Tonight Apple will produce its first-ever live event streamed to the iPhone: a concert by the electronica band Underworld. Apple has apparently kept the event quiet as it doesn’t want to overwhelm the AT&T network, but if you have an iPhone you can queue it up yourself at iphone.akamai.com or underworldlive.com. The show starts at 9 p.m. PT and the stream is free.
Apple in June released its own HTTP streaming protocol which uses adaptive bitrates to deliver a continuous smooth stream in varying network conditions. The intent of the technology is to optimize for difficult environments — like when a lot of people want to watch something at the same time, as in a live event, or when a watcher’s bandwidth cuts out, which often happens on a mobile phone. So tonight’s show should be a good test.
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Early Assessment of the elimination of Taliban commander Mehsud by Walid Phares
As reports are confirming the elimination of Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, including Pakistani sources to al Jazeera, a growing debate is widening in the international media about the "value" of that event. Some analyses are using terms such as "turning point," while other are describing it as "lethal hit against Pakistan's Taliban." Evidently, authorities in Pakistan and the United States are logically rejoicing for the fact that a tough foe is gone. Intelligence estimates will soon tell how important what that successful drone and what would the field consequences be in the next weeks, months and maybe a year or two.
But it is important that the expert community help the public and decision makers in making a fair and accurate assessment of the event with the correct understanding of the value of the tactics employed on the Pakistan's front with the Taliban; but also one should suggest that no excesses should be projected in over estimating the impact on the "war." As the discussion is ongoing in the media and inside Government circles, following are eight points of assessment to be considered:
1. Tactically, the elimination of Baitullah Mehsud, as the direct commander of the Taliban terror networks is a real field victory for Pakistan's Government and, in perspective, a payback for the assassination of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Moreover, the vanishing of Mehsud can create conditions for progress of Pakistan's forces in south Waziristan, only for a short period of time and if Islamabad can mobilize enough popular support for the next stage of engagement against the Taliban.
2. It is also a victory to the global US intelligence and an indicator to current and future successful strikes via the technology employed by American deployment out of Afghanistan. It adds some deterrence to NATO presence in the region, but again, within limitations.
3. It will put some pressure on the Taliban and also on al Qaeda inside Pakistan, and psychological pressure on the Taliban inside Afghanistan.
4. It could ease some past tensions between US and Pakistan military authorities regarding the use of missiles and drone attacks against Taliban, across the borders; but it will not transform the current discrete cooperation into a NATO like open collaboration.
However, on the other hand.
A. We know almost for sure that the Taliban will select a new leader who will replace Mehsud. They may well select or add later a member of his own clan, family or entourage. The assessment will be made by the "war room" of the Jihadists in the region. In short, undoubtedly the Taliban campaign will continue.
B. Also one has to be ready that Taliban Pakistan, or their allies inside the country (and they have many) may try to assassinate important figures inside Pakistan, in retaliation.
C. Hence the elimination of Baitullah Mehsud is a tactical turning point that could be used to provoke more crumbling, but the window is very short.
D. Jihadi media and some al Jazeera commentators say his elimination will affect but not crumble the Taliban.
But it is important that the expert community help the public and decision makers in making a fair and accurate assessment of the event with the correct understanding of the value of the tactics employed on the Pakistan's front with the Taliban; but also one should suggest that no excesses should be projected in over estimating the impact on the "war." As the discussion is ongoing in the media and inside Government circles, following are eight points of assessment to be considered:
1. Tactically, the elimination of Baitullah Mehsud, as the direct commander of the Taliban terror networks is a real field victory for Pakistan's Government and, in perspective, a payback for the assassination of slain former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Moreover, the vanishing of Mehsud can create conditions for progress of Pakistan's forces in south Waziristan, only for a short period of time and if Islamabad can mobilize enough popular support for the next stage of engagement against the Taliban.
2. It is also a victory to the global US intelligence and an indicator to current and future successful strikes via the technology employed by American deployment out of Afghanistan. It adds some deterrence to NATO presence in the region, but again, within limitations.
3. It will put some pressure on the Taliban and also on al Qaeda inside Pakistan, and psychological pressure on the Taliban inside Afghanistan.
4. It could ease some past tensions between US and Pakistan military authorities regarding the use of missiles and drone attacks against Taliban, across the borders; but it will not transform the current discrete cooperation into a NATO like open collaboration.
However, on the other hand.
A. We know almost for sure that the Taliban will select a new leader who will replace Mehsud. They may well select or add later a member of his own clan, family or entourage. The assessment will be made by the "war room" of the Jihadists in the region. In short, undoubtedly the Taliban campaign will continue.
B. Also one has to be ready that Taliban Pakistan, or their allies inside the country (and they have many) may try to assassinate important figures inside Pakistan, in retaliation.
C. Hence the elimination of Baitullah Mehsud is a tactical turning point that could be used to provoke more crumbling, but the window is very short.
D. Jihadi media and some al Jazeera commentators say his elimination will affect but not crumble the Taliban.
Reality Contradicts New Hamas Spin by Matthew Levitt and Stephanie Papa
In recent interviews, Hamas leader Khaled Mashal has offered to cooperate with U.S. efforts to promote a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, indicated a willingness to implement an immediate and reciprocal ceasefire with Israel, and stated that the militant group would accept and respect a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the conciliatory tone of this hardline Hamas leader, who has personally been tied to acts of terrorism and is himself a U.S.-designated terrorist, is belied by the group's continued violent actions and radicalization on the ground, as well as the rise to prominence of violent extremist leaders within the group's local Shura (consultative) councils. Hamas's activities of late appear to be diametrically opposed to the compliance of Mashal's statements.
Continued Terrorist Activities
Despite talk of a ceasefire and pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Hamas's military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, continues to engage in terrorist activities. Shooting attacks are still common along the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, including the firing of rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells. In late July, two Qassam Brigades operatives were killed in a "work accident" while placing explosives along the border fence near the al-Buraij refugee camp in central Gaza. A few days later, Israeli defense officials revealed that Hamas has been digging tunnels -- often used by the group to smuggle weapons and conduct kidnapping operations -- next to UN facilities, including one near a UN school in Bait Hanun that had recently collapsed. The placement of the tunnels near UN facilities was purportedly intended as a preventive measure against an Israeli attempt to destroy the tunnels.
Meanwhile, over the past several months, Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have seized at least $8.5 million in cash from arrested Hamas members who plotted to kill Fatah-affiliated government officials. Palestinian officials reported that some of the accused had "recently purchased homes adjacent to government and military installations, mainly in the city of Nablus" for the purpose of observing the movements of government and security officials. Security forces also seized uniforms of several Palestinian security forces from the accused Hamas members.
Radicalizing Palestinian Society
For Hamas, mutating the predominantly ethno-political Palestinian national struggle into a fundamentally religious conflict is critical to the group's ideology and its continued ability to inspire Palestinians to reject compromise or peaceful solutions to the conflict. Recently, Hamas embarked on a large public relations campaign using culture and the arts to glorify violence and demonize Israel. In a telling example, Hamas produced a feature-length film in 2009 that celebrated the life of Emad Akel, a leading Hamas terrorist who was killed by Israeli troops in 1993. Written by hardline Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, Emad Akel was first screened in July 2009 at the Islamic University in Gaza City and described by Hamas interior minister in Gaza Fathi Hamad as the first production of "Hamaswood instead of Hollywood."
In addition, despite Mashal's statements, Hamas's continues its campaign of radicalization targeting Palestinian youth. This summer, more than 120,000 Palestinian children attended Hamas-run summer camps that focused not only on Islamic teachings, but also on "semi-military training with toy guns." Hamas campers recently staged a play reenacting the Gilad Shalit abduction before an audience that included Hamas officials such as Usama Mazini and Sheikh Ahmad Bahar. For Hamas leaders like Bahar, this is business as usual. In July 2003, a Hamas camp run by Bahar, the al-Aqsa Intifada Martyrs Summer Camp, conducted classes in radical Islam that exposed campers to images of suicide bombers plastered on the camp's walls. As explained by Bahar, teaching children the history of Islam while surrounding them with pictures of martyrs instills "seeds of hate against Israel."
Exposing Palestinian children to such radical messages at a young age has been a tactic employed not only in recreational institutions but also in schools. In 2001, the Islamic Society (al-Jamiyah al-Islamiyah) in Gaza held a graduation ceremony for the 1,650 children who attend its forty-one kindergartens. Photographs of the ceremony show young, uniformly dressed children carrying mock rifles. In the photos, a five-year-old girl dips her hands in red paint to mimic the bloodied hands Palestinians proudly displayed after the lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah, and another child, dressed as Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, is surrounded by other children costumed as suicide bombers. Hamas does not keep its reason for these ceremonies a secret. After his capture, Hamas activist Ibrahim Abd al-Fatah Shubaka told Israeli authorities that the Islamic Charitable Association in Hebron maintains two orphanages and schools that "instill the pupils with Hamas values, and their graduates include operational Hamas activists."
Militants Elected to Leadership Positions
Hamas's ongoing radical activities are particularly apparent in its willingness to place its most militant members in positions of power. This year, Hamas's local Shura councils held elections to determine who would move into leadership positions. Three local councils under the aegis of the Majlis al-Shura, the group's overarching political and decisionmaking body in Damascus, represent Gaza, the West Bank, and Hamas members in Israeli prisons. This last council completed a five-month-long election process in July 2009 that resulted in the appointment of Yahya al-Sinwar, described as the founder of a Hamas security agency who is serving a life sentence, as president of the prison Shura council. Many other Hamas operatives involved in terrorist activities were placed as council members, including:
• Abbas al-Sayyed, the mastermind of the March 2002 Park Hotel suicide bombing that killed 29 people and left 155 seriously wounded. In Tulkarm, he was both an overt Hamas political leader and the covert leader of the Qassam Brigades terrorist cell.
• Salah al-Arouri, a founder of the Qassam Brigades in the West Bank, who served as both a recruiter and commander for Hamas terrorist cells. Al-Arouri received thousands of dollars for weapons procurement from Hamas operatives in the United States, such as key financier Mohammed Salah, and provided additional thousands to Hamas terrorists for weapons to conduct attacks.
• Abd-al-Khaliq al-Natsheh, Hamas's spokesman in Hebron, where he reportedly was the interlocutor between Hamas members who wanted to carry out suicide attacks and the leaders of Hamas terror cells within the Qassam Brigades. He was also responsible for an extensive terrorist infrastructure in Hebron which planned and executed many attacks in Israel, including the April 2002 Adora attack and the June 2002 Karmey attack.
Other Hamas terrorist wing operatives elected to political positions reportedly include Sheikh Jamal Abu-al-Hayja, a commander in the Janin Camp battle; Jihad Yaghmur, a man responsible for Israeli soldier Nachshon Faxman's abduction in 1994; and Muhammad Jamal al-Natsheh, a deputy in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).
These elections are a clear continuation of Hamas's efforts to bring terrorist leaders to the foreground. In the August 2008 elections for Gaza's Shura council, for example, Hamas hardliners dominated as well.
Conclusion
Hamas's tactical flexibility should not be mistaken for strategic change. Even in his recent interviews, Mashal was clear that Hamas has not rejected terrorism, but has put it on hold due to current circumstances. "Not targeting civilians," Mashal explained, "is part of an evaluation of the movement to serve the people's interests. Firing these rockets is a method and not the goal." In the context of discussing the sharp drop in Hamas rockets fired at Israeli civilian population centers, Mashal added, "The right to resist the occupation is a legitimate right, but practicing this right is decided by the leadership within the movement."
Even as Hamas advances its public-relations blitz for tactical gains, the group continues to advance its strategic goals through ongoing terrorist activities, robust radicalization, and the election of militant hardliners to leadership positions. Until Mashal's softened political statements are matched by parallel changes on the ground, his rhetoric amounts to little more than empty words crafted for Western consumption.
Continued Terrorist Activities
Despite talk of a ceasefire and pursuit of a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Hamas's military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, continues to engage in terrorist activities. Shooting attacks are still common along the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, including the firing of rocket-propelled grenades and mortar shells. In late July, two Qassam Brigades operatives were killed in a "work accident" while placing explosives along the border fence near the al-Buraij refugee camp in central Gaza. A few days later, Israeli defense officials revealed that Hamas has been digging tunnels -- often used by the group to smuggle weapons and conduct kidnapping operations -- next to UN facilities, including one near a UN school in Bait Hanun that had recently collapsed. The placement of the tunnels near UN facilities was purportedly intended as a preventive measure against an Israeli attempt to destroy the tunnels.
Meanwhile, over the past several months, Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have seized at least $8.5 million in cash from arrested Hamas members who plotted to kill Fatah-affiliated government officials. Palestinian officials reported that some of the accused had "recently purchased homes adjacent to government and military installations, mainly in the city of Nablus" for the purpose of observing the movements of government and security officials. Security forces also seized uniforms of several Palestinian security forces from the accused Hamas members.
Radicalizing Palestinian Society
For Hamas, mutating the predominantly ethno-political Palestinian national struggle into a fundamentally religious conflict is critical to the group's ideology and its continued ability to inspire Palestinians to reject compromise or peaceful solutions to the conflict. Recently, Hamas embarked on a large public relations campaign using culture and the arts to glorify violence and demonize Israel. In a telling example, Hamas produced a feature-length film in 2009 that celebrated the life of Emad Akel, a leading Hamas terrorist who was killed by Israeli troops in 1993. Written by hardline Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, Emad Akel was first screened in July 2009 at the Islamic University in Gaza City and described by Hamas interior minister in Gaza Fathi Hamad as the first production of "Hamaswood instead of Hollywood."
In addition, despite Mashal's statements, Hamas's continues its campaign of radicalization targeting Palestinian youth. This summer, more than 120,000 Palestinian children attended Hamas-run summer camps that focused not only on Islamic teachings, but also on "semi-military training with toy guns." Hamas campers recently staged a play reenacting the Gilad Shalit abduction before an audience that included Hamas officials such as Usama Mazini and Sheikh Ahmad Bahar. For Hamas leaders like Bahar, this is business as usual. In July 2003, a Hamas camp run by Bahar, the al-Aqsa Intifada Martyrs Summer Camp, conducted classes in radical Islam that exposed campers to images of suicide bombers plastered on the camp's walls. As explained by Bahar, teaching children the history of Islam while surrounding them with pictures of martyrs instills "seeds of hate against Israel."
Exposing Palestinian children to such radical messages at a young age has been a tactic employed not only in recreational institutions but also in schools. In 2001, the Islamic Society (al-Jamiyah al-Islamiyah) in Gaza held a graduation ceremony for the 1,650 children who attend its forty-one kindergartens. Photographs of the ceremony show young, uniformly dressed children carrying mock rifles. In the photos, a five-year-old girl dips her hands in red paint to mimic the bloodied hands Palestinians proudly displayed after the lynching of two Israelis in Ramallah, and another child, dressed as Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, is surrounded by other children costumed as suicide bombers. Hamas does not keep its reason for these ceremonies a secret. After his capture, Hamas activist Ibrahim Abd al-Fatah Shubaka told Israeli authorities that the Islamic Charitable Association in Hebron maintains two orphanages and schools that "instill the pupils with Hamas values, and their graduates include operational Hamas activists."
Militants Elected to Leadership Positions
Hamas's ongoing radical activities are particularly apparent in its willingness to place its most militant members in positions of power. This year, Hamas's local Shura councils held elections to determine who would move into leadership positions. Three local councils under the aegis of the Majlis al-Shura, the group's overarching political and decisionmaking body in Damascus, represent Gaza, the West Bank, and Hamas members in Israeli prisons. This last council completed a five-month-long election process in July 2009 that resulted in the appointment of Yahya al-Sinwar, described as the founder of a Hamas security agency who is serving a life sentence, as president of the prison Shura council. Many other Hamas operatives involved in terrorist activities were placed as council members, including:
• Abbas al-Sayyed, the mastermind of the March 2002 Park Hotel suicide bombing that killed 29 people and left 155 seriously wounded. In Tulkarm, he was both an overt Hamas political leader and the covert leader of the Qassam Brigades terrorist cell.
• Salah al-Arouri, a founder of the Qassam Brigades in the West Bank, who served as both a recruiter and commander for Hamas terrorist cells. Al-Arouri received thousands of dollars for weapons procurement from Hamas operatives in the United States, such as key financier Mohammed Salah, and provided additional thousands to Hamas terrorists for weapons to conduct attacks.
• Abd-al-Khaliq al-Natsheh, Hamas's spokesman in Hebron, where he reportedly was the interlocutor between Hamas members who wanted to carry out suicide attacks and the leaders of Hamas terror cells within the Qassam Brigades. He was also responsible for an extensive terrorist infrastructure in Hebron which planned and executed many attacks in Israel, including the April 2002 Adora attack and the June 2002 Karmey attack.
Other Hamas terrorist wing operatives elected to political positions reportedly include Sheikh Jamal Abu-al-Hayja, a commander in the Janin Camp battle; Jihad Yaghmur, a man responsible for Israeli soldier Nachshon Faxman's abduction in 1994; and Muhammad Jamal al-Natsheh, a deputy in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).
These elections are a clear continuation of Hamas's efforts to bring terrorist leaders to the foreground. In the August 2008 elections for Gaza's Shura council, for example, Hamas hardliners dominated as well.
Conclusion
Hamas's tactical flexibility should not be mistaken for strategic change. Even in his recent interviews, Mashal was clear that Hamas has not rejected terrorism, but has put it on hold due to current circumstances. "Not targeting civilians," Mashal explained, "is part of an evaluation of the movement to serve the people's interests. Firing these rockets is a method and not the goal." In the context of discussing the sharp drop in Hamas rockets fired at Israeli civilian population centers, Mashal added, "The right to resist the occupation is a legitimate right, but practicing this right is decided by the leadership within the movement."
Even as Hamas advances its public-relations blitz for tactical gains, the group continues to advance its strategic goals through ongoing terrorist activities, robust radicalization, and the election of militant hardliners to leadership positions. Until Mashal's softened political statements are matched by parallel changes on the ground, his rhetoric amounts to little more than empty words crafted for Western consumption.
Friday, August 07, 2009
The Changing Language on Terrorism and the Challenges Ahead by Douglas Farah
Today’s Washington Post gives an interesting look at how the Obama administration will be redefining the fight against terrorism, as well as changing the language used.
Two things seem clear. One is that the “war on terror” designation, never very useful in my opinion, has been retired. The other is that there will be much less identifying of terrorism with radical Islam, and more generic phrases like “violent extremists” will be much more in use.
Identifying who the enemy is by a name that identifies his/her reason for action is more useful. Certainly not all Muslims are terrorists nor is all terrorism driven by an interpretation of Islam. But Islamists justify their actions in a particular, theologically coherent way that makes them identifiable. That group has carried out most of the worst attacks on the United States in the past decade, and so is an identifiable cohort of actors.
Regardless of how one identifies terrorists, the idea is to use more tools in the U.S. government tool box to combat terrorism, something that is important going forward. What seems to be lacking at this point is a clear articulation of what U.S. strategic interests are and how these multiple tools will be used. Maybe that will be forthcoming when the policy itself is unveiled.
“It needs to be much more than a kinetic effort, an intelligence, law enforcement effort. It has to be much more comprehensive,” said John Brennan, Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, who will address the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Thursday. “This is not a ‘war on terror.’ . . . We cannot let the terror prism guide how we’re going to interact and be involved in different parts of the world.”
That is true, but it is hard to decipher what that will mean. One of the key places where the new strategy will be tested is in Somalia, where Secretary Clinton has met with the provisional leadership and promised increased support. But so far the promises seem to involve only ammunition and logistical support and somewhat vague and unfulfillable promises to sanction Eritrea for support of al Shabaab in Somalia.
So, what would the new policy change in Somalia? To me, that is a key question because it would force the administration to really articulate what it means. How would the other tools beyond military support be deployed, and to what end? That is the question that needs to be asked all across Africa, particularly, but also Latin America. The idea sounds good (and is good) but the implementation is what will actually define it.
The current discussion is not taking place in a vacuum. I have long told U.S. military audiences that the military has been pushed into too many new jobs for which it is not the best qualified, a premise that many active duty officers agree with.
But the problem has been that few other government agencies can and will go to the places the military will, either with J-Cets or other types of deployments. Given that, the resources have shifted to the military, making it harder for other parts of the government (State, USAID etc.) to do more because their resource base has not grown. So there is a downward cycle. Without resources they cannot or will not participate, and without participation they cannot get resources allocated.
How that resource allocation piece is redesigned will be key. But there has to be an over-arching policy architecture that guides the resource allocation, the types of engagement and to what end. The Bush administration struggled mightily with this with little success and only at the end of its time. For Obama to move beyond that, he will need more than a new vocabulary. He will have to find where the tools fit and what they can be used for, and that is a much harder task.
Australia: Down Under Jihad? by Walid Phares
Every time a liberal democracy was targeted by jihadi terror; from 9/11, Madrid's trains, London's subways, Holland's Van Gogh assassination, to all other terror-related arrests in France, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark, a similar question was repeated senselessly: "Why do they hate us?"
Unfortunately in all of these Western societies, the political debate about the root causes and future of jihadi violence failed to answer this seminal question. Furthermore, a stunningly compromised expertise failed its governments by dragging authorities into chronic misinterpretation of what is happening and what to do about it. One more time, the experiment is repeating itself in Australia. Here is why:
As in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other Western democracies, law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies have been efficient in monitoring the threat, swift in responding and lucky in uprooting networks planning terror. With the exceptions of the first strikes of 2001 in New York, 2004 in Madrid and 2005 in London, police and security teams have been able to stop the plots before they are executed; knock on wood so far. But these law enforcement heroes are operating under the aegis of questionable government strategies, or rather non-strategies, with dramatic consequences. The latest arrests made in Melbourne, Australia, are another example.
Thanks to a massive counterterrorism operation with multiple raids throughout the state of Victoria, four Australian citizens of Somali and Lebanese heritage were arrested at dawn. Police and agencies executed 19 search warrants, which resulted in the stopping of a plot to launch a suicide attack in Melbourne, a la Mumbai, on an army base. Nayef el Sayyed, Saney Edow Aweys, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, Yacqub Khayre, and Abdirahman Ahmed, aged between 22 and 26, were arrested and charged with preparing a terrorist attack on the Holsworthy army base in southwest Sydney. Other suspects were under arrest already, one accordingly was cooperating. More arrests could be made.
Authorities said the operation "disrupted a terrorist attack that could have claimed many lives." Australian officials were concerned that a Somali jihadist had obtained a "fatwa" (religious edict) from Somalia calling for attacks in the country within weeks. It is believed that at least two of the conspirators have links to Somali Shabab al-Jihad, a group with ties to al-Qaida. Australia was lucky to have aborted the strike. But more ominous is the bigger picture.
Australia, regardless of Somali and Lebanese connections in this particular operation, is on the al-Qaida international list of Kuffar (infidel) countries to be hit; and Canberra must realize that is part of the jihadi campaign against democracies; even though its current government is dismantling the so-called "war on terror," linguistically.
Jihadi ideology and strategies cannot be changed or affected by the wishful thinking of their victims. That is what Washington, London, and the rest of the partners in the so-called "overseas contingency operations” are learning day after day from Waziristan to North Carolina. Australia's new school of thinking on the confrontation, emulating U.S. and U.K. "new" doctrines, argues that by not pinpointing the ideology of the threat, it will just go away, or at least it would be sidelined.
Almost a month before the August arrests, Attorney General Robert McClelland launched "project lexicon," a study on the "language surrounding terrorism." As argued by British and American experts before, the Australian report found that "several of the words or phrases used to describe terrorism had the inadvertent effect of glorifying violent criminal behavior." It added that "rather than framing terrorism as a struggle by describing it as a "war" or "jihad", acts of terror should be described as serious criminal acts usually directed at innocent civilians."
Obviously, the Australian report, as with its Western cousins, fell into the trap of the jihadi war of ideas aiming at confusing and mitigating democracies by taking out their main weapon against the jihadists: to expose their ideology and rally the counter jihadist Muslims.
The evidence to such failure in identifying the threat came few weeks later as agencies were arresting people in their early 20s. As we saw in Georgia in the U.S., and in Birmingham in the U.K., a lexicon banning clear words only contributes to the defeat of democracies. For such wrong analysis is responsible for legitimizing jihadism in the eyes of indoctrinated youth. Naturally, if jihadism is not exposed, jihadi ideologues and cadrescan operate freely and in full legitimacy to further recruit.
Worse, by banning the use of extremely important terms, these medieval-like lexicons terminate the ability of analysts, let alone the public, to detect the "threat." The West in general, and Australia in particular, will unfortunately continue to experience the catastrophic effects of blurring their own vision, as most seasoned experts in jihadism believe the plots we have already uncovered are only the beginning.
Why did Australia’s government insist on inflicting its country to further risks of radicalization? Not only did it create a lexicon to confuse its law enforcement and public, but just one day before the arrests of the Salafi jihadists, the Australian Communications and Media Authority handed the jihadi Khomeinists a propaganda victory. Hezbollah TV, banned in the U.S. and in some European countries, was granted a license to broadcast. Al Manar, funded by the Iranian regime, promotes suicide bombings. Its capacity to produce jihadist minds is by far superior to the radical sheiks of Somalia and their fatwas.
The question is not why the jihadists are thrusting through the last safe Western society, but it is why Australia's policy makers are being duped by their experts.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Feed Them Against Hunger…And May God Protect Them! by Tariq Alhomayed
In Gaza, men cannot walk along the beach bare-chested, shop owners are requested to hide mannequins, summer camps for children are being discouraged based on the pretext of free mixing between the sexes, and cafes and Christian symbols are being targeted. In fact it has reached such a level that an explosion went off at a wedding party based on the claim that music is haram [prohibited in Islam].
In Iraq – where the government is boasting democracy “of which the neighbouring countries are jealous” in the words of some Iraqis who visited Washington recently – the government is seeking to tighten control of the internet and to censor books in order to protect society.
In Sudan – which escaped one crisis only to enter another – there has been major uproar for the sake of protecting Islamic morals. The matter reached the level of confrontation and clashes and all because a female journalist wore a pair of trousers!
This all took place, of course, in the name of religion and the protection of society in three different parts of our Islamic world where people are already suffering a great deal from poverty, crime and violence, and political crises that threatens each country and its people.
The war of virtue raged in the face of the Gazan people, a large number of whom live in unenclosed areas without shelter, and yet their men are demanded in the morning not to walk bare-chested along the beach in order to protect the religion and Islamic values. Such values should have been protected the day Hamas broke the vow it made in front of the Kaaba!
As for Iraq, despite the fact that the country is facing numerous problems from terrorism and sectarianism, to the destruction caused by drought and the threat of its entire agriculture, let alone the fact that electricity generation in Iraq is at risk of being stopped, the government decided it would spend money on imposing censorship of the internet and returning to the culture of Saddam Hussein’s era rather than supporting the culture of the constitution and democracy, in which there are freedoms and creativity.
In the case of Sudan, it is already threatened by division, and is experiencing very difficult challenges, and the matter has gone so far that the Khartoum government is begging the Americans to lift the sanctions imposed on it. Instead of confronting those challenges and making life easier for its people, the battle [Sudan is engaging in] today is targeting citizens based on the pretext of imposing Islamic morals.
These are issues we only see in our Arab world, and this is what concerns us today, as people are being oppressed and are being denied security and a dignified life, and yet are demanded to protect morals and values. This is not right; security, stability and morality come as part of a set package that is indivisible.
The role of the government – any government – can be summarized in the following Quranic verse: ‘Feed them against hunger, and give them security against fear.’ If man finds dignity, security and a good education of course, then he himself will become the protector of morals and values, and he will be the one to develop this protection, not only in his own country but in any place that he lives.
If societies become secure and educated and have something to fear for, i.e. security and dignified lives, then they will strive towards doing their best to preserve those gains, and morals and values. Therefore the role of the government is to improve administration for the sake of providing security and a dignified life, not to interfere in people’s private lives under any pretext.
For that reason we say: feed them against hunger…and may God protect them!
In Iraq – where the government is boasting democracy “of which the neighbouring countries are jealous” in the words of some Iraqis who visited Washington recently – the government is seeking to tighten control of the internet and to censor books in order to protect society.
In Sudan – which escaped one crisis only to enter another – there has been major uproar for the sake of protecting Islamic morals. The matter reached the level of confrontation and clashes and all because a female journalist wore a pair of trousers!
This all took place, of course, in the name of religion and the protection of society in three different parts of our Islamic world where people are already suffering a great deal from poverty, crime and violence, and political crises that threatens each country and its people.
The war of virtue raged in the face of the Gazan people, a large number of whom live in unenclosed areas without shelter, and yet their men are demanded in the morning not to walk bare-chested along the beach in order to protect the religion and Islamic values. Such values should have been protected the day Hamas broke the vow it made in front of the Kaaba!
As for Iraq, despite the fact that the country is facing numerous problems from terrorism and sectarianism, to the destruction caused by drought and the threat of its entire agriculture, let alone the fact that electricity generation in Iraq is at risk of being stopped, the government decided it would spend money on imposing censorship of the internet and returning to the culture of Saddam Hussein’s era rather than supporting the culture of the constitution and democracy, in which there are freedoms and creativity.
In the case of Sudan, it is already threatened by division, and is experiencing very difficult challenges, and the matter has gone so far that the Khartoum government is begging the Americans to lift the sanctions imposed on it. Instead of confronting those challenges and making life easier for its people, the battle [Sudan is engaging in] today is targeting citizens based on the pretext of imposing Islamic morals.
These are issues we only see in our Arab world, and this is what concerns us today, as people are being oppressed and are being denied security and a dignified life, and yet are demanded to protect morals and values. This is not right; security, stability and morality come as part of a set package that is indivisible.
The role of the government – any government – can be summarized in the following Quranic verse: ‘Feed them against hunger, and give them security against fear.’ If man finds dignity, security and a good education of course, then he himself will become the protector of morals and values, and he will be the one to develop this protection, not only in his own country but in any place that he lives.
If societies become secure and educated and have something to fear for, i.e. security and dignified lives, then they will strive towards doing their best to preserve those gains, and morals and values. Therefore the role of the government is to improve administration for the sake of providing security and a dignified life, not to interfere in people’s private lives under any pretext.
For that reason we say: feed them against hunger…and may God protect them!
Is Islam > First Amendment at the State Department? by Bill West
This is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment deals with the first sixteen words. Congress is prohibited from making laws respecting the establishment of religion or the “free exercise” thereof. This is the core of America’s separation of church and state doctrine. While the wording of the Amendment specifies Congress, Supreme Court decisions have, over the years, included Executive Branch agencies of government in the prohibition, since Congress controls the funding of those agencies. Additionally, the 14th Amendment (equal protection) and related court decisions have applied this prohibition to the States. Essentially, no branch of government is supposed to be involved in establishing, favoring or promoting any particular religion. Such activities would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has reported extensively about the ongoing case of the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a Minnesota public charter school that is run by the Muslim American Society (MAS) and appears to function as an Islamic sectarian school. Those reports may be viewed here, here, here and here. This is one current example of Islam being allowed to encroach into the public domain at taxpayer expense.
But TIZA is not the only example. The Federal government is also pursuing programs, with public funding allocated by Congress, that clearly favor the religion of Islam. Among these efforts are programs conducted by the US Department of State (DOS). The IPT reported on DOS aligning itself with known Islamists who publicly support radical and even terrorist elements within the US and abroad. This program involved DOS funding and oversight for two Palestinian television crews to come to the US to create documentaries related to “life of Muslims in America.” As part of this effort, the Palestinian “TV crew will conduct interviews with local Muslim leaders and individuals, visit Muslim institutions and organizations...”. Quite arguably, this program involves DOS expending taxpayer money to highlight and favor Islam.
Seemingly at odds with this pro-Islam posture is a report in the Washington Post on July 30 that identifies a long-running rift between the US Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency within DOS, and the Inspector General’s Office (OIG) for USAID. This rift relates to proposed USAID programs that would support, highlight and enhance Islamic organizations and other Muslim concerns. USAID OIG and agency attorneys took the position that such programs would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In the Washington Post report, there is this quote from the USAID legal counsel:
"...the legal test goes beyond that to [include] endorsement of religion, indoctrination of religions, excessive entanglement with religion. We have to try to accomplish our secular purpose while still not violating these legal principles."
This is a clear statement of a legal position that USAID will not engage in programs that include “endorsement of religion, indoctrination of religion, excessive entanglement of religion.”
This legal posture by USAID attorneys apparently does not transfer to other DOS organizations. Effective June 23, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Farah Anwar Pandith to the position of “Special Representative to Muslim Communities.” The DOS website section related to Pandith states this as the mission of her office:
“Her office is responsible for executing Secretary Clinton’s vision for engagement with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organizational level. She reports directly to the Secretary of State.”
There are no similar Special Representatives for Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or other religious communities.
On July 9, the Secretary of State’s office issued a cable to US embassies and consular posts around the world. The subject of this cable was “PUBLIC DIPLOMACY RESOURCES FOR RAMADAN 2009.” Ramadan is one of Islam’s most important religious observances that takes place during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. Ramadan celebrates the time when, according to Islam, the Quran was revealed to the prophet Muhammad. The DOS cable directs that the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) “has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts' outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. This cable highlights these tools and requests Posts to report on use of IIP programs and products for Ramadan programming to Regional Bureau PD offices and IIP Geographic Office Directors.” Further, “Post should refer to local religious authorities to confirm dates.”
The DOS cable describes numerous “tools” developed by the IIP for State Department posts and personnel to utilize during Ramadan. These include books, power point presentations, essays, posters and speakers related to Islam in America, mosques in America, Muslim life in America, “building on faith” (Islam) in America and similar topics.
There do not appear to be similar religious outreach programs within the Department of State for Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or any other religious group. It is clear the US Department of State, particularly at the senior levels, has an institutional affinity for Islam and Muslims. Legal officers within at least one division of DOS have raised serious Establishment Clause concerns about governmental programs with a religious focus. However, it appears no less than the Secretary of State has decided to ignore those concerns.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment deals with the first sixteen words. Congress is prohibited from making laws respecting the establishment of religion or the “free exercise” thereof. This is the core of America’s separation of church and state doctrine. While the wording of the Amendment specifies Congress, Supreme Court decisions have, over the years, included Executive Branch agencies of government in the prohibition, since Congress controls the funding of those agencies. Additionally, the 14th Amendment (equal protection) and related court decisions have applied this prohibition to the States. Essentially, no branch of government is supposed to be involved in establishing, favoring or promoting any particular religion. Such activities would be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) has reported extensively about the ongoing case of the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a Minnesota public charter school that is run by the Muslim American Society (MAS) and appears to function as an Islamic sectarian school. Those reports may be viewed here, here, here and here. This is one current example of Islam being allowed to encroach into the public domain at taxpayer expense.
But TIZA is not the only example. The Federal government is also pursuing programs, with public funding allocated by Congress, that clearly favor the religion of Islam. Among these efforts are programs conducted by the US Department of State (DOS). The IPT reported on DOS aligning itself with known Islamists who publicly support radical and even terrorist elements within the US and abroad. This program involved DOS funding and oversight for two Palestinian television crews to come to the US to create documentaries related to “life of Muslims in America.” As part of this effort, the Palestinian “TV crew will conduct interviews with local Muslim leaders and individuals, visit Muslim institutions and organizations...”. Quite arguably, this program involves DOS expending taxpayer money to highlight and favor Islam.
Seemingly at odds with this pro-Islam posture is a report in the Washington Post on July 30 that identifies a long-running rift between the US Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency within DOS, and the Inspector General’s Office (OIG) for USAID. This rift relates to proposed USAID programs that would support, highlight and enhance Islamic organizations and other Muslim concerns. USAID OIG and agency attorneys took the position that such programs would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. In the Washington Post report, there is this quote from the USAID legal counsel:
"...the legal test goes beyond that to [include] endorsement of religion, indoctrination of religions, excessive entanglement with religion. We have to try to accomplish our secular purpose while still not violating these legal principles."
This is a clear statement of a legal position that USAID will not engage in programs that include “endorsement of religion, indoctrination of religion, excessive entanglement of religion.”
This legal posture by USAID attorneys apparently does not transfer to other DOS organizations. Effective June 23, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Farah Anwar Pandith to the position of “Special Representative to Muslim Communities.” The DOS website section related to Pandith states this as the mission of her office:
“Her office is responsible for executing Secretary Clinton’s vision for engagement with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organizational level. She reports directly to the Secretary of State.”
There are no similar Special Representatives for Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or other religious communities.
On July 9, the Secretary of State’s office issued a cable to US embassies and consular posts around the world. The subject of this cable was “PUBLIC DIPLOMACY RESOURCES FOR RAMADAN 2009.” Ramadan is one of Islam’s most important religious observances that takes place during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. Ramadan celebrates the time when, according to Islam, the Quran was revealed to the prophet Muhammad. The DOS cable directs that the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) “has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts' outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. This cable highlights these tools and requests Posts to report on use of IIP programs and products for Ramadan programming to Regional Bureau PD offices and IIP Geographic Office Directors.” Further, “Post should refer to local religious authorities to confirm dates.”
The DOS cable describes numerous “tools” developed by the IIP for State Department posts and personnel to utilize during Ramadan. These include books, power point presentations, essays, posters and speakers related to Islam in America, mosques in America, Muslim life in America, “building on faith” (Islam) in America and similar topics.
There do not appear to be similar religious outreach programs within the Department of State for Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or any other religious group. It is clear the US Department of State, particularly at the senior levels, has an institutional affinity for Islam and Muslims. Legal officers within at least one division of DOS have raised serious Establishment Clause concerns about governmental programs with a religious focus. However, it appears no less than the Secretary of State has decided to ignore those concerns.
Kleiner Makes Splash with Inaugural Water Investment by Camille Ricketts
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has backed its first water-related cleantech company — a significant milestone for the firm, and a sign that the floodgates might finally open in water investing in the U.S. The lucky recipient, Applied Process Technology (APT), makes water remediation technology that removes agricultural (read: fertilizer) nitrates from well water.
Europe has been leading the pack in the water space for a while now, with the U.S. opting to focus cleantech investing on renewable energy sources, transportation applications and the smart grid. And nowhere is this more obvious that at Kleiner, whose green portfolio — now 15 startups strong — includes solar installation maker Ausra, luxury electric vehicle maker Fisker Automotive and smart grid network provider Silver Spring Networks. It has also expressed interest in fuel cells, carbon accounting and clean coal, but to a lesser extent.
Clearly, the deal with APT is a break away from business as usual — though the firm hasn’t disclosed the amount of its contribution, so it’s uncertain how serious it is about the technology yet. This is also the first major firm to take an interest in the Pleasant Hill, Calif.-based company. It previously raised $1 million, hoping for $7 million more, according to a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company itself claims it has already brought in $10.5 million in equity.
The company uses bio-film — a filtering barrier that is actually alive — to remove chemicals and nitrates from the water. It says deployment will start in California, where it hopes to address the 4,000 contaminated wells in the state’s central valley, where agriculture has taken its toll on the local environment and its populace. It distinguishes itself from other remediation companies with claims that its process doesn’t produce waste water that requires more work. And it’s already active in the market, with installations at industrial sites, petroleum terminals and utility wells.
Few firms in the same tier as Kleiner have invested in water. Mayfield Fund and Sequoia Capital don’t invest in cleantech outside of the energy space, and others seem to be slow on the uptake. It will be interesting to see if this inaugural move on Kleiner’s part changes that, and if so, how soon.
Europe has been leading the pack in the water space for a while now, with the U.S. opting to focus cleantech investing on renewable energy sources, transportation applications and the smart grid. And nowhere is this more obvious that at Kleiner, whose green portfolio — now 15 startups strong — includes solar installation maker Ausra, luxury electric vehicle maker Fisker Automotive and smart grid network provider Silver Spring Networks. It has also expressed interest in fuel cells, carbon accounting and clean coal, but to a lesser extent.
Clearly, the deal with APT is a break away from business as usual — though the firm hasn’t disclosed the amount of its contribution, so it’s uncertain how serious it is about the technology yet. This is also the first major firm to take an interest in the Pleasant Hill, Calif.-based company. It previously raised $1 million, hoping for $7 million more, according to a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company itself claims it has already brought in $10.5 million in equity.
The company uses bio-film — a filtering barrier that is actually alive — to remove chemicals and nitrates from the water. It says deployment will start in California, where it hopes to address the 4,000 contaminated wells in the state’s central valley, where agriculture has taken its toll on the local environment and its populace. It distinguishes itself from other remediation companies with claims that its process doesn’t produce waste water that requires more work. And it’s already active in the market, with installations at industrial sites, petroleum terminals and utility wells.
Few firms in the same tier as Kleiner have invested in water. Mayfield Fund and Sequoia Capital don’t invest in cleantech outside of the energy space, and others seem to be slow on the uptake. It will be interesting to see if this inaugural move on Kleiner’s part changes that, and if so, how soon.
CTO Aneesh Chopra says technology can’t be siloed in government by Kim-Mai Cutler
When U.S. government chief technology officer Aneesh Chopra first came to the White House, his Internet browser was so old, he couldn’t even access his Mint.com account. It was just one tiny piece of the mountain of infrastructure Chopra must overhaul as part of his newly created position.
Although the U.S. is leading the rest of the world in global competitiveness measures like educational attainment and IT infrastructure, its rate of change is stagnant or even negative, Chopra said at a speech at Mountain View’s Computer History Museum today. Chopra said he’s focused on advising the president on policy and how to pick the best emerging technologies and implement them in other parts of the government.
“Technology has often been viewed as a box unto itself and areas like health were treated as silos,” he said. “We have to bring in new technologies and make sure they get baked into operations.”
Chopra said he’s constantly balancing between near-term results that can be measured in 30, 60 or 90-day intervals and long-term objectives. He breaks the job into three parts: Investing in innovation, making sure there’s secure infrastructure and creating a workforce that meets 21st century needs. But it’s not about dictating whether military officers can or cannot use Twitter.
Some initial projects he’s participated in were creating a dashboard tracking the U.S. government’s $76 billion in spending on information technology and creating online and text message updates for applicants to the Citizenship and Immigration Services. He also wants to simplify the bidding process for government contracts.
“We must eat our own proverbial dog food — if it’s our goal to encourage innovation we must embrace it in our own operations,” he said. Chopra said he’d like to build a platform similar to ChallengePost or Innocentive, where the government can put up projects and people can openly bid on solving them.
Although the U.S. is leading the rest of the world in global competitiveness measures like educational attainment and IT infrastructure, its rate of change is stagnant or even negative, Chopra said at a speech at Mountain View’s Computer History Museum today. Chopra said he’s focused on advising the president on policy and how to pick the best emerging technologies and implement them in other parts of the government.
“Technology has often been viewed as a box unto itself and areas like health were treated as silos,” he said. “We have to bring in new technologies and make sure they get baked into operations.”
Chopra said he’s constantly balancing between near-term results that can be measured in 30, 60 or 90-day intervals and long-term objectives. He breaks the job into three parts: Investing in innovation, making sure there’s secure infrastructure and creating a workforce that meets 21st century needs. But it’s not about dictating whether military officers can or cannot use Twitter.
Some initial projects he’s participated in were creating a dashboard tracking the U.S. government’s $76 billion in spending on information technology and creating online and text message updates for applicants to the Citizenship and Immigration Services. He also wants to simplify the bidding process for government contracts.
“We must eat our own proverbial dog food — if it’s our goal to encourage innovation we must embrace it in our own operations,” he said. Chopra said he’d like to build a platform similar to ChallengePost or Innocentive, where the government can put up projects and people can openly bid on solving them.
The All New, Same Old Taliban? by Nushin Arbabzadah
The Taliban's new manifesto looks like an attempt to engage Afghan hearts and minds, but is it worth the paper it's written on?
They were expected to blow themselves up at polling stations. Instead the Taliban issued its fighters with a manual of conduct, cautioning them to be careful and courteous in the quest for Afghan hearts and minds. The manual is in Pashto, has over 60 pages and a copy of it was recently presented to al-Jazeera. The Arab TV station has a large international audience, and the Taliban have been successfully using the station to spread their ideas beyond Afghanistan.
Reports of the manual also coincided with news that London and Washington were ready for talks with the Taliban after the Afghan elections. The Taliban showed indifference to democracy or the upcoming election, but the timing of their manual told a different story. They were undergoing an image makeover just in time for the elections and wanted the world to know about it. The new, more presentable image was interpreted in the local media as a concession to London and Washington, allowing them to feel less embarrassed for wanting to hold talks with the "terrorist" enemy. After all, holding negotiations with the Taliban would mean that the latter had come out of this conflict as the winning side. From the point of view of many Afghans, this would mean that terrorising the nation had once again paid off, and this time, the UK and the US would become party to the process.
Afghan analysts agreed that the code of conduct signalled the Taliban leadership's intention to change their tactics and focus on winning over sceptics by displaying a more humanitarian attitude towards civilians. For example, in contrast to the Taliban's past unforgiving attitude, the manual offers people who work for the Kabul government protection in return for giving up their jobs. The manual also registers a change of attitude towards suicide attacks, permitting only those that involve important targets. Any other suicide attack is considered a waste of Muslim lives. More importantly, the manual advises Taliban fighters not to discriminate against other, non-Pashtun, ethnic groups. The Buddhas of Bamian might smile at this, were their faces still intact, but Afghan commentators singled out this point as marking a significant shift in policy. Had the manual included equality for women and followers of non-Sunni strands of Islam, the image makeover would have been complete. Afghan commentators noted that the manual resembled a constitution and its focus on fair and lawful conduct, its ban on ethnic discrimination and its condemnation of brutality certainly required the ordinary Taliban fighter to dance more in tune with global norms of political discourse. A new Taliban manifesto, then?
Not everyone is buying into the image makeover. Although the manual's core message is winning over the civilian population, its rules unwittingly reveal the Taliban's own troubles. The manual explicitly bans factionalism and the setting up of new armed groups, underlining that Mullah Omar is the movement's only legitimate leader. Similar rules also show that Taliban fighters have been taking decisions that are outside the scope of their authority, deciding over life and death, and issuing punishment without consulting religious authorities with the required expertise in Islamic law. If Kabul has trouble controlling its officials, so, it seems, do the Taliban. Brutality and corruption on both sides have alienated the civilian population whose support is now being courted by both Karzai's administration and the Taliban in time for the elections on 20 August.
Be that as it may, the question remains whether the change, like many others in Afghanistan, has taken place on paper only. The Taliban's initial reaction appeared to be in tune with their new manifesto. A recent peace accord in Badghis Province between Kabul and the Taliban allowed for voter registration to run smoothly. Elsewhere in southern and eastern Afghanistan, in a reverse of their previous policy the Taliban allowed people to register for voting cards and according to local reports, even the fighters themselves registered to vote. Sceptics saw this as a ploy, allowing the Taliban to pass themselves off as ordinary civilians with voting cards in case they were stopped and searched. But just when Afghan observers started to describe the Taliban's attitude towards the elections as something between indifference and compliant, the fighters issued a message on their website, asking Afghans not to take part in the elections. The message said that participation in the elections amounted to supporting US policies in Afghanistan and Afghans should join the Taliban's jihad instead of voting for a new president. The message marked a radical departure from the Taliban's early indifference and was followed by a bomb set off in the relatively calm city of Herat and eight rocket attacks, some of which reached the diplomatic neighbourhood in the heart of the capital.
In theory, the upcoming election is irrelevant from a Taliban point of view for three reasons. First, as Afghan analyst Wahid Mojdah pointed out in a recent article in Dari, the Taliban believe that only practicing and pious Muslims should be given the right to vote. Hence a leader chosen by a majority regardless of their religious credentials is lacking legitimacy. Second, the Taliban believe that Washington pays only lip service to democracy, failing to accept democratically elected groups such as Hamas or the Iranian government, for ideological reasons. Third, an election campaign held in a country under occupation is by definition meaningless, as the nation is not sovereign.
But still, the Taliban's early indifference is in stark contrast to this week's high-profile attacks. What triggered the change? There are a number of possibilities. The attacks might not have been carried out by the Taliban, even though they were attributed to them. To quote an Afghan jihadi figure, Sediq Chakari, "This is Afghanistan. Someone fires a rocket; it falls on something, kills some people. Who fired it or why? No one knows." The Taliban rarely deny involvement in attacks attributed to them because the attribution serves as free publicity, making them appear more powerful than they are.
But since the attacks immediately followed the Taliban's boycott message, chances are that it was their fighters who fired the rockets and planted the bomb in Herat. In that case, the Taliban might be reacting to something that has gone wrong in the ongoing negotiations with the Kabul administration. Since the negotiations are kept secret, and are being carried out without consultation with the people, it's impossible to figure out what might have gone wrong. But the fact remains that the Taliban would be economically better off if they continued their self-styled jihad.
After all, in its present conditions the Taliban has exclusive access to three lucrative sources of income – zikat or charity from international sympathisers in Gulf states and the west; drugs money, and income from kidnapping and extortion. If they join the government side and become coopted into the Kabul administration, they would lose their international supporters' donations and would have to share zikat from the US with their former enemies in the Kabul administration. The incentive for the Taliban to fight on is powerful and the additional sense of moral superiority that comes with it is a welcome bonus. With so much at stake, the Taliban is not likely to lay down its weapons.
They were expected to blow themselves up at polling stations. Instead the Taliban issued its fighters with a manual of conduct, cautioning them to be careful and courteous in the quest for Afghan hearts and minds. The manual is in Pashto, has over 60 pages and a copy of it was recently presented to al-Jazeera. The Arab TV station has a large international audience, and the Taliban have been successfully using the station to spread their ideas beyond Afghanistan.
Reports of the manual also coincided with news that London and Washington were ready for talks with the Taliban after the Afghan elections. The Taliban showed indifference to democracy or the upcoming election, but the timing of their manual told a different story. They were undergoing an image makeover just in time for the elections and wanted the world to know about it. The new, more presentable image was interpreted in the local media as a concession to London and Washington, allowing them to feel less embarrassed for wanting to hold talks with the "terrorist" enemy. After all, holding negotiations with the Taliban would mean that the latter had come out of this conflict as the winning side. From the point of view of many Afghans, this would mean that terrorising the nation had once again paid off, and this time, the UK and the US would become party to the process.
Afghan analysts agreed that the code of conduct signalled the Taliban leadership's intention to change their tactics and focus on winning over sceptics by displaying a more humanitarian attitude towards civilians. For example, in contrast to the Taliban's past unforgiving attitude, the manual offers people who work for the Kabul government protection in return for giving up their jobs. The manual also registers a change of attitude towards suicide attacks, permitting only those that involve important targets. Any other suicide attack is considered a waste of Muslim lives. More importantly, the manual advises Taliban fighters not to discriminate against other, non-Pashtun, ethnic groups. The Buddhas of Bamian might smile at this, were their faces still intact, but Afghan commentators singled out this point as marking a significant shift in policy. Had the manual included equality for women and followers of non-Sunni strands of Islam, the image makeover would have been complete. Afghan commentators noted that the manual resembled a constitution and its focus on fair and lawful conduct, its ban on ethnic discrimination and its condemnation of brutality certainly required the ordinary Taliban fighter to dance more in tune with global norms of political discourse. A new Taliban manifesto, then?
Not everyone is buying into the image makeover. Although the manual's core message is winning over the civilian population, its rules unwittingly reveal the Taliban's own troubles. The manual explicitly bans factionalism and the setting up of new armed groups, underlining that Mullah Omar is the movement's only legitimate leader. Similar rules also show that Taliban fighters have been taking decisions that are outside the scope of their authority, deciding over life and death, and issuing punishment without consulting religious authorities with the required expertise in Islamic law. If Kabul has trouble controlling its officials, so, it seems, do the Taliban. Brutality and corruption on both sides have alienated the civilian population whose support is now being courted by both Karzai's administration and the Taliban in time for the elections on 20 August.
Be that as it may, the question remains whether the change, like many others in Afghanistan, has taken place on paper only. The Taliban's initial reaction appeared to be in tune with their new manifesto. A recent peace accord in Badghis Province between Kabul and the Taliban allowed for voter registration to run smoothly. Elsewhere in southern and eastern Afghanistan, in a reverse of their previous policy the Taliban allowed people to register for voting cards and according to local reports, even the fighters themselves registered to vote. Sceptics saw this as a ploy, allowing the Taliban to pass themselves off as ordinary civilians with voting cards in case they were stopped and searched. But just when Afghan observers started to describe the Taliban's attitude towards the elections as something between indifference and compliant, the fighters issued a message on their website, asking Afghans not to take part in the elections. The message said that participation in the elections amounted to supporting US policies in Afghanistan and Afghans should join the Taliban's jihad instead of voting for a new president. The message marked a radical departure from the Taliban's early indifference and was followed by a bomb set off in the relatively calm city of Herat and eight rocket attacks, some of which reached the diplomatic neighbourhood in the heart of the capital.
In theory, the upcoming election is irrelevant from a Taliban point of view for three reasons. First, as Afghan analyst Wahid Mojdah pointed out in a recent article in Dari, the Taliban believe that only practicing and pious Muslims should be given the right to vote. Hence a leader chosen by a majority regardless of their religious credentials is lacking legitimacy. Second, the Taliban believe that Washington pays only lip service to democracy, failing to accept democratically elected groups such as Hamas or the Iranian government, for ideological reasons. Third, an election campaign held in a country under occupation is by definition meaningless, as the nation is not sovereign.
But still, the Taliban's early indifference is in stark contrast to this week's high-profile attacks. What triggered the change? There are a number of possibilities. The attacks might not have been carried out by the Taliban, even though they were attributed to them. To quote an Afghan jihadi figure, Sediq Chakari, "This is Afghanistan. Someone fires a rocket; it falls on something, kills some people. Who fired it or why? No one knows." The Taliban rarely deny involvement in attacks attributed to them because the attribution serves as free publicity, making them appear more powerful than they are.
But since the attacks immediately followed the Taliban's boycott message, chances are that it was their fighters who fired the rockets and planted the bomb in Herat. In that case, the Taliban might be reacting to something that has gone wrong in the ongoing negotiations with the Kabul administration. Since the negotiations are kept secret, and are being carried out without consultation with the people, it's impossible to figure out what might have gone wrong. But the fact remains that the Taliban would be economically better off if they continued their self-styled jihad.
After all, in its present conditions the Taliban has exclusive access to three lucrative sources of income – zikat or charity from international sympathisers in Gulf states and the west; drugs money, and income from kidnapping and extortion. If they join the government side and become coopted into the Kabul administration, they would lose their international supporters' donations and would have to share zikat from the US with their former enemies in the Kabul administration. The incentive for the Taliban to fight on is powerful and the additional sense of moral superiority that comes with it is a welcome bonus. With so much at stake, the Taliban is not likely to lay down its weapons.
Is venture capital failing to keep the security ecosystem afloat? by Dean Takahashi
Amid the 12,000-plus attendees at the Black Hat and Defcon security conferences in Las Vegas last week, it almost seemed like we were in the midst of a boom in demand for security technology. But venture capitalists who attended the security conferences were not optimistic about the ability to make a killing on security startups.
In spite of the rising threats, there aren’t that many security startups raising money. One of the reasons security tanked in the recession is that some of the biggest security customers are in the financial services business. Banks and trading firms need ironclad security and are willing to pay for it. But they pretty much shut down on expansions in the past year. That has created a fairly big leak in the security ecosystem that includes the government, big corporations, investors, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs.
Meanwhile, the bad guys are still in business. Spam is rising this year and now accounts for 92 percent of all email sent. The fundamental flaws of the Internet are hard to patch. Users are putting too much trust in the safety of social networks. Symantec now blocks more than 245 million malicious code attacks each month. It’s easier to fool users by redirecting them from good sites to bad sites. Government infrastructure such as the air traffic control system is pathetically vulnerable. The power of organized cybercrime in places such as Russia is truly frightening, McAfee executive Dmitri Alperovitch reported at Black Hat.
The theory used to be that even in hard times, companies can’t afford to cut corners on security. But that theory hasn’t really panned out. The disappointment with the first round of post 9/11 funding has probably made VCs reluctant to pour a lot more money into the category. There are still startups being formed. Becky Base, a partner at Trident Capital, talks with dozens of them a year, resulting in one or two investments. In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s investment arm, has about 10 security startups in its portfolio.
But VC investment into security software firms has steadily fallen from $893 million into 122 deals in 2004 to $564 million in 86 deals in 2008. In the first six months of 2009, VCs have put $94 million into 19 deals, according to the National Venture Capital Association. The last major security software IPO was ArcSight, which raised $50 million in February, 2008.
“Companies like Intel and Symantec went public on a fairly small amount of money,” said Pascal Levensohn, managing director at Levensohn Venture Partners. “We are at risk of losing a whole generation of these companies. There is continuing demand for security, but a declining appetite for risk.”
In security circles, compliance rules tend to drive sales. If better security technology is recommended, it often falls on deaf ears in the CEO suite. But if it’s required by law, then that’s another story, said Mark McGovern, head of the digital identity and security practice at In-Q-Tel.
With big security vendors like McAfee and Symantec dominating the landscape, the space available for startups is smaller. McGovern said that startups are often creating new features or widgets that will eventually be acquired and integrated into a larger software suite. On the hardware side, a lot of startups create an appliance to filter the network for a particular kind of problem. That kind of appliance becomes part of a larger firewall against attacks.
But Levensohn seems to think there’s still room for innovators. As the Internet infiltrates all sorts of gadgets that were once off the grid, those devices need better security. Levensohn said that providing security for energy-related infrastructure will become a good opportunity. At Black Hat, security experts warned that it was easy to compromise the security of smart meters and smart thermostats that send data to the utility company.
Levensohn also says his firm is looking into areas such as securing the supply chain for manufacturers and is on the prowl for companies that could be combined to create a stronger company.
Robert Lentz, the deputy secretary of defense for cyber matters, who spoke at the security conferences, agrees that the security ecosystem is at risk and that the country needs to marshal the same kind of enthusiasm for cybersecurity as it has for cleantech. He rattled off a long list of areas where the government needs better technology. On the high level, he believes that the entire Internet infrastructure should move to the more secure DNSSEC and IPv6 technologies — both of which are better and more secure ways to anchor the Internet. He also believes that we’ll get a big payoff from investments in automating security, reducing anonymity, better biometrics, instant damage assessments, and better consumer awareness of the risks of unsafe computing.
If startups come up with solutions for these problems, big or small, they may become acquisition targets. IBM just bought security software firm Ounce Labs. So that means there are other kinds of players out there besides just Symantec and McAfee. We heard last night that Symantec and others are investing $20 million in Lifelock.com, the company that protects consumers against identity theft.
That brings us back to the cybercrime crisis before us. Cybercrime is racing ahead of the government’s ability to catch criminals, said Peter Guerra, an analyst at Booz Allen Hamilton who gave a presentation on the cybercrime economy at Black Hat. In a three-year-long investigation of the Russian mafia, the FBI was able to arrest 56 individuals and recover 100,000 stolen credit cards. But that was just the tip of the iceberg, said McAfee’s Alperovitch. It’s only getting worse as the recession creates more incentives for the bad guys and funding for the good guys dries up.
During the recession, the price for hacking tools and the cost of renting botnets, or pools of compromised computers, has gone way down. The average price to buy a stolen credit card number or bank account password has plummeted, partly because so many are available, said Vincent Weafer, vice president of Symantec Security Response. It’s far easier to commit cybercrimes, and computer-oriented talent is having a hard time finding jobs, so the allure of cybercrime is higher, Guerra said.
To counter the bad guys, there’s plenty of need for talent at all of the companies and government bodies that need to do security research. That’s why some federal agencies are contemplating giving away a big monetary prize to those who compete best in a cybersecurity competition. Turning would-be criminal hackers into agents for the government would help blunt the cybercrime problem.
But forget about the idea of getting rich quick in the current state of the industry, Base said.
“If you aren’t in it for the passion, forget about it,” she said. “If you you’re in it for the bucks, don’t bother.
In spite of the rising threats, there aren’t that many security startups raising money. One of the reasons security tanked in the recession is that some of the biggest security customers are in the financial services business. Banks and trading firms need ironclad security and are willing to pay for it. But they pretty much shut down on expansions in the past year. That has created a fairly big leak in the security ecosystem that includes the government, big corporations, investors, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs.
Meanwhile, the bad guys are still in business. Spam is rising this year and now accounts for 92 percent of all email sent. The fundamental flaws of the Internet are hard to patch. Users are putting too much trust in the safety of social networks. Symantec now blocks more than 245 million malicious code attacks each month. It’s easier to fool users by redirecting them from good sites to bad sites. Government infrastructure such as the air traffic control system is pathetically vulnerable. The power of organized cybercrime in places such as Russia is truly frightening, McAfee executive Dmitri Alperovitch reported at Black Hat.
The theory used to be that even in hard times, companies can’t afford to cut corners on security. But that theory hasn’t really panned out. The disappointment with the first round of post 9/11 funding has probably made VCs reluctant to pour a lot more money into the category. There are still startups being formed. Becky Base, a partner at Trident Capital, talks with dozens of them a year, resulting in one or two investments. In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s investment arm, has about 10 security startups in its portfolio.
But VC investment into security software firms has steadily fallen from $893 million into 122 deals in 2004 to $564 million in 86 deals in 2008. In the first six months of 2009, VCs have put $94 million into 19 deals, according to the National Venture Capital Association. The last major security software IPO was ArcSight, which raised $50 million in February, 2008.
“Companies like Intel and Symantec went public on a fairly small amount of money,” said Pascal Levensohn, managing director at Levensohn Venture Partners. “We are at risk of losing a whole generation of these companies. There is continuing demand for security, but a declining appetite for risk.”
In security circles, compliance rules tend to drive sales. If better security technology is recommended, it often falls on deaf ears in the CEO suite. But if it’s required by law, then that’s another story, said Mark McGovern, head of the digital identity and security practice at In-Q-Tel.
With big security vendors like McAfee and Symantec dominating the landscape, the space available for startups is smaller. McGovern said that startups are often creating new features or widgets that will eventually be acquired and integrated into a larger software suite. On the hardware side, a lot of startups create an appliance to filter the network for a particular kind of problem. That kind of appliance becomes part of a larger firewall against attacks.
But Levensohn seems to think there’s still room for innovators. As the Internet infiltrates all sorts of gadgets that were once off the grid, those devices need better security. Levensohn said that providing security for energy-related infrastructure will become a good opportunity. At Black Hat, security experts warned that it was easy to compromise the security of smart meters and smart thermostats that send data to the utility company.
Levensohn also says his firm is looking into areas such as securing the supply chain for manufacturers and is on the prowl for companies that could be combined to create a stronger company.
Robert Lentz, the deputy secretary of defense for cyber matters, who spoke at the security conferences, agrees that the security ecosystem is at risk and that the country needs to marshal the same kind of enthusiasm for cybersecurity as it has for cleantech. He rattled off a long list of areas where the government needs better technology. On the high level, he believes that the entire Internet infrastructure should move to the more secure DNSSEC and IPv6 technologies — both of which are better and more secure ways to anchor the Internet. He also believes that we’ll get a big payoff from investments in automating security, reducing anonymity, better biometrics, instant damage assessments, and better consumer awareness of the risks of unsafe computing.
If startups come up with solutions for these problems, big or small, they may become acquisition targets. IBM just bought security software firm Ounce Labs. So that means there are other kinds of players out there besides just Symantec and McAfee. We heard last night that Symantec and others are investing $20 million in Lifelock.com, the company that protects consumers against identity theft.
That brings us back to the cybercrime crisis before us. Cybercrime is racing ahead of the government’s ability to catch criminals, said Peter Guerra, an analyst at Booz Allen Hamilton who gave a presentation on the cybercrime economy at Black Hat. In a three-year-long investigation of the Russian mafia, the FBI was able to arrest 56 individuals and recover 100,000 stolen credit cards. But that was just the tip of the iceberg, said McAfee’s Alperovitch. It’s only getting worse as the recession creates more incentives for the bad guys and funding for the good guys dries up.
During the recession, the price for hacking tools and the cost of renting botnets, or pools of compromised computers, has gone way down. The average price to buy a stolen credit card number or bank account password has plummeted, partly because so many are available, said Vincent Weafer, vice president of Symantec Security Response. It’s far easier to commit cybercrimes, and computer-oriented talent is having a hard time finding jobs, so the allure of cybercrime is higher, Guerra said.
To counter the bad guys, there’s plenty of need for talent at all of the companies and government bodies that need to do security research. That’s why some federal agencies are contemplating giving away a big monetary prize to those who compete best in a cybersecurity competition. Turning would-be criminal hackers into agents for the government would help blunt the cybercrime problem.
But forget about the idea of getting rich quick in the current state of the industry, Base said.
“If you aren’t in it for the passion, forget about it,” she said. “If you you’re in it for the bucks, don’t bother.
Metaio launches augmented reality platform for mobile sharing, marketing by Kim-Mai Cutler
Metaio, a German company in the burgeoning field of augmented reality, is creating a mobile platform that will let people leave and view notes or 3-D animations in places using their phones.
Augmented reality, which overlays information or animations into a live camera feed, may take off with the proliferation of smartphones. Metaio’s browser lets you leave photos, tweets or animations of 3-D characters in physical places for people to discover later using a camera-based browser. It’s also integrated with Facebook, so users can share geotagged notes with their phones.
The browser will put Metaio, which traditionally has been involved in creating one-off marketing promotions like this augmented reality Lego packaging, in more direct competition with companies like SPRXMobile and Mobilizy that have launched browsers this year. In the past, Metaio has worked one-on-one with brands to develop special advertising and if they were to extend that to the platform, they could potentially work with chains to create location-based ads that are visible in a camera viewfinder.
Business development manager Noora Guldemond says Metaio’s product will support iPhone, Google Android, Symbian and Windows Mobile phones. The company is based in Munich, Germany with 50 employees around the world and is funded by the company’s owners.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Nanoscale lasers are about to get even smaller by Dario Borghino
Scanning electron microscope image showing the semiconductor core of one of the devices. The scale bar is 1 micron.
In a collaborative effort between the Arizona State University and Technical University of Eindhoven in the Netherlands, researchers have found a way to make optical lasers much smaller than it was previously thought was possible, making dreams of speedier computers and faster Internet access closer to reality than ever before.
During the past few decades, laser technology has become ubiquitous in the world of electronics: from CD/DVD players to barcode scanners, from bloodless surgery to laser printers, the impact of this technology on our everyday life is growing at an outstanding pace. Scientists have also long realized their potential in obtaining significantly faster communication. However, in order to achieve this, we need the technology to miniaturize lasers and integrate as many as possible on a single chip.
Pushing the limits of laser miniaturization.
Only a few years ago, scientists believed the minimal dimension for a laser to be exactly one half of the wavelength involved, thus putting a strict, unbreakable 750 nanometers barrier for lasers used in optical communication, where it is common to employ a 1,500 nanometer wavelength.
But when light travels in a denser medium such as a semiconductor this limit can be further reduced to account for the material's refraction index. A refraction index expresses the relationship between the angle that a beam forms before and after propagating from one material to the other, with an effect you can easily witness whenever you put a spoon behind an half-empty glass of water.
With a refraction index of about 3.0, the minimum dimension for an optical laser can therefore be reduced from the previous 750 nanometers to about 250 nanometers. The reason that makes this possible is that light is slowed down by a factor of three when propagating within a semiconductor.
A widespread theory among scientists states that it is not possible to break the diffraction barrier, thus putting a severe limit to dreams of downscaling and integration. But researchers have recently found an interesting workaround that has disproved this previously widely accepted theory.
A metal-semiconductor sandwich will do the trick.
One way that the researchers found to effectively reduce the size of optical lasers is to employ a combination of semiconductors and metals like gold and silver. Once hit by a beam of light, in fact, the electrons that have reached an 'excited state' in metals can help confine light in a laser, further reducing the refraction limit.
The structure used by the researchers was described as a 'metal-semiconductor-metal sandwich' in which the semiconductor is as thin as 80 nanometers and lays between 20-nanometer dielectric layers. This layer, the researchers demonstrated, can emit a laser beam with the smallest thickness ever produced.
The structure, however, has worked only at cryogenic temperatures. Part of the system, though, is already fully functional at room temperatures and the next step for the team will be to achieve the same kind of light emission under normal operating temperatures.
This research also represents a major advance in nanophotonics, which entails studying the behavior of light on the nanoscale level and the building of structures and devices at that scale. Nanolasers can be used for many applications, the most promising of which are for communications on a central processing unit (CPU) of a computer chip.
The experiments are being funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Real Cyberwar: Mannes & Hendler in the Washington Times
This morning, The Washington Times ran an op-ed on cyberwar I co-wrote with my friend (and former boss) Jim Hendler. Much has been written about cyber-war, but very little of it is grounded in reality. Many over-hype the issue while others discount it completely. Much of the misinformation about cyberwar revolves around denial of services attacks, which are serious criminal activity but not much of a national security concern - we've written on this topic in the wake of Russian conflicts with Estonia and Georgia.
Here we try to inject a bit of sober and informed reason into the discussion.
Profile of a Real Cyberwar by Aaron Mannes and James Hendler
The denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that started on July 4 garnered typical headlines about cyberwar, but in fact, from a technical standpoint, those "attacks" may be the opposite of real cyberwar. A much less noticed report in Israel's leading daily, Ha'aretz, on Israel's operations against Iran's nuclear program may give greater insight into how cyberwar actually will work.
It is no secret that several countries, including the United States, China, Russia and Israel, have examined cyberwar capabilities. What those capabilities might be or how a cyberwar might look are shrouded in mystery. The denial-of-service attacks that made headlines are not it.
Those attacks are nothing more than the sending of enormous numbers of requests to servers, preventing Web sites from responding to legitimate traffic and interfering with e-mail. Competent information-technology professionals usually can mitigate these attacks, and even when successful, their impact -- from a national security standpoint -- is marginal.
The DoS attacks are carried out by botnets, thousands of compromised computers that can be commanded to simultaneously send e-mails or visit a Web site. The botnets are built using malware that attacks individual computers, often simply taking advantage of software that has not downloaded current security patches.
Computers linked to government agencies have been compromised and have become part of botnets -- but this does not necessarily have tremendous security implications. Real cyberwar may require the opposite of the skills required for the DoS attacks that make headlines.
According to the article in Ha'aretz, Israeli intelligence has sought to systematically insert malware that can damage information systems within the Iranian nuclear program. It is believed those systems are not connected to the broader Internet and that the malware is inserted into equipment sold to the Iranian government.
This is the probable future cyberwar. Modern societies are complex networks of people, information systems and equipment. Enormous advantages will be obtained by powers that can quickly identify and neutralize critical nodes within the systems.
Critical government systems are run on Intranets, networks that are separate from the Internet. The most crucial systems, such as the command-and-control system for nuclear weapons, are believed to be air-gapped -- that is, they do not link to other systems. Most government Intranets do have points at which they interface with the Internet, and Intranets have been infected with malware from the Internet. However, Intranets are relatively controlled environments, so anomalous activity (at least theoretically) can be controlled and isolated quickly.
Because compromising those networks may be crucial in a military conflict, nation-states with serious cyberwar ambitions will carefully tailor malware for specific systems. This is the opposite of the malware that builds botnets by seeking low-hanging fruit.
The most serious cases of identity theft usually involve social engineering, tricking the target to reveal crucial information that facilitates the crime. The same may be true in tailoring attacks to critical networks. Most advanced nation-states have extensive infrastructures of contractors and academics that have both public roles and contacts with the security establishment. Social-network analysis could be used to identify individuals who are likely to have contacts within the security establishment and attempt to insert malware through them.
Imagine the now ubiquitous phishing attacks masquerading as e-mail from banks and credit card companies but instead designed by sophisticated intelligence agencies and carefully targeted at small communities.
What the malware might do when it gets into a system is an open question. Chinese hackers reportedly have infiltrated computers and manipulated them to remove sensitive documents, log keystrokes and trigger Web cameras. Whether these capabilities could operate for a substantial length of time on a secure Intranet is an open question. Any malware that entered a sensitive system might have a short life span and its designers would need to consider carefully how best to use this window. Alternatively, this malware may be embedded for long periods of time and activated when needed. Options might include relaying valuable information, manipulating information, damaging the network or providing information on the real-world location of crucial network nodes so that they can be destroyed physically.
However, cyberwar capabilities cannot be used lightly. Once malware is detected, the defenders can counter it and make their system stronger and more resistant to further infiltration.
In the heat of battle, the ability to penetrate an enemy information network could be crucial. However, in the long-term dialectic of war, in which sides continually respond to one another's innovations, cyberwar will become another facet of conflict -- at times decisive and at other times peripheral. The nations that first master cyberwar could obtain a fundamental advantage at the beginning stages of a conflict. Nations that ignore cyberwar will do so at their own peril.
Here we try to inject a bit of sober and informed reason into the discussion.
Profile of a Real Cyberwar by Aaron Mannes and James Hendler
The denial-of-service (DoS) attacks that started on July 4 garnered typical headlines about cyberwar, but in fact, from a technical standpoint, those "attacks" may be the opposite of real cyberwar. A much less noticed report in Israel's leading daily, Ha'aretz, on Israel's operations against Iran's nuclear program may give greater insight into how cyberwar actually will work.
It is no secret that several countries, including the United States, China, Russia and Israel, have examined cyberwar capabilities. What those capabilities might be or how a cyberwar might look are shrouded in mystery. The denial-of-service attacks that made headlines are not it.
Those attacks are nothing more than the sending of enormous numbers of requests to servers, preventing Web sites from responding to legitimate traffic and interfering with e-mail. Competent information-technology professionals usually can mitigate these attacks, and even when successful, their impact -- from a national security standpoint -- is marginal.
The DoS attacks are carried out by botnets, thousands of compromised computers that can be commanded to simultaneously send e-mails or visit a Web site. The botnets are built using malware that attacks individual computers, often simply taking advantage of software that has not downloaded current security patches.
Computers linked to government agencies have been compromised and have become part of botnets -- but this does not necessarily have tremendous security implications. Real cyberwar may require the opposite of the skills required for the DoS attacks that make headlines.
According to the article in Ha'aretz, Israeli intelligence has sought to systematically insert malware that can damage information systems within the Iranian nuclear program. It is believed those systems are not connected to the broader Internet and that the malware is inserted into equipment sold to the Iranian government.
This is the probable future cyberwar. Modern societies are complex networks of people, information systems and equipment. Enormous advantages will be obtained by powers that can quickly identify and neutralize critical nodes within the systems.
Critical government systems are run on Intranets, networks that are separate from the Internet. The most crucial systems, such as the command-and-control system for nuclear weapons, are believed to be air-gapped -- that is, they do not link to other systems. Most government Intranets do have points at which they interface with the Internet, and Intranets have been infected with malware from the Internet. However, Intranets are relatively controlled environments, so anomalous activity (at least theoretically) can be controlled and isolated quickly.
Because compromising those networks may be crucial in a military conflict, nation-states with serious cyberwar ambitions will carefully tailor malware for specific systems. This is the opposite of the malware that builds botnets by seeking low-hanging fruit.
The most serious cases of identity theft usually involve social engineering, tricking the target to reveal crucial information that facilitates the crime. The same may be true in tailoring attacks to critical networks. Most advanced nation-states have extensive infrastructures of contractors and academics that have both public roles and contacts with the security establishment. Social-network analysis could be used to identify individuals who are likely to have contacts within the security establishment and attempt to insert malware through them.
Imagine the now ubiquitous phishing attacks masquerading as e-mail from banks and credit card companies but instead designed by sophisticated intelligence agencies and carefully targeted at small communities.
What the malware might do when it gets into a system is an open question. Chinese hackers reportedly have infiltrated computers and manipulated them to remove sensitive documents, log keystrokes and trigger Web cameras. Whether these capabilities could operate for a substantial length of time on a secure Intranet is an open question. Any malware that entered a sensitive system might have a short life span and its designers would need to consider carefully how best to use this window. Alternatively, this malware may be embedded for long periods of time and activated when needed. Options might include relaying valuable information, manipulating information, damaging the network or providing information on the real-world location of crucial network nodes so that they can be destroyed physically.
However, cyberwar capabilities cannot be used lightly. Once malware is detected, the defenders can counter it and make their system stronger and more resistant to further infiltration.
In the heat of battle, the ability to penetrate an enemy information network could be crucial. However, in the long-term dialectic of war, in which sides continually respond to one another's innovations, cyberwar will become another facet of conflict -- at times decisive and at other times peripheral. The nations that first master cyberwar could obtain a fundamental advantage at the beginning stages of a conflict. Nations that ignore cyberwar will do so at their own peril.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
If we're going to 'win' in AfPak, we're going to have to redefine our terms by Thomas Barnett
ARTICLE: The Irresistible Illusion, By Rory Stewart, London Review of Books, 9 July 2009.
Good article if you want to rethink your notion that Afghanistan was the "right war" and Iraq was the wrong one.
The capture of our interconnected logic here is good:
"Policymakers perceive Afghanistan through the categories of counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency, state-building and economic development. These categories are so closely linked that you can put them in almost any sequence or combination. You need to defeat the Taliban to build a state and you need to build a state to defeat the Taliban. There cannot be security without development, or development without security. If you have the Taliban you have terrorists, if you don't have development you have terrorists, and as Obama informed the New Yorker, 'If you have ungoverned spaces, they become havens for terrorists.'
These connections are global: in Obama's words, 'our security and prosperity depend on the security and prosperity of others.' Or, as a British foreign minister recently rephrased it, 'our security depends on their development.' Indeed, at times it seems that all these activities - building a state, defeating the Taliban, defeating al-Qaida and eliminating poverty - are the same activity. The new US army and marine corps counter-insurgency doctrine sounds like a World Bank policy document, replete with commitments to the rule of law, economic development, governance, state-building and human rights. In Obama's words, 'security and humanitarian concerns are all part of one project.'"
I fundamentally agree with all that, but as I often like to point out, the question of sequencing is everything.
I preferred going after Saddam before getting too deep on the Af-Pak border. That's why I supported the war there and have supported that sequencing decision ever since.
I saw in Saddam enough of the problems to force the evolution I felt was necessary for our forces, and it has come. I also saw enough strategic interests to force us toward that change (we couldn't afford to lose).
I did not see those things in Af-Pak and I will say I fear that a quagmire there, given our unwillingness and inability to accept that a stabilized Af-Pak won't end up looking like we want and will be subject far more to the integration pressures of its regional neighbors (Iran, China, India, Russia) than anything we can mount from afar, can still prove our complete undoing.
So I welcome the smallest definitions of success I can find, because the economic-development route, I fear, would require us to rethink our fundamental alliances in the region (to include our preferred enemies--such as Iran) in such a way that simply isn't possible right now. We are still too much in the mindset of, "it's us and NATO against the world." Obama's defense picks--even with Gates still there--are too much trapped in this perspective, I fear.
And so I think we're beginning to see in our Obama Pentagon a rising tide of thinking that wishes to reframe any debates we have with rising powers in the East more in the direction of "great games" and Mahanian struggles over the Indian Ocean, and I think such an approach is deeply misguided and certain to garner us a level of friction that will make any efforts in Af-Pak a complete waste of blood and treasure.
We have simply not yet grown up enough in our strategic understanding of the world and where it stands in its current evolution to make the changes necessary in our strategic relations to make this effort a success.
And thus I think it is likely doomed to failure because it asks too much from ourselves and our poorly committed NATO allies and imagines too little from rising powers in the region that we, in our strategic habits, prefer to cast as competitors and long-term enemies.
Good article if you want to rethink your notion that Afghanistan was the "right war" and Iraq was the wrong one.
The capture of our interconnected logic here is good:
"Policymakers perceive Afghanistan through the categories of counter-terrorism, counter-insurgency, state-building and economic development. These categories are so closely linked that you can put them in almost any sequence or combination. You need to defeat the Taliban to build a state and you need to build a state to defeat the Taliban. There cannot be security without development, or development without security. If you have the Taliban you have terrorists, if you don't have development you have terrorists, and as Obama informed the New Yorker, 'If you have ungoverned spaces, they become havens for terrorists.'
These connections are global: in Obama's words, 'our security and prosperity depend on the security and prosperity of others.' Or, as a British foreign minister recently rephrased it, 'our security depends on their development.' Indeed, at times it seems that all these activities - building a state, defeating the Taliban, defeating al-Qaida and eliminating poverty - are the same activity. The new US army and marine corps counter-insurgency doctrine sounds like a World Bank policy document, replete with commitments to the rule of law, economic development, governance, state-building and human rights. In Obama's words, 'security and humanitarian concerns are all part of one project.'"
I fundamentally agree with all that, but as I often like to point out, the question of sequencing is everything.
I preferred going after Saddam before getting too deep on the Af-Pak border. That's why I supported the war there and have supported that sequencing decision ever since.
I saw in Saddam enough of the problems to force the evolution I felt was necessary for our forces, and it has come. I also saw enough strategic interests to force us toward that change (we couldn't afford to lose).
I did not see those things in Af-Pak and I will say I fear that a quagmire there, given our unwillingness and inability to accept that a stabilized Af-Pak won't end up looking like we want and will be subject far more to the integration pressures of its regional neighbors (Iran, China, India, Russia) than anything we can mount from afar, can still prove our complete undoing.
So I welcome the smallest definitions of success I can find, because the economic-development route, I fear, would require us to rethink our fundamental alliances in the region (to include our preferred enemies--such as Iran) in such a way that simply isn't possible right now. We are still too much in the mindset of, "it's us and NATO against the world." Obama's defense picks--even with Gates still there--are too much trapped in this perspective, I fear.
And so I think we're beginning to see in our Obama Pentagon a rising tide of thinking that wishes to reframe any debates we have with rising powers in the East more in the direction of "great games" and Mahanian struggles over the Indian Ocean, and I think such an approach is deeply misguided and certain to garner us a level of friction that will make any efforts in Af-Pak a complete waste of blood and treasure.
We have simply not yet grown up enough in our strategic understanding of the world and where it stands in its current evolution to make the changes necessary in our strategic relations to make this effort a success.
And thus I think it is likely doomed to failure because it asks too much from ourselves and our poorly committed NATO allies and imagines too little from rising powers in the region that we, in our strategic habits, prefer to cast as competitors and long-term enemies.
Why a Recovery May Still Feel Like a Recession by Floyd Norris
A year ago, the American economy was in recession. Now it may be about to emerge from that downturn.
But if the economy is about to begin growing again, it will be from a very low level. The recession has produced declines far greater than in previous downturns over the past half-century. As a result, the economy may seem to be depressed even after growth resumes.
One area where that can be seen is shipments of durable goods produced by American companies. The rate of such shipments fell by more than 20 percent during this recession, and would have declined further were it not for increased production of weapons.
In no previous downturn since 1958, when the figures began being recorded, had the decline been as much as 14 percent.
The drop is all the more remarkable because such shipments rose at a relatively restrained rate in the preceding period of economic growth, particularly when military sales were excluded.
The accompanying charts show the trend in durable goods spending, for military purposes and for other shipments of durable goods, from 2000 through this June. In June, seasonally adjusted shipments for civilian purposes were 19 percent below the average monthly figure for 2000. Shipments of military items were running 123 percent above the 2000 average.
Those figures are in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation. That fact may exaggerate the trend, since prices of some durable goods, like computers, have fallen over the years.
The United States remains primarily a civilian economy. The military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000.
The charts also show just how much change there was in durable goods orders, and shipments, in the first half of 2009 compared with the first half of 2008.
Over all, shipments for nonmilitary purposes were down by 20 percent, while orders fell by 27 percent. The declines in some areas were much larger, with orders for primary metal products, like iron and steel, plunging by 44 percent. The government cannot track orders for semiconductors because Intel will not provide figures, but shipments in that category were down by a third.
Shipments of commercial aircraft and parts fell by just 7 percent, largely because there are long lead times for such orders, and that helped to keep the shipment decline lower than it would otherwise have been. But orders fell 65 percent.
Those declines are not from boom periods. By early 2008, the recession was on, and durable goods shipments were already coming down. They had peaked the previous summer, and the National Bureau of Economic Research later determined the recession began in December 2007.
In reporting the June figures this week, the Census Bureau said durable goods orders for some categories were up from the previous month, although shipments were still declining. That provided more evidence that the recession might be nearing an end. But a return to high levels of orders, or shipments, may be many months away.
But if the economy is about to begin growing again, it will be from a very low level. The recession has produced declines far greater than in previous downturns over the past half-century. As a result, the economy may seem to be depressed even after growth resumes.
One area where that can be seen is shipments of durable goods produced by American companies. The rate of such shipments fell by more than 20 percent during this recession, and would have declined further were it not for increased production of weapons.
In no previous downturn since 1958, when the figures began being recorded, had the decline been as much as 14 percent.
The drop is all the more remarkable because such shipments rose at a relatively restrained rate in the preceding period of economic growth, particularly when military sales were excluded.
The accompanying charts show the trend in durable goods spending, for military purposes and for other shipments of durable goods, from 2000 through this June. In June, seasonally adjusted shipments for civilian purposes were 19 percent below the average monthly figure for 2000. Shipments of military items were running 123 percent above the 2000 average.
Those figures are in nominal dollars, not adjusted for inflation. That fact may exaggerate the trend, since prices of some durable goods, like computers, have fallen over the years.
The United States remains primarily a civilian economy. The military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000.
The charts also show just how much change there was in durable goods orders, and shipments, in the first half of 2009 compared with the first half of 2008.
Over all, shipments for nonmilitary purposes were down by 20 percent, while orders fell by 27 percent. The declines in some areas were much larger, with orders for primary metal products, like iron and steel, plunging by 44 percent. The government cannot track orders for semiconductors because Intel will not provide figures, but shipments in that category were down by a third.
Shipments of commercial aircraft and parts fell by just 7 percent, largely because there are long lead times for such orders, and that helped to keep the shipment decline lower than it would otherwise have been. But orders fell 65 percent.
Those declines are not from boom periods. By early 2008, the recession was on, and durable goods shipments were already coming down. They had peaked the previous summer, and the National Bureau of Economic Research later determined the recession began in December 2007.
In reporting the June figures this week, the Census Bureau said durable goods orders for some categories were up from the previous month, although shipments were still declining. That provided more evidence that the recession might be nearing an end. But a return to high levels of orders, or shipments, may be many months away.
An Integrated Microfluidic Device for Large Scale in Situ Click Chemistry Screening
Summary:
An integrated microfluidic device has been developed to perform 1024 in situ click chemistry reactions in parallel using the bovine carbonic anhydrous II (bCAII) click chemistry system as a proof-of-concept study and a rapid hit identification approach using SPE purification and electrospray-ionization mass spectrometry, multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) analysis, all of which improves the sensitivity and throughput of the downstream analysis.
Scientists:
Yanju Wang, Wei-Yu Lin, Kan Liu, Rachel J. Lin, Matthias Selke, Hartmuth C. Kolb, Nangang Zhang, Xing-Zhong Zhao, Michael E. Phelps, Clifton K. F. Shen, Kym F. Faull and Hsian-Rong Tseng.
Institutions:
Crump Institute for Molecular Imaging, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 570 Westwood Plaza, building 114, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. E-mail: hrtseng@mednet.ucla.edu
Pasarow Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences and the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. E-mail: faull@chem.ucla.edu
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., 6140, Bristol Parkway, Culver City, CA 90230, USA
Department of Physics, School of Physics, Center of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China
Feed:
Received 14th April 2009 , Accepted 11th June 2009.
First published on the web 17th June 2009.
An integrated microfluidic device has been developed to perform 1024 in situ click chemistry reactions in parallel using the bovine carbonic anhydrous II (bCAII) click chemistry system as a proof-of-concept study and a rapid hit identification approach using SPE purification and electrospray-ionization mass spectrometry, multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) analysis, all of which improves the sensitivity and throughput of the downstream analysis.
Scientists:
Yanju Wang, Wei-Yu Lin, Kan Liu, Rachel J. Lin, Matthias Selke, Hartmuth C. Kolb, Nangang Zhang, Xing-Zhong Zhao, Michael E. Phelps, Clifton K. F. Shen, Kym F. Faull and Hsian-Rong Tseng.
Institutions:
Crump Institute for Molecular Imaging, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 570 Westwood Plaza, building 114, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. E-mail: hrtseng@mednet.ucla.edu
Pasarow Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences and the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. E-mail: faull@chem.ucla.edu
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., 6140, Bristol Parkway, Culver City, CA 90230, USA
Department of Physics, School of Physics, Center of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China
Feed:
Received 14th April 2009 , Accepted 11th June 2009.
First published on the web 17th June 2009.
Windows Mobile Wants In On the iPhone App Action by Pazu
I'm a developer, and I can tell: porting an iPhone app to Windows Mobile (or Android, or whatever, or the other way around for that matter) is not a trivial task.
Sure, if you have experience with multiplatform development you can make this process much less painful, but it's still far from a simple task.
All points mentioned in the article are moot:
* Language independence: while it's nice to be able to work with any language, it's not such a big deal. Any developer worth their salt should be able to pick up Objective C in a few weeks, and it is a sweet language to work with. I'd love to have garbage collection as on option, thou.
* Working on a single program: while it's true that you use a number or programs to develop for the iPhone, all those programs are very well integrated.
* Licensed libraries: Microsoft licenses additional libraries, Apple has most of these functionality built-in, for free. Some developers are also starting to distribute/sell libraries for iPhone.
* Development tools: iPhone development tools are also built into Apple's tools. For free, BTW. Visual Studio isn't exactly cheap.
* Community: iPhone developer community is huge already, and growing at a scaring pace.
All that said: WinMo (or more importantly, BB) is still an important target for corporate applications, and it's probably worth the effort to port your apps. Just don't expect anything to happen magically.
Sure, if you have experience with multiplatform development you can make this process much less painful, but it's still far from a simple task.
All points mentioned in the article are moot:
* Language independence: while it's nice to be able to work with any language, it's not such a big deal. Any developer worth their salt should be able to pick up Objective C in a few weeks, and it is a sweet language to work with. I'd love to have garbage collection as on option, thou.
* Working on a single program: while it's true that you use a number or programs to develop for the iPhone, all those programs are very well integrated.
* Licensed libraries: Microsoft licenses additional libraries, Apple has most of these functionality built-in, for free. Some developers are also starting to distribute/sell libraries for iPhone.
* Development tools: iPhone development tools are also built into Apple's tools. For free, BTW. Visual Studio isn't exactly cheap.
* Community: iPhone developer community is huge already, and growing at a scaring pace.
All that said: WinMo (or more importantly, BB) is still an important target for corporate applications, and it's probably worth the effort to port your apps. Just don't expect anything to happen magically.
Al Qaeda Under Pressure and Changing Tactics by Douglas Farah
Several seemingly-unrelated events seem to me to be important and pointing toward important new directions in the struggle against radical Islamist groups. The first is the optimistic report by CBS News that al Qaeda is publicly acknowledging the damage to its cadres caused by drone-fired Hellfire missiles.
In the communique posted online, al Qaeda leaders say “the harm is alarming, the matter is very grave,” due to the drone attacks. “So many brave commanders have been snatched away by the hands of the enemies. So many homes have been leveled with their people inside them by planes that are unheard, unseen and unknown.”
That pressure on core al Qaeda may be one of the reasons its affiliated groups have been ratcheting up their activities in other parts of the world, to show the organization is still alive and well and able to carry out attacks. Or perhaps the original core AQ strategy of spinning of large numbers of autonomous but sympathetic groups is gaining more traction.
What is clear is that the focus of attention for the new Islamist groups-either because they targeted the region or simply found room to operate there in regions that are sympathetic to Islamists and have little state control-is Sub-Saharan Africa.
The most notable resurgence of Islamist activities have been in Nigeria, where up to 700 people were killed in fighting in several northern states as the army fought the Islamist Boko Haram-the name means “Western education is sacrilege”-in a bid to eradicate the radical movement.
At the same time, Yemen is becoming a more active hub for violent Islamist activities. As the NEFA Foundation reports, U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen has issued a triumphalist statement about recent fighting between the mujahadeen and Yemeni army, claiming a great victory.
In January the Christian Science Moniotor reported that the Yemeni and Saudi branches of al Qaeda officially merged, prompting the US Director of National Intelligence to say that Yemen was “reemerging as a jihadist battleground and potential regional base of operations for Al Qaeda.”
Somali, too, continues to bubble along, with the al Shabaab movements seeking to complete its takeover of power. And Sudan, despite the ill considered and harmful statements by Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (ret) that Sudan is now going swimmingly remains a radical Islamist state bent on genocide inside its country and spreading chaos in the region.
So, while core al Qaeda may be, as Juan Zarate told CBS news, badly hurt and in worse shape than any time since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the cancer has spread to a broad range of regions outside the Af/Pak border, and is far from eradicated.
In the communique posted online, al Qaeda leaders say “the harm is alarming, the matter is very grave,” due to the drone attacks. “So many brave commanders have been snatched away by the hands of the enemies. So many homes have been leveled with their people inside them by planes that are unheard, unseen and unknown.”
That pressure on core al Qaeda may be one of the reasons its affiliated groups have been ratcheting up their activities in other parts of the world, to show the organization is still alive and well and able to carry out attacks. Or perhaps the original core AQ strategy of spinning of large numbers of autonomous but sympathetic groups is gaining more traction.
What is clear is that the focus of attention for the new Islamist groups-either because they targeted the region or simply found room to operate there in regions that are sympathetic to Islamists and have little state control-is Sub-Saharan Africa.
The most notable resurgence of Islamist activities have been in Nigeria, where up to 700 people were killed in fighting in several northern states as the army fought the Islamist Boko Haram-the name means “Western education is sacrilege”-in a bid to eradicate the radical movement.
At the same time, Yemen is becoming a more active hub for violent Islamist activities. As the NEFA Foundation reports, U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen has issued a triumphalist statement about recent fighting between the mujahadeen and Yemeni army, claiming a great victory.
In January the Christian Science Moniotor reported that the Yemeni and Saudi branches of al Qaeda officially merged, prompting the US Director of National Intelligence to say that Yemen was “reemerging as a jihadist battleground and potential regional base of operations for Al Qaeda.”
Somali, too, continues to bubble along, with the al Shabaab movements seeking to complete its takeover of power. And Sudan, despite the ill considered and harmful statements by Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration (ret) that Sudan is now going swimmingly remains a radical Islamist state bent on genocide inside its country and spreading chaos in the region.
So, while core al Qaeda may be, as Juan Zarate told CBS news, badly hurt and in worse shape than any time since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the cancer has spread to a broad range of regions outside the Af/Pak border, and is far from eradicated.
New Epidemic Fears: Hackers by Ben Worthen
The government is committing billions of dollars for technology systems that help healthcare providers share information. But making patient data more accessible has the unpleasant side effect of it potentially falling into the wrong hands.
Under the Obama administration's stimulus bill and other proposals, portions of a $29 billion fund are available to reimburse hospitals and doctors' offices that invest in electronic records systems and other software that might improve care and lower health-care costs. The government has stressed the need for increased security as part of this digitization initiative, but hasn't yet proposed mechanisms for how the data will be protected.
Now, many privacy advocates are concerned the administration's effort could end up making health information less secure. "If there isn't a concerted effort to acknowledge that the security risks are very real and very serious then we could end up doing it wrong," says Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University.
Matthew Collins
In recent years, the number of reported data breaches at healthcare organizations has soared, despite laws requiring the groups to protect patient information. In May, a hacker stole more than 500,000 patient records from a state-run database that tracks drug prescriptions in Virginia -- and then demanded a ransom to return the information. The data were backed up and the state didn't pay the ransom. That same month, the University of California disclosed that a hacker broke into a database where patient records were stored for the university health service and stole about 160,000 records.
In all, health organizations publicly disclosed 97 data breaches in 2008, up from 64 in 2007, which was more than the breaches publicly reported by financial institutions, according to the nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center. That total should jump again in 2009. California, where a new law requires health organizations to report when an unauthorized party has accessed patient data, received 823 such notifications between January and May.
The incidents include lost laptops with patient data on them, misconfigured Web sites that make confidential information public, insider theft by rogue employees, and hackers who penetrate a computer network to steal data. Sometimes, the breaches never hurt the victims; in other cases, the data are used to steal someone's identity.
"Health care is a treasure trove of personally identifiable information," says Don Jackson, a researcher at security consulting company Secure Works Inc. Most health-care organizations collect patient's names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth. Often they store payment information such as insurance and credit-card data.
Criminals can use this information to open credit-card accounts in the victim's name. Among the more nefarious crimes these breaches can lead to is medical identity theft, when someone receives health-care services using the victim's name and insurance. The Federal Trade Commission says medical fraud is involved in about 5% of all identity theft.
Randy Osteen, system director for Irving, Texas, hospital chain Christus Health, says hackers try to steal data from his company "all the time." Christus has a detailed security plan in place, he notes, including tools that ensure only authorized people can access patient records.
But many small offices and clinics that are the focal point of the government's digitization effort don't have such safeguards.
These small practices rarely have a technology professional, let alone a security specialist. These organizations "may not be as aware of the risks and the requirements for safeguarding information," says Daniel Nutkis, chief executive of Health Information Trust Alliance, an industry organization that promotes security.
As more information is shared, it is subjected to the weak-link effect. Mr. Osteen's efforts to safeguard information won't be useful if smaller providers he shares it with haven't made the same kind of security investments.
As part of the stimulus bill, the government will release guidelines over the next year for what constitutes a secure system. But even if it ultimately requires health-care organizations to use systems that can encrypt data and have other security functions, critics warn that making sure people use all of these features is more important.
"If you take a digital system and implement it in a sloppy way, it doesn't matter how good the system is," says Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, a nonprofit organization with a focus on medical identity theft. "You're going to introduce risk."
Under the Obama administration's stimulus bill and other proposals, portions of a $29 billion fund are available to reimburse hospitals and doctors' offices that invest in electronic records systems and other software that might improve care and lower health-care costs. The government has stressed the need for increased security as part of this digitization initiative, but hasn't yet proposed mechanisms for how the data will be protected.
Now, many privacy advocates are concerned the administration's effort could end up making health information less secure. "If there isn't a concerted effort to acknowledge that the security risks are very real and very serious then we could end up doing it wrong," says Avi Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University.
Matthew Collins
In recent years, the number of reported data breaches at healthcare organizations has soared, despite laws requiring the groups to protect patient information. In May, a hacker stole more than 500,000 patient records from a state-run database that tracks drug prescriptions in Virginia -- and then demanded a ransom to return the information. The data were backed up and the state didn't pay the ransom. That same month, the University of California disclosed that a hacker broke into a database where patient records were stored for the university health service and stole about 160,000 records.
In all, health organizations publicly disclosed 97 data breaches in 2008, up from 64 in 2007, which was more than the breaches publicly reported by financial institutions, according to the nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center. That total should jump again in 2009. California, where a new law requires health organizations to report when an unauthorized party has accessed patient data, received 823 such notifications between January and May.
The incidents include lost laptops with patient data on them, misconfigured Web sites that make confidential information public, insider theft by rogue employees, and hackers who penetrate a computer network to steal data. Sometimes, the breaches never hurt the victims; in other cases, the data are used to steal someone's identity.
"Health care is a treasure trove of personally identifiable information," says Don Jackson, a researcher at security consulting company Secure Works Inc. Most health-care organizations collect patient's names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth. Often they store payment information such as insurance and credit-card data.
Criminals can use this information to open credit-card accounts in the victim's name. Among the more nefarious crimes these breaches can lead to is medical identity theft, when someone receives health-care services using the victim's name and insurance. The Federal Trade Commission says medical fraud is involved in about 5% of all identity theft.
Randy Osteen, system director for Irving, Texas, hospital chain Christus Health, says hackers try to steal data from his company "all the time." Christus has a detailed security plan in place, he notes, including tools that ensure only authorized people can access patient records.
But many small offices and clinics that are the focal point of the government's digitization effort don't have such safeguards.
These small practices rarely have a technology professional, let alone a security specialist. These organizations "may not be as aware of the risks and the requirements for safeguarding information," says Daniel Nutkis, chief executive of Health Information Trust Alliance, an industry organization that promotes security.
As more information is shared, it is subjected to the weak-link effect. Mr. Osteen's efforts to safeguard information won't be useful if smaller providers he shares it with haven't made the same kind of security investments.
As part of the stimulus bill, the government will release guidelines over the next year for what constitutes a secure system. But even if it ultimately requires health-care organizations to use systems that can encrypt data and have other security functions, critics warn that making sure people use all of these features is more important.
"If you take a digital system and implement it in a sloppy way, it doesn't matter how good the system is," says Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, a nonprofit organization with a focus on medical identity theft. "You're going to introduce risk."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)