Tag Archives: China

December 19, 2013 · 05:12

Buying cheap intelligence goods

Well, another week, another story about the world’s favourite traitor Mr Edward Snowden. The latest information as shown by Sky news is that he offers Brazil to defeat US spying, but it starts with a permanent political asylum. So, Brazil would end up spending way too much on a person who is likely not fluent in any way in the Portuguese ways.

So, after he ‘walks away’ from China and as Russia seems to be a non-option, Brazil now gets a shot at buying that diamond in the rough for only $2.99. Is no one picking up on this?

My advice to the Brazil government is that if you want to secure your systems in a proper way, get someone with a decent University degree with additional papers and knowledge of Cisco systems. Both will allow for the implementation of Common Cyber Sense. Now, this might not stop US spying, but it will make it a lot harder for them. In the end, if a Brazilian official opens a mail with a ‘personalised’ letter from some sexy ‘Miss X’, hoping for a dinner date, then the worm that opens their security would already be installed again. So, your system might not remain that secure for long. Still, getting the proper professionals will help.

I just do not get it, a person that is regarded as ‘non-valuable’ in both China and Russia, is now hoping for some future in Brazil? I reckon that Brazil might not want these complications in any way or form. Do you think that IF Snowden was such an asset that there was not some ‘loophole’ in place where he would have been able to spend a permanent comfortable time in either Russia or China? America had been playing that game for decades (even for non-intelligence and zero economic value holding trained ballerinas). I see it in a more simple way. Snowden walked away with a treasure chest, there are plenty of issues on the validity of the bulk of what he had, but now that he is on the outside, that one chest will have to last him a life time. The strongest issue that seems to be ignored by EVERYONE in the press is on how the NSA failed to the extent that he was able to walk away with this amount of data, more important, who is he selling it to?

I am not talking about governments and their intelligence groups, but the commercial branch of many corporations who might want to take a deep look at all this data.

So here we are reading another iteration of the Snowden joke and at present the press seems to ignore many of the most common sides that we should worry about. Some might have read the statement that General Alexander gave. Funny enough, the issues he stated and the acts he described were close to identical to the issues that I mentioned no less than 5 months ago. Many of them were the paces that any IT professional would have seen. No, it is just so much sexier to just take over the issues the Guardian took to heart. I am not stating that what they wrote were not based upon ‘facts’, but the source is already proving to be extremely unreliable and even less bothered by the integrity he proclaimed to have. Also, when people compare him to Julian Assange, then consider that I still have my doubts about Assange, but at least he always remained on his horse of idealism, not one I truly support, but I get to some extent the windmill he believes that he had been fighting. It makes the two worlds apart and in case of Snowden in a very negative way.

So back to Snowden, what to do about him?

Although I am all for the ‘drastical’ solution we reserve for certain types, it is important to get him into the US (alive) and into the interrogation room. You see, he got a boatload of data out of a building that should not have allowed the opportunity for this to happen. Even though the American alphabet groups have their own issues as they used private contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton, certain security matters are now at the forefront of whatever they will try to do next. This is not an accusation against BAH, I am convinced that the bulk of these people are devoted nationalists and American patriots. I reckon 99.1% would never consider doing what Snowden did, this makes for a case that there are a few still walking around contemplating what Snowden did. We need to learn what weaknesses the NSA had. Not because we truly care that much (Americans definitely might), but if it happens there where they have an overwhelming budget of many billions, what issues can we expect to find when a light is brought on both the DSD and GCHQ? Let’s not forget that they get a combined budget less than 1% of what the NSA has at its disposal. I feel that direct treason is not likely to happen, but overall, there is the danger of intrusions and even the danger of data heists to some degree. It is that degree that will bear scrutiny. So the open question ‘How easy is it to get data out of the agency?’ is a question that needs to be addressed by several governmental parties.

So back to this Snowden fellow, when we see the LA Times (at http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-metadata-snowden-20131218,0,4977259.column#axzz2nqe1wbKe) we see other parts of this discussion. There are two quotes in this piece “Congress is debating several proposals to rein in the program, including a bill that would effectively end it.” This is of course a valid option, for one, the US is still a nation governed by laws, and Congress can put in place a policy to change it. Let us not forget now that the bad guys know (thanks to the Guardian amongst others) what is being done; only the stupid terrorists will get caught and they would have gotten caught anyway. The second one is a little harder to discuss “I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion of citizens’ rights”, District Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in a blistering opinion. “The author of our Constitution, James Madison would be aghast.” I feel uncertain to agree with his honour Justice Leon. In the end citizens’ rights were never in danger, we could state that only terrorists were in danger, all were collected to see whether they were a terrorist or not. It could have been stated that if Senator McCarthy had access to these systems, would innocent people ever have been targeted? That is at the centre of this. There people SUSPECTED of communism were destroyed, here they are trying to find the real terrorists. In the end the McCarthy issue went a lot deeper, but at the core we have this notion, is it un-American to object to these methods (if you are an American)? There was never a case for innocent people. There is even the notion that criminals, drug dealers and others could never be gotten at through this way, it is a method to find the hidden dangers of terrorism. In addition, his honour should not forget that it was the legal branch that enacted the Patriot Act the way it was. It was for the most, the legal branch that ‘wallowed’ in ambiguity, which allowed for most of these far fetching ‘freedoms’.

It gets a lot more fun if we consider the article the Guardian published a month ago (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/01/nsa-keith-alexander-blames-diplomats-surveillance-foreign-leaders)

So as General Alexander answered: “the NSA collected information when it was asked by policy officials to discover the ‘leadership intentions’ of foreign countries. If you want to know leadership intentions, these are the issues,” the NSA director said. So basically, the NSA responded to questions by the policy makers. (perhaps the same policymakers who are now proposing a bill to end all this?)

So, who exactly is this pot which is calling the kettle monitored?

It is the Australian that gives us the final part (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-nsa-spy-agency-is-split-on-snowden-leaks-deal/story-e6frg6so-1226783316594), which discussed a few parts last Monday. The issue of making any kind of a deal with Snowden should not be considered. “General Alexander said an amnesty deal would set a dangerous precedent for any future leakers.” The other quote, which came from Rick Ledgett who stated “Mr Snowden would have to provide firm assurances that the remaining documents would be secured“. This is an assurance that has no holding whatsoever. After the Chinese and the Russians were done with him as well as the Guardian, any ‘security’ to these documents is nothing more than a hollow promise. I personally find it disgusting that treason to this degree could end up being non-prosecuted in any way, shape or form. It is more than a dangerous precedent. It is an almost assured way for fake ideologists to take a roll at the casino for a few million and an optional new passport. It is a dangerous game that will hold long term consequences for all involved.

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.

Got Milk?

This has been an interesting week for some. This news actually started last week where more and more visibility was given to the fact that shops were running low on baby milk. We are talking about the powder tins that are processed into yummiest milk that babies are supposed to like, love and make them grow healthy.

The UK articles and newscasts showed that shops had limited the baby milk limit to one tin per customer per day. France was already dealing with this issue for some time. The reasoning behind this was the fact that shoppers were buying them on mass to sell them on eBay for staggering profit margins. The interesting part now is that this group has grown into the Netherlands as well, and they now have an issue too.

There the story becomes slightly hilarious. This is what the Dutch Minister Ploumen of foreign trade had to say “Het is natuurlijk prachtig om te horen dat Nederlandse producten geliefd zijn in China, dat is goed voor de werkgelegenheid in ons land. Buitenlandse handel biedt binnenlandse banen. Maar daarentegen kan dit niet ten koste gaan van de Nederlandse moeders en vaders die tegen lege schappen aanlopen” [translation: “It is excellent to hear that Dutch products are desired in China, this is good for Dutch labour opportunities. However, this should not go at the expense of Dutch fathers and mothers who see the empty shelves“]. (Source: http://www.NOS.nl).

So, we have an issue that had been sweeping the market in general for several months. Which is interesting as Nutricia, the Dutch producer who has a world famous reputation for chocolate milk is one of them. They currently have a growing market with spiking needs in excess of 50%. In a time with low economy and overall downsized retails. The minister of foreign trade is talking about empty shelves. But I do agree that this is both a fact and an issue, but is it his?

This hilarious part is that when researching this I found that the Dutch laws have been focussing on different sides of import, especially grey import. This is however an export issue, and so far it seems that the Dutch trade is only outspoken (in a slightly complex way) when it comes to the export of medicines. I did find statements in regards to anti-dumping, that dumping is not an illegal act, which is a discussion for another day.

The interesting side is the lack (as seen at present) on the rules for export. As other nations all have their own rules for import, the export seems to be open to promote trade as much as possible, which makes perfect sense. So it seems that the Minister Ploumen speech of empty shelves is limited to this as there as limitations of export seems to be missing. (There are exceptions as there are clear rules for exporting weapons and medicine).

Except for the few who were quick enough to use the eBay option to sell these packages quickly, this rage of exports is set to people (especially Chinese), who buy these products and mail them to relatives and friends in China. All this based on the baby milk issues within China when their milk was contaminated with the deadly substance Melamine. This initial issue had been reported in 2008 and that had resulted in large numbers of sick baby’s with some fatalities. It is interesting that these levels of mistrust are still an issue now in 2013. Even though there was a call for censorship to prevent larger issues of emerging unrest, I did not find any clear evidence that new baby milk issues emerged, other than the still existing waves of lack of confidence in the local created products.

So considering the facts that these issues have been plaguing the EU since last October, there are two issues to consider.

The first is the question is why the producers did not raise quota needed to fill the shop shelves? It seems extremely unlikely that the producers over 3 nations cannot meet the additional amounts. As I never had to consider this food group, it took a little while to get into the brands. Interesting is that as part of the dozens of brands a sizeable amount refers to: Nestle, Nutricia, Nutripharm and Farleys. Yet, I am not aware of the processes and the amounts that can be produced. So consider that these are the EU’s big four, what is stopping them to increase production? I know that it is unlikely that we just increase the speed of the production line. This is depending on a lot more factors. It is however interesting that these big boys cannot meet demands. It is not certain whether they are working on 24 hour shift solutions, yet three nations, all plagued with employment rate issues and in times of a downsized economy the one product everybody wants, no one can get. So why are we concerned with export legislation at present? (at least in the Netherlands).

You see, this is all about the Chinese import issue. If they start stopping this import then they might be one step away from some serious civil war issues (as most people get REAL cranky when their children are being endangered). If they decide to stop this on quality reasoning, why are they doing this? Their own producers seemed to have endangered their own children. To their defence, at present this seems to be linked to low consumer confidence, not linked to any actual issues at present.

The second issue is about the future. I can agree that the Chinese would prefer joint-venture solutions, yet at present that solution seems unlikely to do anything short term considering the Chinese low confidence in their own products. I agree with any nation that it does not like to depend its future generation on an import issue. That solution reads like little Hans Brinker putting his finger in a dyke whilst 200 meters downwards the dyke is gone, it is very counter-productive. If we care about the population then the Chinese are much better up opening the borders for the next 6 months and avoid optional additional issues with some clever criminal repackaging high end used tins with low end materials. Releasing the pressured need of baby milk, and then get those 4 big boys (or any of them) across the borders, each signing up to address the issues that plagued the factories and get them back on-line with confidence levels that will get the Chinese population back to their local brands. Let us be fair, opening that market seems to be a win for all and basically no one loses there.

What are the additional issues?

To me it seems that export issues are less and less arranged, and I do not think that this is a bad thing. If over regulations hurts trade, then proper actions should be taken, and most nations have decent import regulations in place, so export issues are less likely.

For the UK this is a better arranged side as they are gifted with the UK Export Control Act 2002.

Here we see a few clear options. In S4(2)(b) we read that “(2) For this purpose ‘trade controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their movement;” So this point makes it clear that export can be ‘stopped’ to some effect.

However (there is always a however) Section 1 speaks of Export controls. This states for S1(2) “For this purpose ‘export controls’, in relation to any goods, means the prohibition or regulation of their exportation from the United Kingdom or their shipment as stores.“. And in S4(4) we read that this is linked to S1, which seems to give individuals a clear pass. (Yay for individuality!)

So it seems that the UK companies have clear legislation (which might not be an issue), yet the Dutch and French legislation only seem to have stated rules and limitations when it concerns arms and medicine, beyond that if they were allowed to make it, it can basically be shipped anywhere.

Tag Archives: China

Buying cheap intelligence goods

Foreign and Domestic

Got Milk?

Recent Posts

Archives