

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Stories about cyberespionage-like the data theft at the US Office of Personal Management believed but not officially stated to have been carried out by China-are weird. For one thing, they include quotes about how "we need to be a bit more public" about our responses to cyberattacks-delivered from White House officials who speak only on condition of anonymity.
Stories about cyberespionage-like the data theft at the US Office of Personal Management believed but not officially stated to have been carried out by China-are weird. For one thing, they include quotes about how "we need to be a bit more public" about our responses to cyberattacks-delivered from White House officials who speak only on condition of anonymity.
That's from a July 31 piece by the New York Times' David Sanger, which, as Marcy Wheeler of the blog Emptywheel (8/1/15) pointed out, had a certain amount of fiction mixed in with its reporting.
Sanger wrote that the administration concluded that the hacking attack was "so vast in scope and ambition that the usual practices for dealing with traditional espionage cases did not apply." He called it "espionage, on a scale that no one imagined before."
But how can that be? China is accused of obtaining personal information about 20 million Americans, federal employees and contractors, and that's a big deal. But the US's NSA, according to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, processes 20 billion phone calls and internet messages every day. The NSA's unofficial motto for years has been "Collect It All."
The article notes that the US has its own "intelligence operations inside China"--but pretends these are purely defensive, referring to "the placement of thousands of implants in Chinese computer networks to warn of impending attacks."
Sanger was one of the main journalists covering the joint US/Israeli cyberattack against Iran known as Stuxnet; one of his stories went out under the headline, "Obama Ordered Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran." But here, in this context, he writes, "The United States has been cautious about using cyberweapons or even discussing it."
No, no, they discuss them plenty, and use them too-some media have just decided that the public should only sometimes hear about it.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Stories about cyberespionage-like the data theft at the US Office of Personal Management believed but not officially stated to have been carried out by China-are weird. For one thing, they include quotes about how "we need to be a bit more public" about our responses to cyberattacks-delivered from White House officials who speak only on condition of anonymity.
That's from a July 31 piece by the New York Times' David Sanger, which, as Marcy Wheeler of the blog Emptywheel (8/1/15) pointed out, had a certain amount of fiction mixed in with its reporting.
Sanger wrote that the administration concluded that the hacking attack was "so vast in scope and ambition that the usual practices for dealing with traditional espionage cases did not apply." He called it "espionage, on a scale that no one imagined before."
But how can that be? China is accused of obtaining personal information about 20 million Americans, federal employees and contractors, and that's a big deal. But the US's NSA, according to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, processes 20 billion phone calls and internet messages every day. The NSA's unofficial motto for years has been "Collect It All."
The article notes that the US has its own "intelligence operations inside China"--but pretends these are purely defensive, referring to "the placement of thousands of implants in Chinese computer networks to warn of impending attacks."
Sanger was one of the main journalists covering the joint US/Israeli cyberattack against Iran known as Stuxnet; one of his stories went out under the headline, "Obama Ordered Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran." But here, in this context, he writes, "The United States has been cautious about using cyberweapons or even discussing it."
No, no, they discuss them plenty, and use them too-some media have just decided that the public should only sometimes hear about it.
Stories about cyberespionage-like the data theft at the US Office of Personal Management believed but not officially stated to have been carried out by China-are weird. For one thing, they include quotes about how "we need to be a bit more public" about our responses to cyberattacks-delivered from White House officials who speak only on condition of anonymity.
That's from a July 31 piece by the New York Times' David Sanger, which, as Marcy Wheeler of the blog Emptywheel (8/1/15) pointed out, had a certain amount of fiction mixed in with its reporting.
Sanger wrote that the administration concluded that the hacking attack was "so vast in scope and ambition that the usual practices for dealing with traditional espionage cases did not apply." He called it "espionage, on a scale that no one imagined before."
But how can that be? China is accused of obtaining personal information about 20 million Americans, federal employees and contractors, and that's a big deal. But the US's NSA, according to documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, processes 20 billion phone calls and internet messages every day. The NSA's unofficial motto for years has been "Collect It All."
The article notes that the US has its own "intelligence operations inside China"--but pretends these are purely defensive, referring to "the placement of thousands of implants in Chinese computer networks to warn of impending attacks."
Sanger was one of the main journalists covering the joint US/Israeli cyberattack against Iran known as Stuxnet; one of his stories went out under the headline, "Obama Ordered Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran." But here, in this context, he writes, "The United States has been cautious about using cyberweapons or even discussing it."
No, no, they discuss them plenty, and use them too-some media have just decided that the public should only sometimes hear about it.