2/2/13:
BBC COVERS FOR CHINESE HACKING INTO AND
PLANTING SPYWARE IN
COMPUTER SYSTEMS OF
NEW YORK TIMES,
WALL STREET
JOURNAL,
WASHINGTON POST.
A BBC
presenter reading the
news
starts with a report
that 3 U.S. newspapers
revealed
hacking attacks on
themselves. (1) As I'm listening, I'm
waiting for her to say “China” or
“Chinese.” After
blowing smoke and drawing
verbal doodles she
finally gets
around to mentioning the attacks'
timing
being around articles about
China, like the only
evidence is that circumstantial thing. Then
she puts on some
limey dude
(the sole commentator in
the piece) to bat
away the idea
that China did it. He
says that the reason
there are “fingers
pointing at” China (this
indirect reference to the facts is as close as the BBC gets to
mentioning the facts, or “accusations,” if you prefer, but BBC
didn't even mention
accusations) is
because China
has
it in for dissidents, but “equally it could have been regular
spammers.” Spammers!
Spam is junk commercial
email. This has absolutely nothing
to do with spam. And in
fact, as the reporting by the American newspapers previously made
clear, it could not
“equally” have been spammers, or anyone else. The
BBC entirely ignored the facts presented by the NY
Times
that proves
China did it. (2)
As
the BBC
story is obviously
derived from articles the victim
newspapers
ran about the attacks, starting with the NYT,
which detailed the LINKS TO CHINA discovered by security experts they
hired, the BBC WELL KNOWS it is not mere idle, unfair
speculation that China is doing it. In the case of the NYT,
they targeted reporters and editors working in China, plus the
attacks were traced
back to Chinese
hacker groups linked to the military and using familiar Chinese
computer crime techniques and spyware. [Minutes later, NPR's
On the Media opened
with the words “Chinese cyber-attack” on NYT.]
The New
York Times didn't leave any doubt as to who attacked its computer
system for 4 months. Their article announcing the siege, which came
out on January 30, three days before the mendacious BBC
report, opens with these words:
“For
the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked the
The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting
passwords for its reporters and other employees.”
No
ambiguity or uncertainty there.
And
naturally, as the article points out, the Chinese made “efforts to
hide the source of the attacks, which investigators say is China.”
Not “suspect” or “might be” or “there are indications of.”
IS China.
The
Times also reported that the malware used is the same malware the
Chinese have used before, over and over.
And
that the attacks originated from the same computers in the same
Chinese military-front “school” that previous Chinese attacks on
U.S. military contractors have originated from.
And
that the Chinese attack on the Times stole reporters' passwords and
attempted to identify the sources for a story the Chinese rulers
didn't like, specifically the expose of big boss Wen Jiabao's greedy
family.
And
the attacks would begin at 8 am Beijing time, most days.
And
Chinese officials even threatened the Times with
“consequences” for the story. (But maybe it was just some
spammers disguised as Chinese officials and they fooled
the Times. It's a possibility, right BBC?)
The
Chinese Foreign Ministry, as always when their cyber-warfare
breaks into public view, lied through its teeth and denied it was
them, piously stated that Chinese “law” bars such things, and for
good measure waxed indignant over the “baseless”
accusations. (Actually, proven fact.) But that's exactly what
they do every time they're caught red-handed. They're nice and
consistent that way. Just as their cyber-attacks have a consistent
m.o. (Modus operandi.)
The
highly organized, persistent, sophisticated, months-long covert siege
and infiltration, which included the placing of backdoors in the
Times' system (no, BBC, “spammers” can't do all that)
started when the Times was preparing the story about how the
family of the corrupt current “prime minister” of China, Wen
Jiabao, amassed a fortune worth billions of dollars. The
attackers were specifically hunting for the sources for that story.
(For good measure the regime blocked access to the Times
website when the story came out. God forbid the Chinese people find
out the nature of the people ruling them. At least our
political masters wait until they're out of office to pile up the
wealth, and modestly limit themselves to millions, like Bill Clinton,
or hundreds of millions, like Al Gore. Or like Britain's Tony Blair's
millions.) The email accounts of the author of the Times'
stories on Wen's family, the Shanghai bureau chief, were broken into.
But no
customer data of the Times was targeted by the “spammers,”
as the BBC would call them. There was no pecuniary motive in this
4-month-long infiltration.
Furthermore,
the attack pattern matches previous attacks on U.S. corporations that
were traced back to China. These attacks originate from Chinese
schools with links to the Chinese military. The security company
Mandiant, which the Times hired to trace the assault and
provide countermeasures to, was able to specifically identify the
exact Chinese hacker unit doing the attack, one of about 20
attack groups that Mandiant monitors. This particular unit of the
Chinese cyberwar army has broken into computer systems of hundreds of
Western organizations, the Times reports. It is also tracked
by and has been traced back to China by the FBI and AT&T. (3)
These
offensive arms of Chinese cyberwarfare and repression target Tibetan
activists, dissidents, U.S. Government agencies and corporations
(especially military contractors, from whom they steal weapon
blueprints and information to make knockoff armaments; computer tech
firms like Google and Hewlett-Packard; and media companies) banks,
and governments and corporations of other nations.
You may
recall they broke into the Dalai Lama's email account, among other
such crimes.
Their
aims are quite sinister- to build up a threatening military machine
in order to neutralize U.S. military power and thus enable China to
bully and intimidate its neighbors, seize islands and undersea
oilfields it wrongly claims the rights to, ultimately invade Taiwan
or force its acquiescence to a Sino version of Anschluss (but
one unwanted by the Taiwanese); and to track, spy on, and target for
repression dissidents and anyone who resists or challenges the
oppressive rule of the Chinese “Communist” Party oligarchs, plus
attempt to neutralize people abroad who support the causes of
democracy, human rights, or Tibetan rights in China.
The
Times article reported that since 2008 the Chinese oligarchs
have been targeting reporters in order to discover their sources and
contacts and repress them.
The
Chinese are darn lucky that someone like me will never be President
of the U.S. I would have long ago ordered retaliatory cyber-attacks
on the Chinese.
But
there's an asymmetry here. What secrets do the Chinese have that are
worth stealing? The U.S. doesn't care about Chinese media sources
(which are mostly government bosses anyway), nor is their inferior
technology worth stealing. (The U.S. doesn't need the plans for a
Chinese stealth jet that's a knockoff of the U.S.' own warplanes, for
example.) I suppose one could try and ferret out embarrassing
information about their horrible system and venal rulers to make
public- but ultimately that's low-grade harassment, although it
apparently drives the Chinese oligarchs, with their emperor complexes
and deep insecurity over maintaining their illegitimate rule, to
distraction. (See what they just did to the NY Times?)
And actually wrecking Chinese computer infrastructure would
risk retaliation on the U.S. The same applies to trying to cause
physical destruction, as the U.S. and Israel have done to Iran's
nuclear centrifuges for example. The U.S. is too vulnerable to be too
aggressive in response. So the U.S. must mainly play defense.
Here we
see the weakness of the U.S. political system manifesting itself. A
Federal bill to set security standards for large corporate computer
systems was killed in Congress, because the corporations don't want
to spend the money, and don't want to submit to Federal oversight of
their systems.
And a
big reason the U.S. takes so much crap off China is that large U.S.
corporations are still high on the illusion of getting rich off of
“1.3 billion Chinese consumers.” So they keep letting their
Chinese “partners” rip-off their technology and manufacturing
know-how, after which they're forced out with their tails between
their legs. This keeps happening to Japanese and European
corporations too. The Chinese ripped off Japanese high-speed rail
patents and knowledge, they've ripped off Siemens, and on and on. GE
is handing them jet engine technology! The U.S. Government
should ban that. But it won't, because the U.S. Government is the
handmaiden of the largest U.S. corporations and basically does their
bidding. But you better pack your toothbrush for a stay in Federal
prison if you try to send some radios to Cuba or socks to Iran or
coloring books to Palestinians. That's not an exaggeration either. (4)
Which is
why someone like me could never be President of the U.S. I would
never be a corporate gigolo, hence I am unqualified to be President.
Literally unqualified by the operative if unspoken requirements of
the job. Not that I'm unhappy about it. If I were a politician
it would bother me.
Of
course, all these attacks are heavy felonies under Federal law. The
U.S. Government just drove Aaron Swartz to suicide using those laws.
Mere “unauthorized access” to a computer is a serious felony
carrying a long prison term. The U.S. consistently uses computer
“crime” laws to go after dissidents who challenge its power.
But
don't expect the U.S. to indict any Chinese computer aggressors
working for the Chinese military, nuch less those who ordered the
attacks. No doubt the top rulers of China have violated U.S.
conspiracy laws in arranging the attacks, at a minimum. China is
powerful, and Western dissidents who resist U.S. oppression and
secrecy are weak. The U.S. goes after the weak and vulnerable, not
the powerful.
That's a
pretty good definition of a bully. And a coward.
But to
be “fair,” that could apply to many ruling classes. The ones with
courage are few and far between. And not necessarily admirable. Those
willing to defy the powerful can be righteous, like Ecuador's
President Rafael Correa going to bat for Julian Assange and granting
him political asylum (the U.S. of course wants to assassinate or
imprison Assange, so Correa better watch for any bullseyes the CIA
has pinned onto his own back), or evil, like Qaddafi of Libya, who
wasn't shy about sticking his thumb into the eyes of Western powers,
or Saddam Hussein, whose megalomania, hubris, and lack of judgment
has been a two-decades-long disaster for his country, Iraq. And on
the other hand, there were plenty of American generals straining at
the leash to launch a nuclear holocaust on the Soviet Union right up
into the 1960s. But they were insane.
But why
would the BBC, the main fount of UK Government propaganda, want to
run interference for Chinese attacks on the U.S.? Is this a
passive-aggressive expression of UK resentment at being the U.S.'
poodle? Or are they trying to ingratiate themselves with China? Or
both? Or something else? Of course, the British even barely made a
peep over the Chinese murder of a British businessman in China by the
wife of Bo Xilai, the recently imprisoned former Chinese provincial
lord. (5) That's not a courtesy the Russians got when they murdered
the exiled Alexander Litvinenko in Britain. Maybe it depends on where
you murder a British citizen. (Litvinenko had been granted British
citizenship a few weeks before his murder. He worked with British
intelligence.)
You
better ask the BBC to explain themselves. That's their job,
not mine.
Of
course, these are the same creeps that provided facilities for the
formerly “beloved” freak Jimmy Savile to molest children, then
killed an expose about his career as a pedophile, and instead ran not
one but three puff piece programs celebrating him after his
death, and then made up for it by falsely accusing a Tory
politician of molestation. And then lied and obfuscated about who
does what in the BBC and who knew what. But just to make it all
ironic, the NY Times' boss, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., went and
hired the former boss of the BBC, who claims to be totally in the
dark about it all, for a top executive post at the Times.
Sounds like he'll make a great manager there. Either he's completely
clueless and inept or completely dishonest and ethics-free. Evidence
indicates the latter.
1)
Bloomberg News was also attacked
after publishing an
article in June 2012
about the wealth amassed
by the family of then “vice president” of China Xi Jinping.
They're really
touchy about people
finding out how rich
they are, these “communists.” They really need to stop wrecking
the word communist
and call themselves something else. How about “greedy oligarchs”?
2) “Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months,” New York Times, Jan. 30, 2013.
3)
The Times
reports that the Symantec antivirus software they had installed on
their network only caught one
of 45 custom malware programs the Chinese had surreptitiously planted
in their system. Another good reason not to pay for antivirus
software- use the free versions from AVG, or avast!, or others.
4)
I should mention in passing that China is not a total loss for U.S.
corporations. McDonald's and Yum Brands are doing well in China, and
Hollywood has pried open the door a crack- the Chinese allow a small
number of cinemas to show a few censored versions of Hollywood
shlock. And more significantly, the U.S. corporate system does
benefit from China's cheap labor, allowing it to order up consumer
products on the cheap and sell them for fat markups to consumers
outside China. And since China is then stuck with lots of U.S.
dollars from the resulting trade surplus, the Chinese government then
buys U.S. Treasury securities to subsidize U.S. budget deficits. But
that is really bookkeeping. The Fed could create money and give it to
the Treasury to “pay its bills.” We just heard that the Treasury
could mint a trillion dollar coin and “deposit” it in its
“account” at the Fed. The real bottom line is that Chinese
workers are serfs making goods for U.S. “consumers,” while
simultaneously hurting U.S. “workers” by helping drive down wages
in the U.S. Notice that to separate people into somewhat artificial
categories of workers and consumers is a misleading
trick of “economics.” Try “consuming” without money, and try
getting money without employment or being dependent on an employee.
Yes, there are also “entrepreneurs,” owners, and “professionals,”
most of whom “work” in some sense of that word.
