Chinese telecoms giants are taking over the world. Should we be scared? (McClenaghan)

Posted on 08/07/2012 by Juan

Maeve McClenaghan writes at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:|

Huawei is not yet a household name in the UK – for one thing, there is confusion over how to pronounce it – but the Chinese telecommunications giant is spreading its reach around the world. But accompanying its global expansion are worrying whispers of covert surveillance and espionage.

This year Huawei’s revenues overtook that of its competitor Ericsson, making it the world’s largest supplier of telecoms equipment. The Economist sets out to chart the rise of the behemoth, and explores the myths surrounding the beast.

It’s not hard to see where concerns come from. The company has close links to the government, the Economist explains, and founder Ren Zhengfei served in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) engineering corps. According to the article, some critics of the telecommunications company worry that the technology is being used as a Trojan horse, with technological ‘backdoors’ to allow China’s spooks to eavesdrop.

Even more dramatic is the suggestion that the technology could contain ‘kill switches’, allowing China to disable any Huawei system in the event of conflict.

Such worries are not just the domain of conspiracy theorists. In India the company has been called a threat to security. Meanwhile in the US the House of Representatives intelligence committee has taken a keen interest in the company, and government opposition has thwarted attempted buy-outs of US firms by the Chinese company.

One former member of the joint chiefs of staff tells the Economist: ‘We’d be crazy to let Huawei on our networks, just crazy.’

But the Economist finds no solid evidence that such practices are going on. Indeed, the article notes, western companies are not scared of cosying up to government. A 2008 investigation by Wired found Cisco boasting to the Chinese government of its technology’s surveillance potential in cracking down on falun gong members.

And earlier this year CNet reported the FBI has proposed forcing internet companies to build backdoors allowing it to monitor social networks and online conversations. The Economist adds that American officials have also called for the installation of ‘backdoors’ in some US exports, allowing covert access to exported technologies.

To what extent, then, is this a case of sour grapes? Huawei is the new kid on the block and is already taking over the neighbourhood. It has won government contracts in Canada and New Zealand and dominates the market in Africa, where it undercut Ericsson and Nokia by 5% to 15%.

This market competitiveness may be due, in part, to subsidies from the Chinese government. Last year Huawei admitted its customers benefited from access to $30bn (£19.3bn) in potential ‘export financing’, although how much of that was used is unclear. Chinese and European officials have apparently met to try to negotiate an avoidance of a war over subsidies.

In the UK, the company is regulated by the ‘Cyber Security Evaluation Centre’, set up by Huawei and curiously located in Banbury. The centre works in collaboration with GCHQ to test networking equipment and software that will be sold in the UK. Such tests are seemingly welcomed by the company. ‘Believe no one and check everything,’ Huawei’s global cyber-security officer John Suffolk tells the Economist.

Is this enough to reassure us? The Economist article certainly sows seeds of doubt – its cover shows Huawei mobile phones towering over a cityscape, imprinted with Chinese flags and huge all-seeing eyes.

But the article doesn’t prove the company is the Orwellian monster suggested. Instead, we are shown a company playing – and winning – in the global markets. Of course the potential of such technological permeation is worrying, but without evidence of wrongdoing we cannot be sure if the monster is a legitimate threat or another imagined boogey-man under the bed.

Read the Economist’s article ‘Huawei: the company that spooked the world’ here.

++++++

Mirrored from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

0 Retweet 2 Share 0 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

On Human unity and the “Curiosity” NASA Control Room

Posted on 08/06/2012 by Juan

In this video of the NASA control room during the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, I don’t see only one race or gender. I see human beings of various shades and cultures and both sexes, collaborating in a project far beyond the atmosphere of our home planet. (3:13 in is the explosion of delight). In fact, the control room reminded me a little of the 1966 deck of the Star Trek Enterprise, and I’m sure Gene Rodenberry would be jumping up and down for joy along with them.

We humans have common achievements every day. No technology we use in our daily life has been developed by only one sort of human being. The medical procedures and inventions that save our lives are invented by all kinds of people, and the physicians who deploy them are likewise diverse.

Why can’t we erupt in joy together more often, as that control room did, in celebration of the wonder of human beings’ achievement of unprecedented insights into our universe?

0 Retweet 4 Share 18 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

White Terrorism at Oak Creek: The Paranoid Style in American Violence

Posted on 08/06/2012 by Juan

We still have only rumors about Wade Michael Page, the gunman who walked into a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin near Milwaukee and opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon (weapons that should be illegal) on men women and children beginning to gather for a day of worship, singing and feasting. He killed 6 Americans and critically wounded 3 others, including a Wisconsin policeman kneeling to help one of the Sikh victims. Others were more lightly wounded and went to ordinary hospitals rather than to the trauma unit.

Page is said to have served in the military, discharged for misconduct in 1998.

He is said to have had a 9/11 tattoo.

He was in a white supremacist punk band, “End Apathy.”

He likely thought he was targeting American Muslims. He operated in an atmosphere of virulent hate speech against American Muslims. A discourse of Islamophobia has plagued the United States in the past decade, pushed by unscrupulous bigots in public life and by entire media organizations such as Fox Cable News and other media properties of billionaire yellow press lord Rupert Murdoch. Among them is also Rush Limbaugh, who, incredibly, is still broadcast to US soldiers abroad.

Among the hatemongers are Frank Gaffney, and his acolyte Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn), Rep. Peter King (R-NY) Daniel Pipes, James Woolsey, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, John Bolton, and sometimes Rudi Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and others, most associated with the Republican Party. The push for hate speech against American Muslims is funded by a small group of billionaires through their foundations. Some of the Muslim-haters are connected to the US arms industry and are hoping for profits from further wars in the Middle East. Others are Israel-firster fanatics. Others are looking for a bogey man to scare Americans with, so as to convince them to vote against their interests, as they used Communism during the Cold War to convince ordinary Americans to give up their constitutional rights.

It is legitimate to criticize Muslim organizations and parties, and to work against violent groups like al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda is a tiny fringe religious-nationalist movement; far fewer Muslims have been involved in it than white southerners have been involved in the Ku Klux Klan. Nevertheless, American politicians at least implicitly attempted to tar all Muslims with its brush. Like anti-Semitism, racist anti-Muslim discourse has illegitimate properties. It shouldn’t be acceptable to attribute to Muslims a vast general conspiracy. It shouldn’t be acceptable to assert that they are all dishonest and lying about their real beliefs. It shouldn’t be acceptable to lie and allege that they believe in casually murdering non-Muslims. Their religious law, or sharia, shouldn’t be demonized more than the Talmud or Roman Catholic canon law. It shouldn’t be acceptable to accuse them all of waging jihad or holy war.

Since many in the hate-the-Muslims network are closely associated with the campaign of Mitt Romney, reporters should ask Romney again whether he is willing to repudiate this kind of hate speech.

As in Norway, where the Muslim-hating network (fostered also by hateful web sites like “Gates of Vienna,” “Elders of Ziyon,” and a host of others) deeply influenced mass murderer Anders Breivik, so in the United States the purveying of a negative image of Muslims predictably has resulted in violence. In Norway, Breivik targeted what he called liberals soft on the alleged Muslim menace. In the US, Wade targeted people he thought looked like Muslims, the Sikhs. (Actually I don’t know any American Muslims who wear turbans, as observant Sikh men do, but Hollywood stereotypes die hard). As always, hatemongering never only affects the objects of hatred. It distorts and wounds the people who promote it, and it usually spills over onto society in general. Neoconservative anti-Muslim bigots are usually indirectly also promoting anti-Semitism in the long term.

Did Michele Bachmann, Peter King, Daniel Pipes and the others cause the Wisconsin shootings? No. Did they create an intellectual and cultural atmosphere that naturalized such violence against the supposed Other? Well, Bachmann publicly alleged that a minor aide to Hillary Clinton of Pakistani heritage is at the center of a vast infiltration of the American government by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. You decide.

The image emerging of Page is emblematic of America in the past decade and a half. We are a violent country infested by dangerous semi-automatic weapons. Not only do we have far more murders, and especially murders by firearm, than other societies with advanced economies, but we launch far more wars than other such countries, and spend more than the next 20 advanced countries combined on our war industry. The mindset of frontier warriors taming the encircling savages, which goes back to early American history and, later, the legends of the Old West, informs both domestic attitudes and foreign policy. George W. Bush actually talked about the “romance” of fighting the Pushtuns of Afghanistan.

The US mass media suspected that the shooter actually intended to massacre Muslims, and some unfortunately referred to the temple attendees as “innocent,” as though a mosque congregation would not have been equally innocent.

Sikhism is a north Indian religion that began with ecstatic worship of a generally monotheistic sort some 500 years ago in India. It is an independent religion whose adherents say its scriptures are divinely revealed. As a historian I’m bound to say that it grows out of the cultural mix of Hinduism, Bhakti (ecstatic popular worship), and Sufi Islam (Muslim mysticism) of Mughal India in the early modern period). It is specially associated with the Punjab region of India (and what is now Pakistan). Sikhs say there are some half a million adherents in the United States, though sociologists assert that the figure is more like 100,000. Sikhs are just wonderful people, and a person’s heart is shredded at the idea of this horrible atrocity committed against them.

Sikhs have tall too often been targeted by perpetrators of hate crimes in the US.

The characteristics rumored of the shooter mirror the worst of America in the Bush era and after. The Muslim-hating political discourse, already discussed, was pioneered by Karl Rove in 2006.

As for a mistaken target, the United States government attacked Iraq in 2003 after an insidious propaganda campaign that falsely attributed the September 11, 2001 attacks to the government of Saddam Hussein (a conspiracy theory pushed with special ferocity by then Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, other Neoconservatives tied to the Israeli right wing, and by vice president Dick Cheney). There was never any credible evidence linking Iraq to 9/11 and I said so repeatedly and publicly in 2002 and early 2003. In fact, al-Qaeda was fostered in the 1980s by the United States and its regional allies as a way of pushing the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan.

Paranoid “revenge” on Iraq to the extent that some US soldiers in the illegal invasion actually wore pictures of the Twin Towers, the building destroyed by the al-Qaeda hijackers, on their backpacks. I showed in my Engaging the Muslim World that in fact Saddam Hussein was afraid of al-Qaeda and had put out an all points bulletin for a suspected al-Qaeda operative who was rumored to be in Iraq in summer of 2002.

The crazed US invasion of Iraq set off social turmoil that has left tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and the country still a basket case nine years later. Thousands of Americans were plunged into a quixotic attempt to occupy an Arab Muslim country, forced in many cases into acts of brutality against Iraqi civilians that continue to haunt them. Large numbers of Americans who served in Iraq suffer Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. As the fruitless war ground on, the US army became desperate for recruits, and allegedly increasingly let in members of biker gangs and criminal elements, latter-day Pages. It is horrible to contemplate that our own government, which is terrified of a few Occupy Wall Street hippies, happily gave advanced weapons training and battlefield experience to criminals and white supremacists so as to put down the Iraqi resistance to foreign occupation.

The violence, hatred, paranoia and racism that courses in the subterranean depths of the American psyche has played out on the world stage in the past decade, but also in countless small acts of bigotry and maliciousness at home, as with Rep. Peter King’s hearings on the alleged radicalization of the American Muslim community (an IRA supporter himself, has he had any hearings on the radicalization of white people?) and the campaigns by Evangelical politicians to condemn Muslim canon law or sharia or to prevent Muslims from building mosques and worshiping freely.

That we are all victims of this campaign of hate is eloquently underlined by what happened at Oak Creek.

0 Retweet 14 Share 119 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 32 Comments

58 Murders by firearms a year in Britain, 8,775 in US (Oak Creek Reprint Edn.)

Posted on 08/06/2012 by Juan

Updated

Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)

Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2 (equivalent to 10 US murders).

For more on murder by firearms in Britain, see the BBC.

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita.

Do hunters really need semi-automatic AR-15 assault weapons? Is that how they roll in deer season? The US public doesn’t think so.

*British crime statistics are September to September, so 2011 is actually 2010-2011.

0 Retweet 1 Share 24 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Your Telephone is Spying on You: Talk Amongst Yourselves (Hickman and Rajagopalan)

Posted on 08/05/2012 by Juan

Blair Hickman and Megha Rajagopalan write at ProPublica

Your cell phone tracks where you go and what you do, revealing details about your life that can prove quite valuable to the government and companies. Last week, we asked you to sound off on whether or not this smartphone surveillance bothers you – and what, if anything, we should do about it.

Here are some of our favorite responses, along with commentary from our reporter Megha Rajagopalan. (Some comments have been edited for length.)

Jim

My privacy is important enough to me that I do not have a smartphone. I only carry a cell phone (no data capability) for work, and then only when I am working. It stays home when I am out, otherwise.

Megha: Jim, after we published the article, lots of people made this same comment to me (including my mom, who chastised me for upgrading to a smartphone). But actually, it doesn’t help you that much to have a phone without a data plan. Cell phone companies collect location data from cell towers — which all cell phones use — and that data can be analyzed or turned over to police just like GPS data from a smartphone.

Plus, industry experts told us that location data from cell towers can be almost as precise as GPS, particularly in population dense urban areas. So really, the only way to be 100% sure you’re not being tracked is to throw that phone out or take out the battery.

John

I don’t have a cellphone (other than a prepaid someone insisted I “needed,” which sits in a cabinet), but it’s because it doesn’t fit into my lifestyle. I don’t really have an interest in “being connected,” and I don’t want to carry around a gadget that needs my attention.

However, I’m still dumbfounded and horrified at how the companies and governments ignore the rights of users to be largely left alone.  That concern isn’t limited to phones, of course, since (as mentioned) the same can be said about “reward cards,” ubiquitous security cameras, and so forth.

For those wondering what the big deal is, remember Cardinal Richelieu’s famous quote:  “If you give me six sentences written by the most innocent of men, I will find something in them with which to hang them.”  Also remember the man who learned his wife was pregnant before she did, because Target sent them a congratulatory message based on her recent purchases. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Here's the article on Target.]

Now imagine what crimes can be “found” with access to your GPS history, call log, text messages, app selection, and contact list, on top of those six sentences.  Would you believe someone was innocent after seeing that they went to an ATM, then parked their next to a known drug dealer for fifteen minutes?  What if the person received a brief call from an accused terrorist?  That can’t just be a wrong number…

Now imagine that the information lands in the hands of someone who might not be entirely trustworthy.  Friends and family on the police force, for example, have told me stories of officers who used police resources to check out their kids’ dates, gather information on spouses during a divorce, and (disturbingly) outright stalk some people.  They’re not the norm, of course, but they exist. 

And those are just people who are authorized (but shouldn’t be without a warrant).  How secure is the information?  Are you sure the police computers aren’t being hacked?  Identity thieves, blackmailers, extortionists, burglars, and other unpleasant folks can surely find something useful in all that data. That makes any collection a huge target.

Megha: This is an important point. If data isn’t held securely, there’s potential for abuse even if police have best of intentions.

0 Retweet 2 Share 10 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Romney: You know things aren’t going well when…

Posted on 08/05/2012 by Juan

As for the Romney campaign, you know things aren’t going well when Rachel Maddow finds old footage of you demanding that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns for the then senate race.

Romney demanded Kennedy release his tax returns, saying the veteran senator needed to “prove he [had] nothing to hide…” and adding, “It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes…”

You know things aren’t going well when 52% of respondents in polls say that they just don’t like you personally.

You know things aren’t going well when your remarks about why Palestinians are poor are contradicted by a Palestinian billionaire.

You know things aren’t going well when your most visible billionaire superpatron is a casino mogul under investigation for alleged money-laundering.

You know things aren’t going well when economists look into your tax plan and find you are a reverse Robin Hood, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the billionaires.

You know things aren’t going well when your claims to have been a poor missionary in France are contradicted by old buddies who say you stayed in a mansion with a chef and servant.

0 Retweet 20 Share 90 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

US Drone Strikes Undermining Pakistan Democracy (Woods)

Posted on 08/05/2012 by Juan

Chris Woods writes at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism:

One of Islamabad’s most senior diplomats has told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that ongoing CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas are weakening democracy, and risk pushing people towards extremist groups.

He also claims that some factions of the US government still prefer to work with ‘just one man’ rather than a democratically-elected government, and accuses the US of ‘talking in miles’ when it comes to democracy but of ‘moving in inches.’

As High Commissioner to London, Wajid Shamsul Hasan is one of Pakistan’s top ambassadors. Now four years into his second stint in the post, he is no stranger to controversy. In an extended interview with the Bureau, Ambassador Hasan argues that US drone strikes risk significantly weakening Pakistan’s democratic institutions:

‘What has been the whole outcome of these drone attacks is, that you have rather directly or indirectly contributed to destabilizing or undermining the democratic government. Because people really make fun of the democratic government – when you pass a resolution against drone attacks in the parliament, and nothing happens. The Americans don’t listen to you, and they continue to violate your territory.’

The army too risks being seen as impotent, he warns the United States.

‘Please don’t embarrass us by violating our territory because people question why the hell we have such a huge standing army, where we spend so much on our national defence budget, when we can’t defend ourselves?’

But he accepts that Pakistan has little power to stop the strikes other than through public opinion: ‘We cannot take on the only superpower, which is all-powerful in the world at the moment. You can’t take them on. We are a small country, we are ill-equipped.’

‘I would have killed bin Laden myself’
The High Commissioner’s comments appear part of a major public relations offensive by a Pakistani government keen to see an end to the unpopular drone strikes.

On Friday Sherry Rehman, Islamabad’s ambassador to the United States, said that ‘We will seek an end to drone strikes and there will be no compromise on that.’ The heads of Pakistan’s army and ISI spy service are also lobbying Washington to allow Pakistani forces to carry out any actual strikes against terrorists based on US intelligence.

The reason, according to Ambassador Hasan, is that anti-US sentiment is reaching dangerously high levels in Pakistan because of the drones:

‘Even those who were supporting us in the border areas have now become our enemies. They say that we are partners in these crimes against the people. So they hate us as well. They hate the Americans more. If you look at the Pakistan-US relationship, we have received a lot of money from the Americans, and yet they’re the most hated country in Pakistan among the people. By and large you will hardly find anybody who will say a word in support for the United States, because of these drone attacks.’

We cannot take on the only superpower, which is all-powerful in the world at the moment. You can’t take them on. We are a small country, we are ill-equipped.’

0 Retweet 0 Share 7 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Comments