibility. To go deep and give both criminals and terrorists the information on how to avoid certain paths of detection we see the limits of their use. These same reporters that are part of a group listening in on voice mails to get the scoop, who will sanctimoniously proclaim freedom of the press, will not hesitate to sell their neighbour down the drain for the commission of another column of text, paid per letter.

From my point, if I had the option of making the killing shot ending Edward Snowden’s life I would, even if that gets me 20 years in prison, because traitors do not deserve consideration of any kind. The entire situation of laughable as an American ran to their Communist opponent and almost 50% of the American population considered it a good thing. In addition, if in light of the revealed information a child of Guardian editor in chief Alan Rusbridger would get molested, then he would blame the system on the front page of his newspaper immediately. I do not wish anything bad on him or his family ever! He is not likely to be worried as his four hundred thousand pound a year job allows for secure private schools, but what about the other children? Those children who are not that safe environment, possibly in danger to be at the mercy of predators, whom now with knowledge of longer avoidance and as such pose even more danger to innocent victims. What about them?

It is a level of what I see as utter short-sightedness. An assault on three groups that have lived in a world of ambiguity to get their work done, now that world is in turmoil, especially as some traitor comes with information that is for the most non confirmable, too much goes from the air of ‘Snowden told us, so it must be true’. Several questions are not dealt with on many levels, especially by the press. It just drains the gravy train as it sells more and more news (papers).

The second part is directly linked to all this. Two news messages:

1. Snowden persuaded other NSA workers to give up passwords (at http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9A703020131108)
2. Snowden has stolen 50,000 to 200,000 Classified Items from NSA.

The second had no verifiable source and as such there is no way to tell how correct that is, the first one is more of an issue. How stupid are Americans? That is of course if there is any truth in that part.

YOU NEVER GIVE OUT THAT INFO!

You can leave your partner/spouse/lover at some university frat party to have all the sex he/she needs, you give your credit card to your kids to buy all the toys they want, giving out login information is beyond utterly stupid. Snowden would not have needed it. As an IT person he either has rights to make changes, or he does not. If he did not, then giving out login info is the worst anyone could do. If this ever went to court then he could blame the original account holder. It is a level of non-repudiation!

So were the people at the NSA born stupid and stopped evolving after birth? That remains to be seen! The point is that the press is not that trustworthy either! The second part in regards to the classified items was from a non-disclosed, but also non verifiable source. There is no way for me to know. The question from this part is the one you do not see discussed openly on the news. How did all this info leave the building? Who was in charge? Issues that are also in play for Sir Iain Lobban! How vulnerable is GCHQ? What is in play to prevent this to happen in the UK? Even though Booz Allen Hamilton was cleared as they are the official boss of Edward Snowden, yet how was the clearing process? What are the checks in place for civilian contractors? The Washington Post published a large article questioning civilian contractor issues, from this part we wonder if it was deep enough. Even more, why were these issues not looked at more than a YEAR before the Snowden issues started?

If it was up to me (Sir Iain Lobban is likely secure in the knowledge that this is the last option that should ever happen), then I would like to make a small change at GCHQ. I would add a new inner circle, consisting of a Law Lord and two members from both MI-5 and MI-6 to watch the watchers. My only worry is that whoever oversees GCHQ internally is part of the ‘problem’ (no illegal or negative inclination implied). It does not harm for a set of cleared fresh eyes to look at the system to see if there is a danger. Something similar would need to happen at the NSA, but with their systems and such it might be a different source of people (like members of cyber command FBI and cyber command military).

There is too much info out there supporting the idea that US intelligence (and other governmental departments) seems to be oblivious to the need for Common Cyber Sense (at present with the amount of published info, it is unlikely that my thought on this is wrong).

Here is the third part, the PRESS part!

Their phone hacking was all about exploitation, revenue, profit and personal gain. The Intelligence community is about keeping people safe. There is a massive difference. If you wonder about these events, then consider the fact that because of greed and revenue, no steps have been taken on a global scale to see who buys your personal details and who has them. It could influence your insurance premium, your credit rating and your financial options. No one seems to be on par to get that properly regulated, because in America, Cash is king and the president to the United States is simply a number with a possible temporary status elevation, the rest is data cattle, sold at a moment’s notice. This risk is very real in the UK and Europe too. A consumer is nothing more than a customer number with an address and with a possible shipment of goods under way, that is their value and only for as long as they need products. To some extent the Washington Post covered this a week ago at http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-chertoff-what-the-nsa-and-social-media-have-in-common/2013/10/31/b286260e-4167-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html

what is less known is that they are one of the few who took a decent look at it (the Washington post), the rest remains on the Snowden gravy train, not informing anyone, they simply re-quote a Reuters line. Seems a little wrong doesn’t it? The article by Michael Chertoff sees the gem no one properly questions half way through where he wrote “there is no assurance that what is disseminated has context or news value“.

The true part, the real smart and the questionable art! The intelligence world is ALL about disseminating information and giving proper weight to the information acquired. It is about finding the bad guys, without that weight it is all media gossip used by the press and as we saw, the disciples of Rupert Murdoch have truly dented that group’s reliability, perhaps for a long time.

So is today’s SIGINT a joke? I hope not, because if so, the questions had been phrased at the wrong people. At some point parliament gets to answer the questions asked by the innocent and the victims on how parliament asked all about data and left corporations to do whatever they liked with our personal details. How many UK companies have had a backup data server in the US?

Consider this quote by Salesquest “The Siebel Customer Intelligence List consists of 265 Fortune 1000 or Global 500 companies that have deployed Siebel in their enterprise application environment. The first tab in the spread sheet lists the 265 Siebel customers, industries, corporate headquarter addresses, phone numbers, and web site addresses.” (At http://www.salesquest.com/resources/siebel-customer-list/)

How many of those are backing up their data to some server park in San Antonio? Consider those places, all their customer data, their financial data and forecast information. In some cases, the data will come from over a dozen nations. It is nice to ask where their data is, but what about the data dumps, the logs and the backups, where were they kept?

Let the intelligence community do what it needs to do, if not, then neither we nor the press gets to point fingers at them when things truly go very wrong.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 29, 2013 · 23:03

The Wrong questions!

Another day and another day we see escalations into the direction that was once called ‘No Such Agency’ and now regarded as the only server in the US that allows anonymous and the People’s Republic of China to get port 8080 access. Go figure!

As we see another article in the Guardian, this time the limelight shines on Dianne Feinstein, chairperson for the Senate Intelligence Committee. It seems that she wants to a complete review of the NSA (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillance-dianne-feinstein-opposed-allies)The article leaves the doctors check on the pulse that listening in on several leaders of the allied nations is taking a dip for the worst. All this is shown against another reference towards Snowden’s disclosures. This picture is wrong in many ways. You see, the first two events might have had some work by Snowden, yet overall, when we consider the amount of data that Snowden has walked away with is beyond strange.

We could come to the following conclusions.

1. The NSA is completely oblivious to a silly little thing called Common Cyber Sense.
2. The NSA is completely oblivious to standard network security and logging.

Consider that SE-Linux is a NSA invention (OK, that was a strong word, but they were the driving force of SE-Linux). The first two issues show that the NSA either lost the plot, or they decided to hire a multitude of Americans with IT skills that seems limited to the connection that their child has a Nintendo!

Now feel free to laugh out loud, but consider the information. Allegedly listening in on conversations of the leader of a sovereign nation is not something one would admit to. This is not a bulk thing, this is specific. The fact that only a chosen few had that information would be the way to go. Consider any firm having a ‘second’ bookkeeping system. What are the chances that anyone but the CEO, CFO and the head of IT knew about that? That is just a ‘little’ tax evasion and commission increase. In case of the NSA they are alleged to keep phone records on most of their European allies. You think that this is NSA lunchroom conversation material? Snowden should never have had any access to it. So either the NSA system is completely broken, or we are dealing with something completely different.

3. The NSA has decided staff monitoring was not an issue?

That point is actually less correct, however when reading “Intelligence Authorization Legislation: Status and Challenges” at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R40240.pdf you will see on page 15 “the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2013, passing the legislation by a vote of 14-1, and the bill was reported to the Senate on July 30, 2012. Among other things, S. 3454 as passed by the committee:” linked to this it states: “Requires the intelligence community to develop a comprehensive insider threat program management plan.” So after the Brits showed you in the 60’s that someone could be working for MI-6 and Russia at the same time, this was not clearly in place? (actually, such systems have been in place for a long time, yet the document seems to refer to ‘developing’ and not ‘upgrading’, which makes me wonder why the tax payer is paying for all these internal security officers.

Also, this was at least 6 months BEFORE there was Snowden, and all the members of the Alphabet Soup have their own Internal Security Officers. How come the NSA missed so many alert events? I can understand some leakage with the CIA. Those people are all over the place, hundreds of locations, thousands of involved people. So statistically, if only one person slips up a day, it would be a really good day for the CIA. If we compare it to the restricted, bundled and compact NSA, they seemed to have ‘loosened’ up its standards twice each 10 minutes. This does not add up!

If you question some of this (you should always do that, never take things at face value).

Then consider that the US Intelligence Community consists of:

  • Air Force Intelligence
  • Army Intelligence
  • Central Intelligence Agency
  • Coast Guard Intelligence
  • Defense Intelligence Agency
  • Department of Energy
  • Department of Homeland Security
  • Department of State
  • Department of the Treasury
  • Drug Enforcement Administration
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Marine Corps Intelligence
  • National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
  • National Reconnaissance Office
  • National Security Agency (<- free data access here)
  • Navy Intelligence

And the massive amount of leaked information comes from just one of these groups. Now let me make a jump out of the box. Consider the picture I have shown you and consider that the NSA was mostly invisible before the 90’s. Now, nothing remains invisible forever, yet, the step from unknown to open source is a mighty leap. Is it so weird that we should look into other directions?

What if Snowden is not the person he claims to be? I personally still believe he is a joke at best, a patsy at worst. What if the leak is NOT a person? Consider the amount of data that SIGINT parses. What if the Echelon system was compromised? Is someone having a backdoor into the SIGINT satellite system not a lot more likely than one person walking out with Gigabytes of data, through the front door of one of what used to be regarded as one of the most secure locations on the planet? Yes, these satellites are supposed to have top level encryption, yet in 2004 two Chinese academics wrote a paper on how such levels of encryption could be broken. That was 8 years ago!

This would mean that Director James Clapper has another issue on his plate. Getting into an intelligence satellite is supposed to be really hard, so was there an ‘open information supporter’ when it was build? Is there a security flaw in its logical system? Is this option so much more unlikely then a person, who was according to several magazines seen as “The CIA believed Snowden had tried to access classified data that he wasn’t authorized to view. Based on this suspicion, the agency decided to send Snowden packing.”

So that person made it into the NSA? Even if that was the case (which it was), would this person be allowed to remain unmonitored and get his hands on the amount of data that is now all over the Guardian editorial?

Not even the US could ever get to be THAT dim! Now consider what I said at the beginning, the CIA flagged him accessing data he was not cleared for. Do you think a mere technician had access to the phone data collection of not one, but a host of national leaders. Top Secret information that would have been limited to an absolute minimum number of people.

The numbers do not add up and it seems that nobody is asking the right questions.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

October 22, 2013 · 22:28

Patrons of Al-Qaeda

Many people have some form of religion, which is fine. To have a personal believe in something that is bigger than yourself or bigger then that what you see is not a bad thing. Many Christians have their father, their son and their holy ghost. Some go the other way and give credence to Satan, the anti-Christ and the false prophet. I cannot vouch for any of that. I agree that there is more than this in the universe, but what?

No matter how that part falls, it is likely that Al-Qaeda believes in their personal ‘information’ trinity.

They would be Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange. These three people have done more to support Al-Qaeda then Osama Bin Laden ever could.

Assange, who is still hiding in an embassy, is the lowest transgressor of the three. First of all, as an Australian he did not really break any laws (although some debate should be had over hindering the actions of an ally under war time conditions). The public view is that on one side he should be nailed to a cross and on the other side he should be heralded. Information is often a lot more complex than many consider. If you want an example, you only need to look at this week’s situation where Assad is now blocking peace talks. Should there be any surprise?

I still am not completely convinced he was directly involved with the Sarin attacks; the issue here is that too much intelligence is questionable. If the USA had shown ALL OF IT publicly, the doubt might not have been there. Yet, the reality is whether they actually had hard evidence on who did it. Let us not forget that the evidence collected in the investigation was all about whether it had happened, not who did it. And guess what, Al-Qaeda was an element in Syria too, so what exactly did happen? Watching Secretary of State John Kerry go on a plane with his briefcase, shown on the news like he is some kind of rock star is not helping anyone either. It seemed as empty to me as a PowerPoint on some concept that no one wants to spend money on.

It shows two possible sides, either they have actual evidence that needs to remain a secret (which no one seemed to be accepting), or they actually didn’t have any and we were watching some version of the Punch and Judy show!

The other side is one that Assange was not into, the acts of terrorism by Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not shown, we saw through WikiLeaks just one side of it and it changed the overall balance.

Then WikiLeaks released thousands of diplomatic cables, which I consider to be an act of utter stupidity, the information was one-sided, so the US opposition (all of them) get several free punches into play and as such, US recovery is still being hindered. This is the ‘bad’ side of Julian Assange. Their one sided act destabilised many events. Yes, there is a case to be made, but by not exposing the other side, we get a one-sided situation. In the end, the damage is done and even as there might not be any criminal activity by Julian Assange, we should ask questions.

In case the reader thinks that ‘actions’ against Julian Assange should be made, then consider that many in the financial industry did nothing ‘criminals’ either, even though thousands became homeless because of their ‘non-criminal’ actions.

By the way, remember the quote by CNBC (and many others), somewhere in 2010: “WikiLeaks honcho Julian Assange told Andy Greenberg at Forbes that he was in possession of a trove of documents that ‘could take down a bank or two.’ The documents wouldn’t necessarily show illegality but they would reveal an ‘ecosystem of corruption’ at one of the biggest banks in the United States. WikiLeaks would release it ‘early next year.’”

They never came! So was this about intelligence, or about positioning banks in an even stronger place? Is it not interesting that Al-Qaeda’s patron number three and number one patron are all about neutering governments, whilst the banks stay out of play? Is it such a far fetching thought that these two idealists get played by those who believe greed is all?

In the middle we see Bradley Manning. This is not some ‘foreigner’; this was a member of the US military. In my view, he is a traitor plain and simple. A private, without any in depth education thought he had it all figured out, decides on US military policy. Which is interesting as many military members above the rank of Colonel are still trying to figure out what the best course of action is, even those with Ivy League degrees. The only positive thing from all this is that the military needs to seriously start to address its mental health issues, but beyond that small sparkle of recognition, this person was more than a small danger.

That part is not addressed even as the news still discusses the winner of this unholy threesome. Three days ago USA today published information on the fact that anti-leak software had still not been installed. I think it is even worse than many think it is. Some of these applications have (as any good application would) powerful log files. Even when we look at non-military solutions we see the following:

“The client’s log file is located at <user_directory>/Palantir/<version>/logs/client.log”

We can see at Palantir’s wiki what it logs, and depending on the settings it can give a lot (at https://wiki.palantir.com/pgkb/does-the-palantir-product-do-any-logging.html)

By the way, one needed only to change three settings to really log a lot:

# log4j.logger.com.palantir.services=error # package level
# log4j.logger.com.palantir.serveres.Nexus=warn # class level
# log4j.logger.MyLabeledLogger=info # specific logger

Removing ‘# ‘ on each line was all it would take.

This one warning gives a final view “Note that we do NOT recommend enabling logging below the warn level for production scenarios.” which means that all logging is possible mapping out the active military network in real time as the user muddles along.

This is not about Palantir, or even anti-Palantir. It is a software solution that part of the Intelligence community is currently using. IBM Modeler and SAS Miner are both data mining tools with similar abilities (and there are more). They all have these options as it is needed to make their products go smoothly. So when Bradley Manning gave it all away, he really gave it all away! The consequence might have (or could be resulting) in deep targeted attacks against a military server system. The question becomes how good is the anti-leak software? As many logging is set at higher levels (read administrator), many of them would be able to log events unhindered by many prying eyes (it is not realistic to monitor all logs on even 1 server). Even if it is all covered, who else has access to just read these log files? It is not uncommon to negate log files, as their users are usually vetted for use of the application. LOG files can however show more than many bargain for.

Unless the server architecture has been re-arranged, there is plenty of worry whether these servers are safe at this time, because log files are inherently their and needed, they are not linked to a password change and often, they do not get reconfigured away from their standard configuration as the case has been with plenty of application that it would hinder smooth operations.

Last on the list of the Patron Threesome is Edward Snowden. I have mentioned him often enough, so I will not go through it all again. He is in my view a traitor and not some ‘holier than thou’ protector. He is not some idealist, too much pointed to him making a getaway with the eye on some quick bucks (and many of them), I might be wrong, but that is how I see him. As he showed us how ‘naughty’ the NSA was, did he show us how unscrupulous Microsoft seems to be?

That view can be seen through an article in Techbeat just 4 days ago. The first quote is “Microsoft is developing a new technology to replace cookies. This work is similar to projects being undertaken by Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Tracking cookies have come under scrutiny recently from regulators by many concerned about privacy; certain types of cookies (Third party tracking cookies) are now easily blocked through built-in functions and extensions/add-ons within main web browsers.”

The second one from the same article is “This technology should also include Microsoft services including their search engine Bing. Tracking in mobile devices remains a key point. The big advantage of Microsoft’s emerging technology is that it could track a user across a platform.”

So basically, this reads like: ‘we the consumer used to have a little privacy, but soon, thanks to Microsoft, that privacy might be gone forever, allowing for non-stop online harassment wherever we are‘ So, That Snowden fellow never gave us anything on that, did he? Even though the NSA should have been aware of such plans long before Techbeat had a clue. Does the reader still think he is such an idealist?

Yet, on the other side, he has shown one important weakness. The US intelligence branch is on that same low level as the organisation that in the 50’s used to be laughingly referred to as ‘British Intelligence’. The question is not just how weak is the NSA seems to be; it links to questions regarding the weakness that GCHQ and its current Commonwealth peers might have. There are in addition issues with the personal digital safety of people on a global scale. Not because the NSA is scanning to identify terrorist networks, but if one person (Snowden) could get away, is there anyone else who just wanted money and gave their data download to cyber criminals? There is absolute 0% guarantee that this did not happen, so in how much danger are our details?

So, why this blog today? Many do this at the start, but in certain light this had to be done at the very end. It is not just about their acts, but also about the acts you and I undertake. We willingly give out our details to Facebook (including a beheading, but excluding exposed breasts), LinkedIn and Google+, yet many scream about ‘some government‘ seeing what we are doing and who we are doing it with (or without).

The twisted world we allowed to be created is likely to throw us at least two more curve balls before Christmas. Enjoy!

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 29, 2013 · 21:06

More than just Syria

The news has started to illustrate the issue I expected. I stated in my blog on September 20th “What we know about AQ is that they are about them and their needs“. That part is now coming to fruition. As ISIL they are now the third party in a civil war between two parties. My initial personal view is for President Assad and his opposition to come to an agreement and unite in a hunt for the members of ISIL/AQ, paving the way to some form of a seize fire.

Not doing so, will escalate this civil war in a plain hunt for lives who did not agree with the sharia convictions of ISIL/AQ. As Sky News now broadcasts how the victims of Syrian events are smuggled into Israeli Military Hospital where these victims are receiving lifesaving first aid and operations. A Samaritan act that will never be voiced by the victims they saved in fear of deadly reprisals. (At: http://news.sky.com/story/1147748/wounded-syrians-left-bleeding-with-the-enemy).

Isn’t it interesting that these so called Muslim ‘warriors’ are there just to ‘support’ one very specific version of Muslim faith. More important, the acts give weight to actually start open military intervention. In response to the article by the BBC (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23925037), which stand point I do support. We are now faced with their tactical blunder which we should exploit. This does however require the support of President Assad. My initial assessment is gaining weight, which was more on the side of the Russian stance that Assad was not the one firing the chemical weapons. As I had stated in my earlier blog, it would make sense that an AQ attack to draw America and Israel into this conflict was the fuse to a powder keg. As the initial attack did not happen, ISIL is now actively attacking ‘their’ enemies. When we consider the September 19th report by Reuters (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013_/09/19/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE98I0C120130919)

This ‘game’ had been about de-stabilisation from the very start. As stated by me “AQ only cares for AQ” and as such, any diplomatic option towards AQ should be classified as null and void.

Yet this will take orchestration of some size, yet as AQ made the mistake of getting too close to the Turkish border, the issues could change if any attack on Turkey commences. At that point the NATO members have no option but to come to the aid of Turkey, also, the Turkish President Abdullah Gul would gain massive support and popularity should it get forced into a direct conflict with AQ forces, now trying to overrun Syrian areas. These events also change the game in other ways. AQ has zero support from Russia (in light of their Chechnyan ‘friends’) and at this point the turning table exists for Iran. If they decide not to get involved, which would be fair enough, the end result remains the same; AQ would have to go it alone, with their former temporary friends as well as the Government forces of President Assad at their throats. The bottle neck comes as NATO/Turkey slam down the box in the final side. AQ will cause massive amounts of damage. That is unlikely to be prevented. This is also where I do not completely support the Guardian article by Sarah Margon (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/sarin-gas-syria-icc). The quote “Opposition forces have also committed serious abuses, increasingly resorting to executions and indiscriminate shelling of government-held areas.” might not be incorrect, but it might be incomplete. If AQ is part of the opposition, then we must see whether this was an actual act by what is called the ‘moderate’ opposition forces, or are these events the work of AQ and AQ minded opposition forces. So Syria is now clearly less clear cut. It is a civil war with three parties, each with their own agenda.

As such the question grows, why should we get involved? No matter how the Syrian civil war goes. If AQ is not dealt with, they will flame out wreaking havoc on both Jordan and Israel. In addition, AQ is pushing forward with pressures against Egyptian forces as well as attacks on Israel. Reuters reported yesterday the Sinai attack (at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/28/us-egypt-sinai-idUSBRE98R09220130928). It will take massive amounts of discipline for Israel to keep their cool for now. Should the IDF face these attacks on the north side, as well as attacks on the Sinai Eilat side, then we, successful or not, will have to face the consequences. There are also financial repercussions. In a BBC newscast, from last November “This still means that as of Saturday night Israel had spent roughly $29m on interceptor missiles in three days.” The IDF has an Iron Dome presence, yet how much financial pressure is it under at present?

There is a linked view, which comes from the Heritage foundation, an American Think-tank. The article was by Baker Spring and Michaela Dodge. Baker is a Research Fellow in National Security Policy and Michaela is a Research Assistant for Missile Defense and Foreign Policy, so they do know their missiles. Their quote “Each Iron Dome Tamir interceptor costs more than $100,000 to produce. This is many times the cost of a Grad, Qassam, Katyusha-style rockets. But there is more to assessing the cost effectiveness of a defensive system such as Iron Dome than a simple calculation of the cost of an additional defensive interceptor compared to the cost of an additional offensive rockets.” is on target. Their assessment makes the issues not as clear cut, but what is clear is no matter which approach AQ is taking, Israel will feel tremendous pressures as these events drag on and they are not the only one.

Jordan is facing massive pressures through the Syrian refugees. The Guardian reported some of this (at http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/25/syrian-refugee-crisis-in-numbers-updated). This article is focussed on the numbers. It does mention the fact that Syria is short on roughly $2B to get anything done. What is less shown is that Jordan was never known for an abundance of resources, especially water. With an additional 3 million mouths to fill those resources will dwindle down to nil quite quickly. Consider that it will need an additional 2 million gallons of water a day, an amount that will run Jordan dry really fast. You can see how Jordan’s goose gets dry cooked. If these numbers mean little, then consider that with a water scarcity in place, their population due to refugees has grown by 50%, all because of the Syrian civil war. A possible solution would be if we could find some solution in Aqaba. It is not a quick solution, yet the option of running a pipeline from the Sinai through Eilat to Aqaba, giving all parties relief might be an option. As that part of the Sinai is in MFO buffer zone C, and if both Egypt and Israel would agree on it, then there would be an accessible place that is in ‘neutral’ space for now, allowing relief to both Israel and Jordan as they are trying to deal with water shortages for the Syrian refugees. This option might also allow for some agricultural solutions, which would deal with the long term issues that will pop up. The AQ would have to be hunted out of the Sinai, but in that regard both Israel and Egypt agree.

Why there? If that region is to have any future, then anything we start now; any action that allows for a growth of tourism in that region, like a second Sharm-El-Sheik, but next to (or close to) Eilat, could in time be the financial infuse that could grow that region to some level of prosperity. Europe and America are now in a low curve, but it will not stay that way. In addition, as tourism grows business. This option has all the makings for finding a long term peaceful solution. It could become an option which will always be a better one than non-stop flooding the region with money and goods.

In my mind (oversimplified, I admit), I see this as a solution. The Dutch are massive experts in Greenhouses. Consider that these are build close to a water plant in the Sinai, Around Eilat, Israel and close to Aqaba, Jordan. So if we can get the water there, in some form, but likely via tankers, there could be an actual push for peaceful reform. We need to get food there in several ways. Finding a way to grow some of it will down the track be the cheapest and it would start real change.

Even though this Powder keg known as the Middle East has been lit and AQ is the fuse, would it not be the master of all Ironies if Al-Qaeda becomes the glue that actually sets in place some lasting form of peace? As, whoever is running Al Qaeda, faces a possible future where a peaceful Middle Eastern alliance develops with Israel as an accepted partner by all and it was thanks to AQ. Would the howling laughter of people not drive him (or her) insane?

Graveyards and politicians both love irony in equal measure, let’s make it so!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 20, 2013 · 14:06

The empty stage

That was the view I had at 05:00 when I woke up switching on Sky News. As I was still dealing with painkillers it was all there was to do. Until the painkillers kick in, whatever I try to focus on will not be successful. It is an anchor weighing me down and in my entire life I have never taken that much chemicals. I will go further in stating that the amount of painkillers used in the last two weeks outstrips the sum of all painkillers used in the past 50 year. My life sucks for now!

Now Secretary of State John Kerry enters the stage.

His speech is focussing on the fact that we all have our own opinions, yet we do not all have our own facts. It is about the evidence of Sarin. The UN report confirms that this was the case. We knew all that. His report is now on the view that it was all the fault of Assad. This is all an emotional speech on how it is all the fault of Assad.

I need another painkiller!

The UN report, as reported by others are all about the fact that Sarin was used, yet the UN report as stated by others did not state WHO was the one that fired these missiles. Am I watching another spin report, all about emotion and posturing? This should still be about removing the chemical weapons, which I agree with is a needed thing. Yet, the theatre unfolding now is about other things. It is about the binding resolution! Should I now see this as a secretary of state throwing the equivalent of a tantrum?

No it is not! Apparently the US side parties involved want to bind this under Chapter 7 so that the resolution is binding. And again China and Russia are possible standing as a barricade in these times that require solutions. It seems that Russia is still playing politics (as a politician would), but this is about a lot more than just the chemical weapons I reckon. Like a chess player President Putin is moving his pieces little by little. Is he keeping his ‘friend’ out of harm’s way, or is he trying to guarantee a multi-billion dollar deal with President Assad? If that is so, he could end up with a 3.75% commission (which is the average commission for a junior salesperson), adding up to an easy $5 million, which is not a bad day’s work. Can I please get a spokesperson position at $250,000 a year?
I need the income!

So we are looking at a play to set the binding resolution through application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII. This part contains Articles 39 to 51. This is the part that Assad would not like. The binding resolution means that President Assad could be taken towards a time line, if ignored, or if stall tactics are shown then a military option opens up as can be read in Article 45 ‘In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.‘

Why am I on the fence? The simple truth is that the Russian claim that the attack was a provocation, fired by the opposition forces is not that unreal. There is supporting evidence of two kinds.

The first is that the locations of the chemical weapon stacks are not all known. For all we know the opposition have been by chemical location for some time. The second part is that I have had my reservations why Al-Qaeda would get involved in a situation where they are on the same side as America. That never made sense. What we know about AQ is that they are about them and their needs. Since when was their position ever on the side of ‘another’ population (read the Syrian people)? I cannot claim mastery of knowledge here, I could be wrong. Yet the tactical position they have to find weapons against Israel and America would be too appealing. The fact that AQ provoked an act that gets America in another war, possible drawing Israel in as well was not that bad a strategy. It seems to have worked. So is the Sarin the baton that is getting passed on and on? Let’s not forget that the AQ is a party of interest in all of this, so whatever we think is going on is less clear then most suspect.

If we know that the Syrian forces had certain equipment, is it a possibility that they had been captured? The part I have an issue with is that with all those satellites, no one is watching the events in Syria, if so, then where is that footage? John Kerry made the quote “There is no indication, none, that the opposition is in possession, or has launched a CW variant of these rockets” it seems to be a reflection on the 122mm improvised rocket. The fact that he speaks of ‘indication‘ means that either he has no INTEL on this (or was handed it), or no one was able to record this. With all those satellites in orbit, this is an issue that I have a problem with.

I reckon that the satellite views do exist, but there is likely not enough information proving which party instigated these fireworks. If so, then it would be out with the press and all to see and judge. It is nice to play this game, but you need evidence, and that is what is lacking on the US side. Yes, Sarin was used, but by who? It is the question that haunting us all and we see again a polarisation of views Russia on the side of their buddy President Assad and the US taking up the other side.

The only positive of all of this is that another nation is joining a non-chemical weapons group, although it is a little late to that party. The only issue remains is whether AQ got access to the CW missiles and if so were they able to syphon any of them to other locations? This is what has Russia spooked most of all. The reason is that there are links going back well over half a decade that AQ has links to Chechnya terror groups. If they end up with only one missile, then the cooking mixture for utter panic in the streets of Moscow will be not far behind. Chechnya fighters have several options for entering Russia and getting close to Moscow.

If there is validity in my approach to these events, then this could mean that Russia will only be ‘cooperative’ for as long as it takes to know whether AQ has access to the missiles and whether they are sending a few on to their ‘friends’. After that Russia is likely to return to a stance that the US would classify as ‘their un-cooperative selves’. These all link together as we the people have been numbed by spin, misdirection and stories of all kind by several sources, many with their own agenda. We are numbed like a patient on too many painkillers. The longer this lasts, the more emotional political presentations get, up to the moment that this approach becomes utterly counterproductive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

September 12, 2013 · 03:13

Foreign and Domestic

America is under attack. The question becomes whether this is a new one, or one that has been ongoing. There are several thoughts and they all, too some extent link together.

FOREIGN
The foreign groups ‘attacking’ America include both China and Russia. They are both using to some extent their own puppets. Let us call them Syria and Iran for now. Russia’s pulling the strings of Iran. No matter how the strings are pulled, no matter how acts are ‘begotten’, the issue is that Iran has been given the one carrot it cannot ignore. It is the support to get a nuclear power plant placed within Iran. Russia gets a string of benefits; this includes making America look bad, making their claims fall short, which according to the speakers in the Kremlin will look pretty good on the front page of Izvestiya (Известия). China is now giving support to Syria as Syria in a last moment of desperation plays the ‘oversight on my Chemical Romance stockpile’ card. The question becomes, whether it is just last minute, or certain cards were offered during the G20 to be played, because any of this, must seemingly be cast on making the US President to not look bad (the view projected after the fact will be an entirely different issue).

To support certain new options goes decently further than just the ad-hoc statement by United States Secretary of State John Kerry. These issues have been playing for some time and most issues started to accelerate as we all saw in the news. Many of the top tier papers reported these events. So how come that these events are still seen as a foreign attack?

That would be a fair question!

China and Russia had been blocking many of the events needed to make any stance against the indecent slaughter of the people of Syria (on both sides). I could cleverly state that Russia and China removed the ‘s’ and used laughter to block the US and other nations to get anything done there. The fact that the Bushehr plant is announced to get a new baby brother as reported by Polina Garaev “Putin will present Rohani with new deal worth $800 million for new batch of S-300, construction of new nuclear reactor at Bushehr” gives additional weight on the Iranian ‘support voice’ in regards to the Syrian question. Whether this will become the Alice Cooper nightmare remains to be seen, it is however clear that the S-300 additions do mean that they fear the response by Israel towards this new billion dollar baby. Trust me when I say that there will be well beyond $200 million in additional fees for consultancy, education and other requirements. The one part I do like about this all is that Iran seems to not trust their own propaganda on the ‘advanced’ Mershad from 2010 and prefers to rely on solid Russian technology as it was developed in 1978 (sometimes life throws you a nice juicy steak to blog about). Still, if Israel cannot get there via the air, I think I have found a way to super charge the fuel rods to melt them down all by themselves (pretty much stopping both reactors from ever working again). It should take only three elements and I got the idea from a snow globe, go figure!

All four players in this parade are anti-American; their union is not because they like one another, but because of their individual needs united in non-American likes. That does not make for an attack. That does not mean they are attacking America. That part had been shown in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800, which is only one of many newscasts on that topic. In addition there is http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html. This could be seen as a first level of evidence that the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) was nothing more than a political tool to stop any kind of condemnation and the lowest forms of support for the victims of the chemical attack.

Are there doubts?

Yes, even though some claims came that there was ‘evidence’, I am still having certain doubts in regards to the actual attacker. When a State secretary goes on a world tour visiting heads of state showing ‘secret’ evidence, parts are not right. It is shown to a group that is too large. Instead of giving it all to the media letting EVERYONE publish it would have been a much better policy, it could have had the result that the UK would have been in favour of actions. The delays, the Intel that WOULD have been there from those big boxes high in the sky, (commonly known as satellites), could have shown much of the evidence. Yet, personally, I am not completely convinced that they were attacks ordered by Assad (directly or indirectly), which I admit is a personal view and based on gut feeling more then anything else. Is it possible that some misguided Assad supporter did this? Yes, that is a definite possibility. I dealt with these thoughts in a previous blog called ‘tactical choices of inactivity‘. I have always believed that Al-Qaeda is only about Al-Qaeda and their goals. It was never about Syria for them (I personally believe this). The theatre of war in play gives them ample opportunity to get to USA and Israel. There is a chance that the number of military opposition leaders, who knew about chemical caches seems larger than most considered, which means that others knew too. This entire new play is as I see it is not about the fear from Syria AND Russia that unwanted elements might want to get things going out of hand. It is likely that this is already the case and a USA offensive would stop any chance of that part getting a certain level of control. It could be that this danger is in play, meaning that both Russia and Syria want to get out of the way fast, allowing the new diplomatic play to proceed, whist the US gets left holding the bag.

No matter how this plays out in any diplomatic way. We will see soon enough that Syrian victims will get overly victimised soon enough with added by-lines on how America never intervened.

DOMESTIC
In my view, I see that the domestic enemy of America seems to fit into three distinct categories. First of all, this is not about lone wolf terrorists, or any terrorist groups, they fall in the foreign enemy group. No, the Americans do not get to be that lucky as such.

The first enemy group are those libertarians hiding behind ‘freedom of information‘. This group is for the most the direct one we see, receiving all kinds of media support and protection. They do not need to fear the House of Lords and some Leveson report, but they do ‘fear’ what the NSA had been doing. The electronic Frontier foundation did instigate a case which they won. Sky News covered this at http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=905204. My issue is the quote “as part of the agency’s effort to track potential terror plots”

In my mind, when (not if) the next attack on America succeeds, then the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) should MANDATORY in the light of ‘freedom of information’ reveal the names of all their supporters in this case to the family members of the victims the next attack has. There will be no carefully phrased denials; there will be no talk about ‘we so sorry’. I want to see those names clearly shown on-line. In addition, the EFF board members John Perry Barlow, Brian Behlendorf, John Buckman et al will have to visit all the funerals of those victims and look the survivors and family members of the deceased straight in the eyes. I wonder how ‘ideological’ they will feel at that time. Interesting that they (as far as I could tell) have not been too active in protecting people from places like Microsoft and others when we see articles like http://rt.com/usa/yahoo-microsoft-campaign-political-862/

That is another matter, which is ALL about personal gain (by those corporations) and not about keeping the American people safe. Another article is http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/13/gamers-fear-microsofts-xbox-one-could-be-future-of-prism-after-nsa-revelations, I do not agree with that article. That is not about some PRISM project, it is about Microsoft making sure that Microsoft gets more and others less. That is about greed and spawning INACTIVITY to the future new developers (unless it is in the hands of Microsoft). With gaming as a hundred billion dollar market, and as the gamers market surpassed the porn industry as a revenue group, did you expect these events not to happen?

I personally see the EFF as a sanctimonious group at best, of course others have their own view which are quite opposite of mine and as such they are very welcome to have that view, because I do believe in freedom of speech. I do have an issue with it when you endanger the safety of a nation.

The second group are the economic leprechauns (‘leper cons’ might be a better term). These are not the good and fiddledy diddledy types walking around with a cauldron of 100 gold coins. These are greed driven monsters in need of more and more at the expense of everything and everyone. They will enable their voice to whatever keeps them playing the game. The attack on Syria would have meant that their profits go down, so they would do whatever they could to stop it by forcing a diplomatic solution view. It seems such a humane view, yet, they will avoid taxation by moving funds offshore, they avoid taxation by becoming a virtual entity and they will prolong their game by removing your rights and your future. I personally believe that in many cases banks are on that side too. Did you forget on how in the lowest moments over 3.5% of mortgages are added to the foreclosure listings? Why are THEY a domestic enemy of America? Are sound business strategies suddenly outlawed? No, they are not, yet there have been too much personal and corporate gain preferences in the past and war is usually bad for business, unless you sell ammunition. In that regard my words might seem to be empty in the view of certain people, yet consider that America is an ideal by the people and for the people. How come that those views are so often drowned out by corporate greed, to give view to what is good for corporations and their stakeholders?

The third group is the most dangerous of all, it is a wild-card called ‘the self-centred person’. They are traitors, manipulators, journalists and/or politicians. The reader could even see me as one of these types of people. This group is dangerous as they could also be members of the first or second group. Yet, whilst wearing one of the other two cloaks they are only in it for the good of self. Edward Snowden falls in this group. Too much ‘evidence’ showed that he was all in it for himself. This was never about freedom of information or the security of America, it was about his life style, his future, his fortune and he was so willing to sell America down the drain in the process. The evidence? If that was truly about some level of honour, he would never have gone to Hong Kong or Russia. Several countries do not have an extradition treatment with USA, the fact that he ran to nations who are direct opposed to the American way of life should be seen in that light. Bradley Manning basically does not fit this group very well. There is a valid concern that he was misguided in his choices, when the choice was there he just gave it all away to Wiki-Leaks. In the smallest of defence of Manning, it seems that he at least was never out for personal gain; his ideology was, as I see it utterly misguided, which makes him the odd duck out. The recipients were however very willing to push his buttons for what they believed was a ‘righteous cause’, manipulative steps to say the least.

The problem with my own view (I will admit to that), is that my view has evolved from information given to me from journalistic and other sources, whilst I know that many in this ‘game’ have their own agenda to maintain. That means that it is about a target they have. The time of truly neutral journalism has been over for some time and I fear it will never return, which makes for an interesting view of the first amendment. The freedom of speech would become the freedom of representation of those we service, because the board of directors in a media group are often linked to other endeavours, making their freedom of speech a lesser item.

America is in my humble opinion under attack, and Syria is just the new stage where the American chess pieces are about to be moved, whilst some of them will be removed. I wonder where we all stand on the 1st of January 2014. That date will be soon upon us and that view might partially depend on the steps the growing New World Order coalition of Russia, China and India will take.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Military, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 2, 2013 · 00:20

FISA? Gezundheit!

 

In a column for ‘all things D‘ (democratic I guess), Arik Hesseldahl wrote an article called ‘Microsoft and Google Will Sue U.S. Government Over FISA Order Data‘. A decent article! I did not completely agree with it, but the man wrote a decent story of his view and he was not playing the ‘spin’ game. I can respect that, even if I do not agree. The same could be said for Bill O’Reilly. I do not always agree with him either, but his clear and clear outspoken views are valuable to hear. So, in the case of Hesseldahl I responded.

The response (from another reader), which was “Your analogy is accurate, but your point is misguided. The government was afforded specific rights by the people via FISA laws. Not only were those rights abused, but activities outside the scope afforded them were taken, and are therefore illegal.” was interesting to read. There was more than that, but basically I was the misguided one.

Fair enough!

So let’s take a legal look at this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), especially the amendments which are extended until July 2015. It is the work of Edward Liu, who is currently the Legislative Attorney at the Congressional Research Service.

The initial find where this all starts can be found on page 4 of that work “National security letters, which are analogous to administrative subpoenas and are authorized by five federal statutes, require businesses to produce specified records to federal officials in national security investigations.”

I will ignore the footnotes, as they will just delay. The important one for this quote refers to “Legal Background and Recent Amendments, by Charles Doyle“. The person not agreeing with me relied on the quote “but activities outside the scope afforded them were taken“. Was it? Let us not forget, this is about Foreign Intelligence. Google, Facebook, MSN are global organisations. Collecting and servicing billions (with 330 million US citizens, we can clearly state that there is a massive amount of foreign involvement).

The next part is how this is about transgressions on US citizens. Is it really? These Americans, mostly innocent people, include a fair amount which are playing fake identities, often trying to impress women showing the sexiest outfits. This is not wrong, illegal or questionable (actually, that might be a case), yet many of those profiles are linked to people not being those people at all. Some are criminals collecting identity details, some are simple scammers and possibly 1 out of roughly 734 will really be that woman, 1/734 is not that good an odd. The alphabet groups do not really care about these parties, but when we consider that some of these tactics are employed by the very terrorists and the supporters they are trying to find it becomes a new ball game.

Page 5 of that document gives us the next little snack “During the examination of the events leading up to the attacks, it was reported that investigations regarding Moussaoui’s involvement were hampered by limitations in FISA authorities.“, so accepting that, then finding these dangers require a little more than they are now getting.

That gem is presented on page 9 of the aforementioned document.

“In United States v. Petti, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was presented with a challenge to a roving wiretap under Title III alleging that roving wiretaps do not satisfy the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The court initially noted that the test for determining the sufficiency of the warrant description is whether the place to be searched is described with sufficient particularity to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premise might be mistakenly searched.
Applying this test, the Ninth Circuit held that roving wiretaps under Title III satisfied the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment. The court in this case relied upon the fact that targets of roving wiretaps had to be identified and that they were only available where the target’s actions indicated an intent to thwart electronic surveillance.”

The latter part was also a footnote link to United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1124 (2nd Cir. 1993) (similarly holding that a provision authorizing roving bugs under Title III was constitutional)

So why are Americans so set upon claiming illegality?

My initial response was about people bragging on Facebook the 243.1 ‘stupid’ things they do to every Tom, Dick and Harry and then nag about the fact that the government takes a look. It was never about them, but about finding those attacking America. It seems to me that many of these people are way too eager to complain when they are asked to help keep their nation safe.

From my point of view all Americans should hand their on-line ‘data’ to the NSA.

Why?

Well, consider the field of predictive analytics. If we are to flag a terrorist, then we need to know the data that makes for non-terrorists too. Whether this profile data concerns a horny student, an adulterous husband/wife, a fence not the one in the garden), a carjacker, a geek or an average parent. If the system has ALL the facts, the more we know, the more pronounced an identifying flag becomes. If predictive analytics is about finding the odd one out, then basing the search on grey people alone will not do, or at least will result in many flags that need more checks. So if we accept that this is about the need to analyse current and historical facts to make predictions about future or otherwise unknown events, then we must have all the data. If we know what a US Apple Pie eating and cuppa Joe drinking person does, then we can see many more elements. This all reflects on our acts on-line and off-line. They will give us a line that raises flags. Flags based upon things we do and even more flags on things we are not doing. That results in a picture!

Now wonder, why are you against helping your nation?

Is this about your privacy? If so, then why are you on Facebook/Google+? These places are to share with friends and THEIR friends (so often your data is shown too many more then you anticipated/expected. In addition, many seem to incorrectly use Facebook a lot more often then they think, which in turn means that your birthday party invitation went to 17 million connected people (it happened in the US, the Netherlands and a few other places, and it happened more than once).

And those so called ‘criminals’ claiming privacy? Well the previous case actually left those in power as Amendment 4 transgressions were about “intent to thwart electronic surveillance.” we are not talking about the level the ordinary criminal goes through. This is avoidance on levels that require highly advanced router hacking skills. Can it be used by both? Yes it can, but let us not forget that the court judge could throw some of these facts out in court at a moment’s notice, giving the alleged bank robber a free out of jail card on the spot. The NSA (and peers) know this and they have ZERO interest in these types. They care about the next attack that will come at some point. They just want to figure out when, where and by whom!

If you are still worried about all this, then consider the amendment as discussed on page 14. “a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to a [foreign intelligence, international terrorism, or espionage investigation.]” So in case of those ‘excited’ students fearing privacy, when was the last time you tried to C-4 her lingerie drawer so that your date arrived without panties? If not, then why worry? (Apart from the small fact that you should not be having access to C-4 to begin with).

So, I disagreed with the assessment made on my response, which remains fair enough. I believe that intelligent people on both sides of the isle can come to wisdom. Whether you stand next to the NSA council, or you side with a civil-libertarian. The origin of UCLA proves the need for civil liberties in no lesser degree. I personally believe that the wisdom is somewhere in the middle. The only part that I never agree with are those blindly hiding behind the quote from Benjamin Franklin “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The quote is wise, but based on another age where there were clear nations, clear missions and where life did not revolve around greed. Because considering the events from the past few years we see more and more correlation with terrorism enabled through desired greed than anything else, for the greedy will only remain loyal to the currency they worship, a simplistic life without true values.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 30, 2013 · 14:23

Tactical choices of inactivity

I reckon that many are awaiting the events as they are unfolding currently in Syria. Will we be investing in Boeing Defence stock, should these missiles be used? (At $1.2M a pop that would mean a nice increase of revenue for Boeing). Will we change our investments in oil and gas as the Syrian situation continues?

These are the questions that matter. The hundreds of deaths because of a chemical attack do not seem to matter.

Are you wondering why I have that opinion?

Then read the BBC quote in regards to these attacks. “The United Nations Security Council said it was necessary to clarify what happened in the alleged attack, but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team currently in Damascus, following an emergency meeting on Wednesday evening.” This was published on August 21st.  So there was a chemical attack and the UNSC did NOT demand the immediate investigation in regards to chemical attack deaths. The worse matter was that the bulk of the casualties were all civilians.

But where is the case of what matters?

If we look at the UNSC charter we see the following “The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.”

So clinically we see that they are not an issue. Peace was not an issue in Syria at all. It stopped existing well over two years earlier. The UNSC is set in a charter. They are called the “Provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council” (at http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/pages/pdf/rules.pdf). They actually do not help that much, only to illustrate certain steps. Yet, this is about the procedures of the UNSC, this will not help at all. So where is their decision making tree? For that we need to take a look at the charter of the United Nations. I took a specific look at Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression.

The premeditated crux is set in Article 45 which states: “In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.”

So we need to look at Article 43, which actually does not help us that much. That part is about making available troops “in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security“. I think we can agree that that part is at least two years late, and nothing here gives us a pass to start anything AFTER chemical attacks.

 

Yet we see in that same chapter that Article 51 (partially shown) states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” This is all very nice, but Syria is not a member state, which makes this all a little moot. In addition, this is a civil (local) war, so other member states are not in question.

So let’s take a look at ‘Customary International Humanitarian Law Volume I: Rules‘ (at http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf).

Rule 11 states “Rule 11. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” Ah! Now we are getting somewhere. Even the rules of war have some level of distinction, yet for the most; this is all based on the previous Article 51, as is quoted “The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.” Darn! I am caught in some sort of looped program. It reminds me of my very first program I wrote on the Commodore VIC-20 in 1983.

10 PRINT “You are crazy!”
20 GOTO 10
RUN

Ah! The simple old days, how I miss them at times.

The same book lists an interesting part on page 38. “several States invoked the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks in their assessment of whether an attack with nuclear weapons would violate international humanitarian law.9 When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, the States concerned (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syria) replied favourably.10”

9 See. e.g., the pleadings of Australia (ibid., § 65), India (ibid., § 77), Mexico (ibid., § 85), New Zealand (ibid., § 86) and United States (ibid., § 99).
10 See ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East (ibid., § 139).

Yes, I agree that a chemical attack is not a nuclear attack, yet when I was taught the elements of NBC (in army days long ago), we tended to count the Nuclear and the Chemical similar to some extent. The Biological element is one that might be considered to be one worse than that as it can continue its damage and even transcend borders.

So we can now add a look at additional protocol I, especially as Syria was one of the parties who replied favourably. As such, we could see Syria as a party that accepted these rules (to some extent).

You see, these parts underline the part as set in Rule 13 (from the IHL), which states “Rule 13. Attacks by bombardment by any method or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited.”

This my dear readers includes ANY level of chemical attack, as that form of attack that is utterly indiscriminate as well as encompassing the area as one military objective.

Taking into account these elements, why did at that point did the UNSC, as stated by the BBC in the first mentioned article “but stopped short of demanding“. The stopped short in these elements were utterly unwarranted, in my humble opinion.

Now we all watch a political runaway train disaster where politicians stop short of acting in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and France await ‘evidence’ which they can deal on. The one cowboy state (the United States) would be at present the only hope the Syrian population has for now. Are these nations correct in holding of? Well, they do have a case there. However, the evidence as UN investigators were delayed, the possible evidence on how the chemical spread started. If we take the elements we have, then we need to consider the firing mechanism. That part had been made near impossible with 5 days of bombings. Yet, in all honesty, did Assad do this? The question is important for two reasons.

1. If he did not do this, was it an intentional act?
2. What other intelligence has Assad silenced?

The two are related, because the earlier fear the US had is now truly coming to fruition. If these missiles were inadvertently fired by the opposition forces, the theory I have is that as they lack military expertise, they might have known and partially learned how to fire a SCUD, but did they know about the payload? Let us not forget that many fighters are anything but military trained. Even those who had training, it is possible that they had too limited knowledge on how to work and identify these types of equipment.

The danger is that they might have found chemical payloads, so here is the danger. Al-Qaeda is currently helping the opposition forces. We now have a trained AQ with support from people lacking knowledge, and they gave AQ access to a chemical storage area. Here is where it becomes dicey! Assad knows the assets lost, he is playing high stakes poker by keeping these locations a secret. For him it is a win-win. If the opposition figures it out they have a time-bomb they cannot use. AQ will use it no matter what and preferably on Israel. Whichever of those steps happened (when they do), the world would have no option but to remove his enemy for him.

Proving that Assad did the actual firing is almost non-provable. The evidence is scattered and at best we can see that NBC components were used, but by whom is less of an option which will leave doubt.

Time is on the side of Assad and elements stopping activities to attack, whether justified or not will only strengthen Assad’s position. I can side with the politicians when they claim that they do not want another Iraq, yet when we look at the initial quote from the BBC “but stopped short of demanding an investigation by a UN team” we must more actively wonder what it would take for them to get anything done. It should be seen as tactical inactivity of the very worst kind!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,