Category Archives: Security

Bolton launches WMDs at UN

Words of Mass Destruction.

President Bush’s appointment of John Bolton to the UN has indeed created a disasterous relationship with the organization, as many predicted. Bush ignored the Senate in order to confirm Bolton perhaps because someone (Cheney and Rumsfeld) believed that the only way to right (what they saw as) the wrongs of Colin Powell would be to appoint a fire-breathing loyalist to the post.

Poetic phrasing aside, the fact today is that Bolton has pissed off the UN to the point where they are talking about ending ties with the US.

Did you realize that the US was voted off the Human Rights Commission early in Colin Powell’s term? It wasn’t widely discussed, but in fact it was a major blow to a country that wants to ensure it does not get judged “unfairly” by an international representative body. According to the BBC, “the US – which had been a member of the commission since its foundation in 1947 – lost its place May 2001 after criticism of its rejection of some key global treaties”. On the other hand, many on the radical right have wanted to reform (terminate) the US relationship with the UN so perhaps this was a calculated move…the radicals certainly will not see any resistance from fellow-radical Kristen Silverberg, the Assistant Secretary of International Organizations and Bolton’s supervisor.

Kristin who? Yes, my thoughts exactly. I find it to be yet another sign of a spoils system in effect that the person Bolton takes his orders from was

one of the wide-eyed conservatives who trekked to Austin in 2000 to get the George W. Bush for President train rolling. The former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was in the White House policy shop in the pre-9/11 days helping to dream up a health care plan, big tax cuts and “compassionate conservative” policies.

In 2003, she shipped out to Baghdad to advise L. Paul Bremer on the creation of an elected Iraqi government. Then it was back to the White House to help develop Bush’s second-term agenda. She went to work for Andrew H. Card Jr. and Karl Rove, the president’s two most powerful aides, on domestic, economic and foreign affairs.

Surprised? She’s loyal, bright, and not qualified. It is so scary that a legal clerk to Thomas and someone affiliated with Bremer’s totally self-defeating and counter-productive Iraq plans would end up somehow with responsibility over critical US foreign relations, but I digress. Maybe I’ll do an expose another day…

Bush’s administration set Bolton to the task of getting the US back in control of the Human Rights Commission, and in true bull-in-a-chinashop Texan style, that has been a mission of nothing less than ultimatums and bad relations:

“In addition to management reform, the question of reform of the fundamentally broken UN machinery on human rights remains a very high priority for us,” [Bolton] testified.

The United States has argued that the current UN Human Rights Commission is beyond repair, and needs to be replaced by a new Human Rights Council that is open, “legitimate” and effective and will not have in its membership gross violators of human rights.

“Our objective is to try to finish work on the Human Rights Council before the end of [2005],” he said.

Bolton’s fire-brand methods have created so much backlash that the only thing he seems to have achieved is more international resistance and resentment to the US. His real objective, thus, appears to be as disruptive to the UN as possible and to destroy what’s left of US credibility. Cheney and Rumsfeld at work again. In this matter, Powell and Rice seem to have been the odd ones out, probably because they know what it takes to make national security real. Rice was wise to say no when she was asked to hire Bolton for deputy secretary of state, but she probably did not realize where else he might land. After all, as USA Today once reported, “Powell is said to have accepted Bolton on the theory that he could control him and that Bolton would serve as insurance against right-wingers elsewhere in the administration. Instead, Bolton has reinforced their views.”

Again, for perspective, this is exactly what everyone expected from Bolton, a man who keeps a mock grenade in his office, labeled “To John Bolton — World’s Greatest Reaganite“. Perhaps an editorial called “Disaster, Not Diplomacy” put it best in the Washinton Post:

The literal facts did not in the least give Bolton pause. Weapons of mass destruction would be found, he insisted. Where? When? How come they had not yet been discovered? The questions were insistent, but they were coming, please remember, from Italians, whose government was one of the few in the world to actively support the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Bolton bristled. I have never seen such a performance by an American diplomat. He was dismissive. He was angry. He clearly thought the questioners had no right, no standing, no justification and no earthly reason to question the United States of America. The Bush administration had said that Iraq was lousy with WMD and Iraq therefore was lousy with WMD. Just you wait.

This kind of ferocious certainty is commendable in pit bulls and other fighting animals, but it is something of a problem in a diplomat. We now have been told, though, that Bolton’s Italian aria was not unique and that the anger I sensed in the man has been felt by others. (I went over to speak to him afterward, but he was such a mass of scowling anger that I beat a retreat.)

[…]

The rap against Bolton’s nomination as U.N. ambassador is that he has maximum contempt for that organization. He once went so far as to flatly declare that “there is no United Nations,” just an international community that occasionally “can be led by the only real power left in the world — and that’s the United States.”

The Wikipedia, for what it’s worth, also points out that Powell and Bolton are about as far apart in international security policy as you can find:

In 2002, Bolton is said to have flown to Europe to demand the resignation of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and to have orchestrated his removal at a special session of the organization. The United Nations’ highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an “unacceptable violation” of principles protecting international civil servants. Bustani had been unanimously re-elected for a four-year term—with strong U.S. support—in May 2000, and in 2001 was praised for his leadership by Colin Powell.

And in case you’re wondering why Bolton was sent to topple Bustani, some suggest it was simply because the Brazilian diplomat spoke out against the US receiving special treatment at the UN:

Bustani says he has little faith in the future of multilateralism, especially since Washington has rejected both the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and the Biological Weapons Convention, and has “unsigned” the pact creating an International Criminal Court.

“It’s obvious that the present [US] administration is not prepared to accept rules that bind America and limit its freedom of action, for the sake of world stability,” Bustani says. “Washington’s refusal to join in such efforts only undermines commitments by other countries to foster common values.”

An infamous letter to the UK press painted an even starker picture:

By encouraging Saddam Hussein to sign the chemical weapons convention, Jose Bustani appears to have become an obstacle to the American intention to engage in military action in Iraq. If the US succeeds, it will be a victory for unilateralism and a blow to international law.

Obstacle to war and critical of the US position against international treaties, Bustani must have had a target on his back the size of Baltimore in the eyes of Bolton…so, finally, we have to wonder about a diplomat who provides this kind of violent disagreement with anyone who stands in his way:

Bolton, referring to the US promise that the [OPCW] directorship would pass to another Latin American, complains that “Latin Americans are so characterized by sheer incompetence that they won’t be able to make up their minds.� He tells the staff that “if any of this gets out of this room, I’ll kill the person responsible.�

Sorry for the long post. Perhaps I just should have said Bolton is to diplomacy what the Bush administration is to security.

Journalists win appeal against Apple

The BBC has posted an editorial that the decision in a California court could have a dramatic effect for those who write online:

From a media perspective, the emergence of citizen journalism has blurred the line separating mainstream media from online new media.

Just over a week ago, a California appeals court took a major step toward eliminating any legal distinction in a case involving Apple Computer and two online news sites.

[…]

The premise of press-specific legal protections is that journalists do more than just inform – they keep our leaders and institutions accountable to the public. In order to persuade sources to reveal information hidden from view, they depend upon assurances of absolute confidentiality.

The California court examined the state of online journalism and found that it too deserves the legal protections crafted for the press.

In doing so, it has extended those protections to everyone, effectively stating that we can all play a role in keeping our leaders accountable. We are all journalists now.

Or maybe all of us always were journalists, but somewhere along the road a glass ceiling was introduced that has now been shattered by technology. Paradigm shift.

JAMRS database

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld started a Pentagon program in 2003 called the Joint Advertising and Market Research Recruiting Database (JAMRS). The Department of Defense intended to collect and analyze information on high school students over the age of 15, college students, and others in order to enhance the Pentagon’s ability to target qualified candidates for military recruiting. Perhaps most notably, Rumsfeld did not publish any notice of JAMRS until after it had been established.

It appears that the database holds million of records with information including Social Security number, date of birth, ethnicity, address, grade point average and telephone number. Not surprisingly it is all managed by a private marketing firm outside the Department of Defense and is retained for a period of at least five years. Surprising, however, is the fact that there is no “opt-out” option:

Parents must contact the Pentagon directly to ask that their children’s information not be released to recruiters, but the data is not removed from the JAMRS database, according to Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Instead, the information is moved to a suppression file, where it is continuously updated with new data from private and government sources and still made available to recruiters, Krenke said. It’s necessary to keep the information in the suppression file so the Pentagon can make sure it’s not being released, she said.

Very Kafka-esque. They have to keep updating your information in a database in order to make sure they are not keeping your current information in the database?

Some investigative reporter might be able to confirm whether there is a connection between this particular marketing firm and a political party, private interest group (e.g. the NRA) or some family name on the hill.

EPIC provides more background and information on their DOD Recuiting Database Page. For example, they explain some of the Bush administration’s back-door dealings to quietly circumvent privacy laws:

The creation of the database caused many to revisit public policy choices made by Congress on military recruiting. As explained above, under the No Child Left Behind law, Congress forced public and private schools receiving federal educational fund to release secondary students’ names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters who request them.

Bad form from Google

So I’ve been getting fraud email from @gmail users lately (ironically purporting to be @yahoo users). I simply made sure I had the header information and I forwarded the entire message with a brief “please investigate” message at the top to their “abuse” team.

I expected Google, like most companies, to parse my email with an automated system and send some sort of generic response. Alas, instead I was given the following answer:

Hello,

Thank you for the abuse report. To help us process your request quickly,
please fill out the form specific to your situation.

– If you believe that your account may have been compromised, please
visit: https://services.google.com/inquiry/gmail_security1

– To report a message that violates the Gmail Terms of Use or Program
Policies, please visit:
https://services.google.com/inquiry/gmail_security2

– To report an established account for sale, please visit:
https://services.google.com/inquiry/gmail_security3

– To report all other security and/or abuse-related issues, please visit:
https://services.google.com/inquiry/gmail_security4

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU REPORT ABUSE?
Reports entered through the form are given our highest priority. Google
takes abuse situations like this very seriously. As appropriate, we may
warn users or discontinue Gmail service for the account(s) in question.
For privacy and security reasons, we may not reveal the final outcome of
an abuse case to the person who reported it. To read the Gmail Terms of
Use, please visit: http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/terms_of_use.html.

If your issue is not related to abuse, you may want to visit our Help
Center at http://gmail.google.com/support/, or by clicking ‘Help’ at the
top of any Gmail page within your account.

We appreciate the urgent nature of your message, and thank you for your
cooperation.

Sincerely,

The Google Team

Sincere indeed. Perhaps instead of “To help us process your request quickly” they should have been honest and just said “Ooops, you sent us an email but we don’t know how to handle it. Mind if you put all the information from your email into a web form for us?”

Perhaps instead of the “form letter” (pun intended) we should create a shim that takes email input and submits to their form automatically. Now that would process requests quickly. What’s the rate limiting factor that Google assumes? 10 submits in an hour? 100? Let’s say hypothetically that I’m a security administrator for a large enterprise and I want to pursue all the fraud originating from their servers. Do they really expect me to have my staff manually enter every message into a little form? Their current method makes it such a pain to report fraud that I wonder if I’ll be seeing more and more @gmail abuse in the near future.

Incidentally, I filled out the form and did not receive any confirmation of receipt. Perhaps that comes after they have a human review the submission…since a form is also not immune from data integrity issues.

UPDATE: Google’s response above was emailed to me as #60445059 “Fw: Subject”. I just received another response from them, two days later, as #60655802 “Account Status”. What are the chances that they crossed their wires and I was sent the response for someone else’s ticket. Or maybe 210,743 other tickets really went through their system in the time it took to be resolved? They kindly report that “You can also help stop these individuals by sending a copy of such unlawful messages to the Federal Trade Commission at spam@uce.gov.” Nice. Does that mean they want users to actually forward a copy themselves because Google requires a form instead of a copy? Oh, the irony.