The Great Chinese Hack: Is America Vulnerable to Cyber Warfare?

On Tuesday, the New York Times revealed that a series of high-level computer hacks against American companies have been traced to a Chinese military unit in Shanghai. 

China was quick to deny the allegations, though I suppose very few people expected them to get on TV and release an admission of guilt — perhaps laden with LOLs and cat memes. The security firm Mandiant will be releasing the full 60-page report, which highlights the Chinese military's Unit 61398 and its long history of embedding itself on American networks to absorb data, passwords, and user information.  

 

Former Defense Secretary Leon Pannetta has often warned that America could soon be facing a massive cyber "Pearl Harbor" attack, which could cripple our country as a precursor to invasion. Many think this is an alarmist view that will help push cybersecurity legislation, but let’s look at what parts of our infrastructure could theoretically be affected by sophisticated attacks.

Our electric grids, gas lines, telecommunication towers, internet providers, financial systems, and news sources are all vulnerable to cyber attacks. Shutting these technologies down would be equivalent to vaulting most major cities back 100 years. Nuclear power plants, subway systems, train tracks, and air traffic control are also susceptible, and could cause mass death if manipulated into a loss of user control. Without food coming in, or efficient ways out, most cities could easily become desperate battlegrounds for survival. This would make for an ideal invasion platform, and China certainly has the troop numbers though luckily nowhere near a large enough navy to cross the Pacific.

Despite America’s relative isolation from the world, periodic attacks have managed to cross the oceans and land on our shores. In 1814, the British invaded and burned down the White House. In 1941, the Japanese air force executed a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, crippling our Navy’s Pacific mobility. On September 11, terrorists hijacked several commercial flights and destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building in D.C. But we’re past the days of troops parachuting onto our shores, fighter jet battles filling the sky, or tanks rolling through our streets. The missiles that fly across international borders are virtual.

 

As worrying as this new age of warfare may seem, we are still a long way from a cyber World War III. The simple truth is that China has far more vested interest in stealing information from us than crippling our society. By stealing our research and development, intellectual property, and corporate data, China can accelerate their homegrown industries. We built this monster with our huge outsourcing wave several years ago, and American companies have been teaching the Chinese all about our technologies for years so that they could manufacture it cheaply for us. Their knowledge has simply grown to the point where they are willing to exploit our vulnerabilities to learn more and continue their growth. There is a massive market for knock-off American goods in China, including hilarious fake Apple stores where even the employees believe they are working for Apple.

It’s been a week since President Obama issued his executive order instructing private owners of critical infrastructure to share data on cyber attacks with government officials. This is a generalized "beefing up" of online security because the alternative of going to war over these attacks is wholly unrealistic. America and China have a symbiotic relationship they manufacture cheap commodities purchased by American companies, absorbing some of our wealth; they in turn purchase government bonds absorbing American debt; and years later, when those bonds mature, they will again have a source of revenue from the American dollar. It’s a long-term marriage, and like any husband and wife there will always be some arguing, cheating, and perhaps a fleeting fantasy of smothering the other with a pillow – but we’re in it together for the long run. 

The most important thing to note is that America is not the soft target it often paints itself out to be, and certainly not on the government level. The successful STUXNET attacks against Iran’s nuclear program, charges against whistleblowers like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, as well as prosecution of freedom of information champions like Aaron Swartz all serve to highlight America’s active involvement in hacking culture. Every nation has been trying to entice, recruit, jail, or enlist any known talent in the hacking world since the great crackdowns and round-ups of the 1990s. The hacker group "Anonymous" is probably the best example of those few computer-savvy individuals who wish to work outside of the nationally defined borders.

 

The future of warfare will definitely take place online to some degree. Even drones could theoretically be hacked and turned around to attack their own country. But as much as we’d like to head to our Red Dawn bunkers and shout "Wolverines!", that future is not happening any time soon.

Marijuana Legalization: CNN tests High Driving Skills

CNN may have just posted their best piece of investigative journalism in years. In the followingvideo, three drivers of varying ages got incredibly high on marijuana and test-drove cars around a course. A driving-ed instructor accompanied them to avert any chance of an accident, and police watched from the sidelines to spot any visible 'signs' of inebriation in their movements.

The volunteers – a young daily smoker, adult weekend smoker and elder infrequent smoker – proceeded to test escalating levels of stupor against the new baseline 'legal limits' in Colorado and Washington state. They had to reach excesses of 5 times the legal limit before their ability to drive became impaired. In most cases, the danger they presented was driving too slowly or with frequent hesitations.

Although hardly scientific, this test does offer some insight into a specter which has haunted us for years: marijuana legalization. Last November, the country watched tame and good-naturedcelebrations sweep Colorado and Washington after their pro-marijuana ballot passed. The sudden and complete lack of tension between public smokers and police was wonderful to see; it was like two opposing armies finally laying arms to rest. It was as if a part of America had leapt into a progressive future, giving the rest of us a glimpse into what might be. Could anyone deny that this was a microcosm of the future most have been waiting for?

Despite resounding state level calls to end to the war on drugs, the DEA and federal government still loom overhead with murky legal gray zones. When asked by Barbara Walters what his current stance on the issue was, Obama said he would not make it a priority to go after recreational users in states that have passed legalization initiatives. This evasive, political response is to be expected: we aren’t permitting drugs, but we won’t fight the states on the issue.

Perhaps it would be too much to ask for the president to fully legalize marijuana and end an obscene prohibition that imprisons millions of Americans. But if the political PR can be ignored, it is undoubtedly the right thing to do. For now, maybe the best tactic is to keep harassing citizens federally, so they demand protection from their states and take the issue off Obama’s plate.

So back to our drivers, and the issue many mothers are now concerned about: children having a new intoxicant to afflict their driving skills. How did the 'impaired' volunteers actually do? Well at a certain point, the substance had an undeniable effect on their ability to navigate a vehicle sensibly. But they all maintained surprising control, even at incredibly excessive levels of marijuana consumption. Moreover, unlike drunk drivers, they were very much aware of their state and agreed they were not on top of their game. Without over-indulging, it seems people’s critical thinking can be trusted more with a few hits than a couple of drinks.

When it comes to marijuana in America, there's still a long road ahead to change laws, perceptions and behavior. But it's progress worth making, as long as it gets us away from misinformed stereotypes like this.

Sequestration 2013: Can We Strengthen the Military While Cutting Its Budget?

You’ll rarely hear people criticizing South Park for being outrageous, because that’s who they are! They’re the kid in the back of the classroom mimicking the teacher in a high-pitched voice, making everyone else laugh. Everybody loves that kid.

Everyone except for Fox News – he's the argumentative bully who only feels good if he’s making someone else feel bad. Fox is condescendingly arrogant and has no problem lying through his teeth to paint others in a bad light. He allies himself with strong athletes and popular wealth by proxy, ridiculing the poor kids and hiding behind the "institution's" moral shield like a good patriot. We all know that kid, and even his rich friends think he's a tool. 

Media Matters published a wonderful piece decrying a ridiculously misleading Fox News graphic, which depicts a supposed decline in America’s military spending and the looming specter of a Soviet-Chinese super army gearing up to parachute onto our lawns. This is Fox ringing the alarm bell for the pro-military crowd, trying to paint the Democrats as responsible for the sequester, and in turn, handing our future over to socialist invaders.

It will come as no surprise that Fox chose to leave out some essential facts. Measuring military spending by percentage increase is not an accurate reflection of the actual dollar amount spent. For instance, if you spend $5 on your lemonade stand one summer and then $6 dollars the next, you’ve increased your spending by 20%. Now if I spend $100 dollars on my mega bejeweled lemonade stand, and $101 the next summer, I’ve only increased spending by 1%.

That’s the reality of our military spending. It may not be increasing in large percentile margins, but it vastly overshadows the next 12 countries’ military budgets combined:

" ... the U.S. military spending accounted for 41 percent of the world's total military spending in 2011. The U.S.'s expenditure is about five times more than the second-highest spender, China, which accounted for 8.2 percent of the world total. Russia's military spending is in third place with 4.1 percent."

Now I don’t want to downplay the sequester, because if our Congress is stupid enough to let it happen, the Pentagon’s budget will be cut by a drastic and arbitrary $42.7 billion. Furthermore, to give the familiar "next 12 countries combined" factoid context, we should recognize that several countries don’t utilize their own military. Instead, they rely on American protection and policing – and as WWII showed us, perhaps it’s a good thing that every nation on Earth doesn’t have its own military force. Most of our allies feed from the garden of our military industrial complex, as do some of our supposed enemies. It’s a funnel of control that is far easier to manage than 250 separate armies.

But just like Democrats have to recognize that social security needs well-thought-out reform, Republicans need to recognize that military spending needs to undergo a "smart" restructuring. You can’t fight to preserve every military base in every state. You can’t keep churning out legions of new tanks when the Army doesn't have any use for them.

We need to recognize the real landscape of global conflicts. The U.S. Navy is the true military cornerstone of our democracy, because it controls all the trade routes of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Drones and cybersecurity are the new battlefields. Special Forces and clandestine spies are the soldiers of tomorrow. Congressmen should be fighting to ensure their states are building the bases, technologies, and educational programs necessary to contribute to the times ahead.

We need to take two steps back from our bloated defense spending, and one smart step forward to ensure our military is ahead of the curve and meeting the demands of the new world. We don't have to seek needless conflict, but rather safeguard our trade and prosperity. Our military can either be an outdated symbol of imperialistic oppression, or a modernized force for peace and economic stability. If we outthink and outbuild our enemies, we strengthen our ideals and inspire other nations to follow in our footsteps. 

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Christopher Dorner: Will Killings Finally Spark Debate On State Of Police Force?

I don’t envy the life of a police officer. Those brave few who put on a uniform everyday to protect and serve innocent citizens are surrounded by an unsympathetic public, violent criminals, desperate victims, bloodthirsty lawyers, and the daily possibility of being killed on duty. It is an unfathomable burden and responsibility, and all too often officers who display great fortitude and diligence have their reputations tarnished by corrupt and sadistic colleagues.

Christoper Dorner is still at large. His calculated killing spree is a campaign of vengeance against those officers he believes mistreated him. Many facts came to light in the last few days, and the familiar public specter of one of America’s most notorious police departments has returned. The LAPD has been quick to paint Dorner as a deranged killer, claiming he’s delusional and has a history of emotional instability. They’ve offered up the unimaginable reward of $1,000,000 to aid in his capture, and have been so aggressive in their desire to kill him that they’ve shot at innocent civilians mistaken for the ex-cop.

Despite the cycled narrative, there seems to be some discord in the public perception of Dorner’s case. America has had to endure a lot of senseless gun violence lately. Last July, James Holmes indiscriminately fired at moviegoers in Aurora before strolling outside to wait for the police. Months ago, Adam Lanza mercilessly shot at school children in Newton before taking his own life. But Christoper Dorner’s calculated plan of vengeance targets specific police officers, forcing the public to ignore their knee jerk temptation to dismiss him as a lunatic, and ask one simple question: why?

Those who have read Dorner’s manifesto might be surprised by the overall lucidity of his words. In it, Dorner claims to have been fired for crossing the "blue line" – an unofficial code of silence among all officers to protect their colleagues, even in the presence of illegal activity. He accuses the LAPD of sustaining a culture of corruption, perjury, and racism. He illustrates a legal system whose laws have been purposely designed to target and imprison poor minorities over menial drug offenses. He describes officers who relish the opportunity to shoot suspects, and laughingly text each other pictures of the corpses. Even though the LAPD has been quick to claim the "Rodney King" days are long behind them, it is still far too easy to come across shocking stories of police brutality, sexual assaults, and murder.

This is where Dorner stands apart from the other incidents of violence which have plagued this country. He has committed heinous acts of murder, but significant portions of the public perceive him to be an intelligent individual who was wronged by the police and driven to his breaking point. No one would excuse his abhorrent crimes, but some citizens have been spurned to raise the familiar battle-issues of police ethics and conduct. By targeting a ‘corrupt’ police force, Dorner is trying to paint himself a hero. The unfortunate dysfunctions and failures of our society allow for many people to buy into that narrative. His base of support speaks to our larger societal problems. 

In 1971, Frank Serpico testified against his fellow officers and exposed widespread corruption throughout the NYPD. More recently, Officer Adrian Schoolcraft sued the NYPD after they dragged him to a mental asylum for secretly recording his superiors as they instructed officers to cook the books and arrest innocent people to fudge their crime stats. Serpico and Schoolcraft have joined forces to bring police corruption to light. 

Serpico: “This is the way they do it…they make you a psycho and everything you do gets discounted. But I told Adrian just to tell the truth as he knows it and to be himself. When you tell the truth, they can't do a damn thing to you.”

Their actions are valiant, virtuous, and self-sacrificial. They never stooped to the level of the officers they testified against, but they also garnered far less press coverage. Dorner is a calculating murderer who decided that his cause justified any actions. His killing of a policeman’s daughter is especially unforgivable, given that she is one of the unarmed innocent people he swore to defend. The unfortunately irrefutable fact about Dorner’s method, however, is that it will certainly garner far more media coverage and bring the LAPD under far more scrutiny than Serpico and Schoolcraft could ever have done.

If only in the sense that we will have to have an honest conversation about police forces in this country, Dorner has had his victory.

Grammy Nominees 2013: Is This the Death Of Big Rock and Roll?

This Sunday, the Grammys will dole out awards for the most innovative and celebrated artists of the millennial generation. As someone born in the 80s, I’ve enjoyed the various changing trends in music, but I can’t help notice someone has been missing from the party lately: Big rock!

When Governor’s Ball announced Guns n Roses were added to the lineup, I couldn’t buy my ticket fast enough. It made me nostalgic for all the stereotypes of 90s rock n roll: plaid shirt Nirvana-heads growing out their grungy hair, ripped denim wearing Axl Rose fans screaming “Sweet Child of Mine,” and Aerosmith’s hilarious “Pink” music video. I know the times are always changing, but why don’t we see any Rock giants like The Rolling Stones, Beatles, Queen, Led Zeppelin and The Who?

The old foursome dynamic of a singer, guitarist, bassist, and drummer held strong for decades throughout musical history. These bands offered up a unique sound, taking years to perfect their craft and the cohesion of their group’s harmony. What changes have come about in the industry to make this model such a relic? 

The quick answer is, technology.

Bands used to have to get together over time, audition talent, suffer infighting in their high school garage days, and develop passionate friendships over years that would feed into their music. Then, the brutal hunt for a manager would begin, playing gigs and hoping for a record deal. If you were one of the exceedingly lucky few who made it past this filtration process, you could look forward to the record label sending you around on tour to get your name out to the public.

These days, anyone with a computer can be their own band. With the internet and a little software, you can write, mix, master, and record any genre of music you want. A short trip down the virtual highways of Facebook, YouTube, and Hype Machine will instantly promote your work, and you can watch unique blended creations become overnight sensations. 

The overhead cost of creating an entire album is close to nothing, and you certainly don’t need any record label or manager’s backing — at least not until you’re really famous.  Consumers are in turn diluted by all the choices out there. They can get exactly what they want, and pick from a rich diversity of options. The splicing of genres, has created worlds of sub-genres to get lost in, and the old foundations of rock, hip hop or pop don’t strictly exist anymore.

Looking at the Grammys' ’Rock’ contenders we can see indie groups like Mumford & Sons, or multi-style blenders like Gotye — who regularly incorporates electric sounds into his music. I’ll give credit to the Black Keys and Jack White for holding down the old school style, but will they ever be held in as high esteem as the legends of old? Or perhaps that status doesn’t exist in a world with new sensations popping up every five minutes? 

Maybe I’m just being an old grouch. Bands still very much need big labels for promotional costs, and God knows there are a million broken dreams for every YouTube sensation. Maybe we’ve just exported the old model online and increased the critical mass. Maybe the big bands of today, don’t fit into the old labels and are still big in their own right. Arcade Fire, Kings of Leon, Muse, The White Strips, Coldplay, and Empire of the Sun can all be recognized for inventing unique sounds and amassing a significant following. Who knows what they’ll produce in the future, if given enough time.

It seems nostalgic, but before technological integration you had to save money to buy your records, really study the music, gather your friends around to make an ‘event’ out of hearing new songs, and work your fingers to the bone to hone your instrumental skills. The push of a button instant download culture we’re in now is probably a useful evolution, but as I watch my childhood disappear into high speed chaos I can’t help but feel a loss. People don’t ‘treasure’ music as much as they used to because it’s become too accessible, and if something becomes too accessible it usually loses value. So as a form of eulogy for the titans of my youth, I leave you with this farewell.

Nemo's Dreaded Snowfall Approaches, While Sandy Victims Still Wait For Relief

Kanye West has said a lot of stupid stuff during his time in the spotlight, but the reason his “Bush doesn’t care about black people” remark resonated so powerfully was because a lot of people shared his frustration over Hurricane Katrina victims being neglected by the administration. 

We’ve watched an obstructionist Congress gridlock every political issue into partisan nonsense for the last few years, and accomplish very little in the process. This snail pace politics was most heavily felt when Hurricane Sandy devastated New York and New Jersey last October.

To this day, Republicans are still holding the relief funds hostage as part of their grander budgetary debate, and victims who lost their entire lives are spending the next few hours preparing for another bout of merciless weather.

Natural disasters are unique in the political sphere, in that they are one of the few issues that genuinely cross party lines — or at least they should. Whether it’s wildfires in California, tornadoes in Kansas, hurricanes on the East Coast or crop-killing droughts, the mass displacement and damage done by these acts of God should always be an opportunity for us to display our unity and fortitude as a nation.

Politicians enjoy discussing the role of government — whether it is best to protect American interests by inflating our military might, or support citizens with education and social welfare. But I can’t think of a better example of why society agrees to pay into a taxable support system, then the oversight and aid needed to save us when the worst truly happens.  

The Republican stance of believing states and charities will take care of the problem has long been proven ineffective. Red Cross has as big a reputation for bureaucracy and minimalist relief as the governments they claim to circumvent. Massive federal funds for construction, supplies, food, shelter, medicine and workers are essential in stemming the initial and continual damages suffered during a disaster.

As we face the incoming of what is being called a historic storm, I can’t help but wonder if politicians will take the opportunity to prove their worth and role … or if they’ll see it as another chance to point the finger at their "incompetent" opponents across the aisle. For all the talk of what factors strengthen our democracy and economy, none is more important than the safety of our citizenry.

I was in New York for Sandy, when half the island lost power and was in complete blackout. I remember seeing people drenched in flooding waters, running to the NYU hospital to help carry generator fuel up stairs or help the national guard carry injured patients out to evacuating vehicles. We came together, and demonstrated the values our politicians claim to uphold. Those victims in Long Island and New Jersey who’ve had to wait several months, watching congress debate the merits of their relief — which is only now being released in installments — should have our sympathy and outrage.

How callously can the Republicans stick to a doctrine that federal funding for relief should be offset by spending cuts first? How impotent can the Democrats be not to realize this is among the few issues that they should be brutally foaming at the mouth to defend?

The infrastructure and safety of Americans is the paramount foundation on which we build all other ideals. There’s no lobbying group to push this agenda, and the government can’t necessarily win votes by heavily investing recovering people’s lives. It’s just the right thing to do. 

John Brennan's Biggest Confirmation Hurdle: Are Drone Strikes a Violation of our Constitution?

In 1972, the Black September terrorist organization kidnapped and massacred 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. In response, Israel adopted a position of "pre-emptive" strikes against any strategist, financier, or assassin linked to the organization. The willful execution of "non-soldiers" away from commonly defined battlegrounds changed the nature of modern warfare, and we are still seeing the ripples of that escalation today. 

If a soldier spots a suicide bomber in a crowd, few would argue he would not be justified in shooting him before he could detonate. But what if the bomber was 20 feet away? Should the soldier try to arrest him instead and gather intelligence? What if the bomber was inside an apartment, surrounded by the explosives he’s constructing into a suicide vest? Should a sniper shoot him through the window to try to minimize the danger? 

You can see how with each scenario the lines start to blur. Every tactical decision has the potential to cause civilian deaths, endanger soldiers, and diminish acquired intelligence.

Initially, Americans accepted drone use as a "surgical" means to strike evasive targets and took comfort in the added benefit that soldiers on the ground had a helpful robotic ally. However, this method of execution-by-air has evolved into the military's main combat platform, and now includes the targeting of Americans themselves.

John Brennan faces his Senate hearing for the position of CIA director on Thursday. As the chief architect behind the evolving use of drone warfare, he is going to have to address the constitutional legality of circumventing the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

After last year’s drone assassination of Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki (an American citizen) Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech outlining the administration's legal justification for the attack. He stipulated that targeting Americans was permissible only if a high-ranking government official deemed the target “an imminent threat of violent attack.”  

The recently leaked Justice Department memo, however, reveals a loose definition of who can be deemed a "terrorist" or "associated force." Moreover, it shows that no intelligence of an "imminent threat" is required, nor does the target have to be engaged in an active plot against America. Execution is justified if capture is "infeasible" or if the country where the targets are hiding might not consent to U.S. operations. 

The immediate concern was that the U.S. government had appeared to give itself near limitless powers to execute American citizens, using a swarm of flying robotic death-machines. Just like Black September's targeting of civilians and the reciprocal assassination responses by Israel, America has found a way to up the stakes against those who orchestrated 9/11. Unfortunately, this new war-paradigm has the potential to ensnare any region of the planet deemed to be "harboring terrorists." 

Drone critics are justified in their concern. One would have to have complete trust in the wisdom, competence and ethics of a government and their successors to allow them such unchecked power. Is the government accurately identifying people who pose a threat to national security? Are they utilizing drones as a measure of last resort only because no other feasible means are available? Or are they ignoring traditional intelligence gathering methods for the convenience of airborne robotic spies? The kind of faith we’re being asked to put in our leadership flies against the very reason the Fifth Amendment exists.

On April 30, 2012, John Brennan was Obama’s assistant for counterterrorism. In a speech in Washington addressing the use of unmanned drones he said the following:

"…let me say it as simply as I can.  Yes, in full accordance with the law — and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives — the United States Government conducts targeted strikes against specific Al-Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones…These targeted strikes are legal."

It would seem that the administration was eager to be as "transparent" as possible about the drone program, but what are the actual legal justifications Brennan used to keep this program in full "accordance with the law?

Brennan: "As a matter of domestic law, the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack.  The Authorization for the Use of Military Force— the AUMF — passed by Congress after the September 11^th attacks authorizes the president 'to use all necessary and appropriate force' against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11.  There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan." 

These overly vague definitions are the exact source of our current dillema. What would the Constitution deem an imminent threat or attack? What are the particular situational distinctions that would validate the use of drones? What aspects of drone use qualify as "necessary and appropriate force?" Who in the administration, exactly, qualifies as a "high level official" with authority to make these decisions? There is very little in these stipulations that control how a president or his underlings could be held accountable for the choices they make.

These are the questions that need to be addressed to ensure this massive increase in power doesn’t digress into a tyrannical global web of control. The truth of the matter isthat drones aren’t going anywhere. They are an essential platform of security and in a few years time will comprise a canopy of advanced surveillance and weaponry that fills the sky and exo-atmosphere alike. They will be able to deliver their payload anywhere on the planet with incredible speed, biometrically track people from great distances, and even take out enemy satellites. It is a necessary insurance policy and a response to the evolution of technology. However, it remains our dilligent responsibility to ensure that our government’s ability to incinerate human beings from the sky is checked with oversight, accountability, transparency, and scrutiny.