The White House demanded Monday that the Chinese government stop the widespread theft of data from American computer networks and agree to “acceptable norms of behavior in cyberspace.”
The demand, made in a speech by President Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, was the first public confrontation with China over cyberespionage and came two days after its foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, rejected a growing body of evidence that his country’s military was involved in cyberattacks on American corporations and some government agencies.
The White House, Mr. Donilon said, is seeking three things from Beijing: public recognition of the urgency of the problem; a commitment to crack down on hackers in China; and an agreement to take part in a dialogue to establish global standards.
“Increasingly, U.S. businesses are speaking out about their serious concerns about sophisticated, targeted theft of confidential business information and proprietary technologies through cyberintrusions emanating from China on an unprecedented scale,” Mr. Donilon said in a wide-ranging address to the Asia Society in New York.
“The international community,” he added, “cannot tolerate such activity from any country.”
Until now, the White House has steered clear of mentioning China by name when discussing cybercrime, though Mr. Obama and other officials have raised it privately with Chinese counterparts. In his State of the Union address, he said, “We know foreign countries and companies swipe our corporate secrets.”
But as evidence has emerged suggesting the People’s Liberation Army is linked to hacking, the China connection has become harder for the administration not to confront head-on. The New York Times three weeks ago published evidence tying one of the most active of the Chinese groups to a neighborhood in Shanghai that is headquarters to a major cyberunit of the People’s Liberation Army. That account, based in large part on unclassified work done by Mandiant, a security firm, echoed the findings of intelligence agencies that have been tracking the Chinese attackers.
The New York Times, “US Demands China End Hacking and Set Cyber Rules.”
The Chinese response roughly translates to “LOL.”(via inothernews)
Rest in Peace comrade! A loving father, leader and a revolutionary anti-imperialist socialist, Chavez had resisted American imperialism and neoliberalism. Chavez had proved that socialism is relevant and it’s the only option to end this crisis. His ideas and thoughts will still live on! ¡Hasta la Victoria Siempre! Viva Hugo Chavez y la Revolucion Bolivariana!(via jayaprada)
The first human response to such an unexpected disruption (the 35-minute blackout) of a ritualized social experience like Super Bowl–watching is disorientation and unease. The brain of a journalist quickly jolts into a second response: breaking news! Surely, I thought upon my couch, CBS, the network of Eric Sevareid, Dan Rather, and “60 Minutes”—the network that had lately recruited Charlie Rose to anchor its morning show—would tear into this story.
It did not. What followed was embarrassing and irresponsible. The blackout lasted thirty-four minutes. During that time, CBS acted as if it possessed no news division. It relied on James Brown, the congenial jock-wrangling anchor of “The NFL Today,” to handle the story. He and his fellow commentators—retired quarterback Dan Marino, retired N.F.L. coach Bill Cowher, and retired tight end Shannon Sharpe—acted as if the unexplained loss of electricity in a stadium filled with seventy thousand-plus people during the most-watched American television event of the year was just a twist in the story of who would win the football game, and nothing more.
Surely there were other questions to ask as the minutes ticked by: Why did the N.F.L. fail, throughout the entire interruption, to provide an informed spokesman to explain the problem and the plan to fix it? Who was responsible for the stadium’s operations? What did the local utility, Entergy, have to say? Could the mayor of New Orleans, who was surely in the stadium, be summoned on camera?
“We were asking everybody at every position what was happening and the fact of the matter is we just didn’t know,” Sean McManus, the chairman of CBS Sports, told the Los Angeles Times afterward. In retrospect, McManus said, he would have pushed harder to force the N.F.L. to put a representative on camera.
The ultimate responsibility for the broadcast belonged to Les Moonves, the president and chief executive of CBS. Moonves spent the run up to the big game talking to reporters about how many thirty-second ads CBS had sold at record four-million-dollar prices.
Why didn’t he throw the broadcast to his news division in New York for at least an interval, to signal to viewers that the network recognized that something unusual and newsworthy had just occurred, and to attempt to inform them, as best as possible, with reliable reporting?
Moonves told the Times that he knew he had the option to switch to CBS News in New York, but “we were told it would be twenty minutes.…We knew it wouldn’t be down for hours.” Even so, why did CBS not immediately scramble its news producers to hunt down subjects for on-air interviews? Why was there no off-air reporting relayed from CBS News to James Brown about whether there was any indication of foul play, or any information at all available beyond the no-commenting, self-protecting public-relations arm of the N.F.L. juggernaut, to which we have become all too accustomed during its systematic campaign of denial about football-related concussions?
The New Yorker, “The Super Bowl’s Blackout Malfunction.”
Students and practitioners of journalism: this is a great read, and perhaps the most sobering analysis of the events of Sunday evening.
While we were all having fun at the expense of the NFL and its embarrassing power outage, an entire TV news division — Hell, an entire television network — failed to communicate. ”The network of Edward R. Murrow,” the article states, “had no plan for the unexpected.” And that’s a problem.
CBS is on Tumblr and we’d love to hear their take on the matter.(via inothernews)
With studies suggesting that long lines at the polls cost Democrats hundreds of thousands of votes in November, party leaders are beginning a push to make voting and voter registration easier, setting up a likely new conflict with Republicans over a deeply polarizing issue.
White House officials have told Congressional leaders that the president plans to press for action on Capitol Hill, and Democrats say they expect him to highlight the issue in his State of the Union address next week. Democrats in the House and Senate have already introduced bills that would require states to provide online voter registration and allow at least 15 days of early voting, among other things.
Fourteen states are also considering whether to expand early voting, including the battlegrounds of Florida, Ohio and Virginia, according to FairVote, a nonprofit group that advocates electoral change. Florida, New York, Texas and Washington are looking at whether to ease registration and establish preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds.
Several recent polls and studies suggest that long waiting times in some places depressed turnout in 2012 and that lines were longest in cities, where Democrats outnumber Republicans. In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken shortly after Election Day, 18 percent of Democrats said they waited at least a half-hour to vote, compared with 11 percent of independents and 9 percent of Republicans.
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis determined that blacks and Hispanics waited nearly twice as long in line to vote on average than whites. Florida had the nation’s longest lines, at 45 minutes, followed by the District of Columbia, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia, according to Charles Stewart III, the political science professor who conducted the analysis.
A separate analysis, by an Ohio State University professor and The Orlando Sentinel, concluded that more than 200,000 voters in Florida “gave up in frustration” without voting.
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in combat roles, a watershed policy decision that follows years of calls for a fully inclusive military, defense officials said Wednesday.
Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, are expected to formally announce the change Thursday, the officials said. The Army, Marines and other services will then develop plans to open jobs in ground combat units, such as the infantry, to women.
The decision comes after a decade during which women — fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan — have been pushed closer to the front lines than ever before. It also comes less than a year and half after the formal end of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy,” which banned gay men and women from serving openly.
“This is monumental,” said Anu Bhagwati, a former Marine captain and executive director of the Service Women’s Action Network, which has advocated for full inclusion for women. “Every time equality is recognized and meritocracy is enforced, it helps everyone and it will help professionalize the force.”
Panetta, who is expected to step down in coming days, has long said the Pentagon is exploring ways to open more career opportunities for women. The Pentagon announced in February that it would open about 14,000 combat-related positions to female troops. But an estimated 238,000 other positions — about one-fifth of the regular active-duty military — were kept off-limits to women.
Virtually all of those jobs are in the Army and Marine Corps.
Overall, women make up about 14 percent of the active-duty military. According to the Defense Department, 152 female troops have been killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Verizon claims to have caught an employee — “Bob” — outsourcing his daily coding duties to China so he could spend his time browsing Reddit, watching cat videos, and surfing eBay.