Friday, 20 May 2011

Andrew Exum 
When GOP candidates whip up fury about Obama and Israel, their primary audience is not Jewish voters but Evangelical Christians

Israel rejects total pullback to 1967 borders

Barack Obama presses for Middle East reform

Internet Freedom
A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age
By Richard Fontaine and Will Rogers

(PDF)

Andrew Weatherall Live - Content - Manchester - 29.4.11

Thursday, 19 May 2011

The Don Isaac Ezekiel Combination – Ire

Fake security software catches out Apple owners

A fake security program for Apple computers called MACDefender has racked up a significant number of victims.
Hundreds of people who installed the software have turned to Apple's forums for help to remove it.
The program's tactic of peppering screens with pornographic pictures has made many keen to get rid of it.
MACDefender seems to have been successful because of the work its creators did to make it appear high up in search results.
The number of people seeking help was uncovered by ZDNet journalist Ed Bott. In a blog post, he wrote about finding more than 200 separate discussions on Apple's official forums about MACDefender.
The volume of reports about the problem was "exceptional" in his experience, he said.
The fake Mac anti-virus software, which goes by the name of both MACDefender and Mac Security, began circulating in early May and has steadily racked up victims.
Such programs, often called scareware, urge people to install software that then pretends to scan a machine for security problems. It then fabricates a list of threats it has found and asks for cash before it will fix these non-existent problems.
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said the scareware's creators had turned to search engines to get the program in front of potential victims by linking it with innocuous phrases such as "Mother's Day".
"You search for something on Google Images, and when you click on an image you are taken to a webpage which serves up the attack - regardless of whether you are running Mac OS X or Windows," he said.
One trick the software uses to make people cough up cash quicker was to fire up the browser of unattended machines and call up one of several different pornographic websites.
Mr Cluley said the vast majority of malware that Sophos and other security firms see is aimed at Windows users. About 100,000 novel malicious programs for Windows are detected every day, he said.
"Although there is much less malware in existence for Mac OS X than there is for Windows, that's no reason to put your head in the sand and think that there are no Mac threats out there," he said.
@'BBC'

Frightening, but with free baked goods

What a frightening world it must be if you only read the Daily Express

Journo arrest: recipe for clicks turns into a recipe for disaster

China acknowledges Three Gorges dam 'problems'

Focus Is on Obama as Tensions Soar Across Mideast

We are a long way from 'Steamboat Willie'

Glenn Greenwald:

The illegal war in Libya

Jane Mayer on the Obama war on whistle-blowers

The Secret Sharer - Is Thomas Drake an Enemy of the State?

On June 13th, a fifty-four-year-old former  government employee named Thomas Drake is scheduled to appear in a  courtroom in Baltimore, where he will face some of the gravest charges  that can be brought against an American citizen. A former senior  executive at the National Security Agency, the government’s  electronic-espionage service, he is accused, in essence, of being an  enemy of the state. According to a ten-count indictment delivered  against him in April, 2010, Drake violated the Espionage Act—the 1917  statute that was used to convict Aldrich Ames, the C.I.A. officer who,  in the eighties and nineties, sold U.S. intelligence to the K.G.B.,  enabling the Kremlin to assassinate informants. In 2007, the indictment  says, Drake willfully retained top-secret defense documents that he had  sworn an oath to protect, sneaking them out of the intelligence agency’s  headquarters, at Fort Meade, Maryland, and taking them home, for the  purpose of “unauthorized disclosure.” The aim of this scheme, the  indictment says, was to leak government secrets to an unnamed newspaper  reporter, who is identifiable as Siobhan Gorman, of the Baltimore Sun. Gorman wrote a prize-winning series of articles for the Sun  about financial waste, bureaucratic dysfunction, and dubious legal  practices in N.S.A. counterterrorism programs. Drake is also charged  with obstructing justice and lying to federal law-enforcement agents. If  he is convicted on all counts, he could receive a prison term of  thirty-five years.
The government argues that Drake recklessly  endangered the lives of American servicemen. “This is not an issue of  benign documents,” William M. Welch II, the senior litigation counsel  who is prosecuting the case, argued at a hearing in March, 2010. The  N.S.A., he went on, collects “intelligence for the soldier in the field.  So when individuals go out and they harm that ability, our intelligence  goes dark and our soldier in the field gets harmed.”
Top  officials at the Justice Department describe such leak prosecutions as  almost obligatory. Lanny Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General who  supervises the department’s criminal division, told me, “You don’t get  to break the law and disclose classified information just because you  want to.” He added, “Politics should play no role in it whatsoever.”
When  President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of  government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom  he described as “often the best source of information about waste,  fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has  pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including  the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal  charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such  prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations  combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department  has carried over from the Bush years...
 Continue reading
Jane Mayer @'The New Yorker'

If looks could kill...