Anonymous hackers trick users into helping DDoS government sites

It's reported today that the hacker group anonymous organized and executed a DDoS attack on several US government websites, including the Justice Department. DDoS attacks are described in this article as kind of "old school," inconvenient but of short duration and usually having no lasting effect. The attack is effected by sending thousands or millions of network requests to a website or to switches nearby, overwhelming the website's networking equipment. When the attack stops, the equipment quickly returns to normal. The attacks were more about getting attention than destroying anything.

One whiz kid at anonymous came up with a piece of javascript code, the same kind that's routinely loaded and processed by your web browser. They lured users to click on compressed links in Facebook pages and tweets. The code would load and immediately, while it was still loading, start firing off network packets to the government sites. One victimized journalist called foul for involving innocent bystanders, and set off a collective soul-search among the anonymi, at least some of whom disavowed and condemned this behavior.

Several anons speaking to Wired on condition of anonymity voiced dismay that a tactic they consider to be the modern-day equivalent of a sit-in (denial-of-service attacks leave no lasting damage) was ethically corrupted by the new version. [from the article]

Some white hats among the anons complained the duped users didn't contribute significantly to the overall attack, and by involving them with activities that could "land them in jail," (which sounds a bit ominous) the anonymous hackers were acting unethically. It's probably a good thing they're principled enough for a soul-search. Very few power groups in our world have that sort of ethics.

US Still the Land of Opportunity?

I'm going to stick my neck out here. I don't know the conclusion to this post as I start writing it.

I just read an article in the Washington Post which spoke of the income differences between the US and Western Europe, specifically Germany, the Netherlands, and some Scandinavian countries. They have lower unemployment, higher wages, and generous social programs, including universal healthcare. One interesting difference the writer, Harold Meyerson points out is in Europe the average CEO makes 11 times the salary of a worker. In the US it's between 200 and 300 times ("pick your survey" recommends Mr. Meyerson).

What occurred to me is the European CEO's are most likely experienced with the products they sell. When a leader develops in an industry, they're recognized because that's what they know about-- they came up in manufacturing, or engineering, or sales. They know their products and their customers. They're also, according to the article, younger and more open to new ideas.

In the US, in contrast, the celebrated CEO's are more likely to know only how to make cash. It's one thing to make money building and selling a car, and it's another thing entirely to make money from the car company. Squeezing an industry for cash has become the sole motivation for many in management. It's easy to measure. The skills are transferable, and frankly it's the only subject in which boards of directors are now interested.

What happens to companies when they become interested only in money? Go to a home store and look at the products from GE. A company that was for decades an innovator in manufacturing and many innovative products-- appliances, tools, electrical equipment, even jet engines and nuclear plants. Have you looked at GE products lately, at Target, Home Depot, WalMart, Sears? GE resells cheap Asian electronics devices, and imported appliances and tools. They're still big in jet engines, and are still apparently bidding on building nuclear reactors (and they're out of the entertainment business, I think, having sold NBC), but the products they sell to consumers are no longer made by those consumers. They're made in China and Singapore and Indonesia, and Korea. And Mexico.

Note what's going on here-- the company is still making money, and lots of it!. But they're making that money on reselling the products of workers in another country.

Today's high-flying management is motivated only by profit. CEO's are expected to make CASH, not a great car, or a great, innovative, efficient and sustainable appliance, or any product at all besides cash. We're told this is a law of nature-- the way capitalism works. But why are our European brothers and sisters doing so much better with employment and social services in their countries. Perhaps a look back is in order, to the time business was motivated by the desire to create great products, develop and build new markets and technologies, and work in partnership with customers, employees, management, and government. We had that, not so very long ago. Back when making a lot of money was the just reward for doing a difficult job supplying a great product to a market which could afford to buy it. Let's stop thinking profits are the reason for business, and think in terms of great products and their producers. Let's stop thinking conglomerates and massive scale are good in themselves. Let's point out globalism-- as a way to make money no matter the costs for any single population-- as parasitic, inhumane, and basically ruinous of real wealth. There... problem solved.

That's it. I've mixed the most basic insights of an Econ101 student with some very current, vaguely liberal "cyber-journalism" and posted it in my blog. I wish I knew more about this. All I know is it really seems we-- the rank-and-file taxpaying middle-class Americans-- are getting hosed. And we're the best off of anyone in the 99%.

Busted: the Stir at Cafe Mom serves news that isn't news

You might laugh and say I'm the only one who hasn't noticed yet, but recently I've found some odd stuff on the internet that dresses up as news. In today's instance, even the Google News aggregation algorithm was fooled. At issue here, a story about how a (possibly) military guy punched an entertainer/former politician for expressing sentiments taken to be anti-American or anti-military or anti Bush. The thing that makes this story not news, and somewhat alarming, is the statement, almost in the middle of the article:

There's a story going around today that a group of mourners for a Navy SEAL were at a bar a number of years ago and Ventura was there.

This is the sum total of the facts in the story! It could be the setup for a joke!

This is a story published in "the Stir" on Cafe Mom which is, to my observation, a legitimate website. I'm certain they paid a writer for the story, and an editor to edit it (and check the links, provide the photo, spell check, and probably provide for some kind of indexing). But this stands out as NOT news because it contains no actual verifiable information, just a violent, militaristic message. I won't read the comments, because I'm sure they're also vicious.

My question here is, why was this story published? It's an unsubstantiated rumor from "a number of years ago," which inflames a jingoistic, pro-military enthusiasm. It's a hooray for boorish behavior. Was this published strictly for commercial purposes? There are a lot of ads at Cafe Mom, so that's possible. But ask yourself, is this the kind of story that's just published for the ad revenue, or could it be funded by someone with an agenda? I'd really like to know. It doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement of their advertisers (if you catch my drift). I acknowledge I'm a bit paranoid about this kind of thing, and I was taken aback that the story appeared on the same website that hosts so many great recipes and photos of food. Maybe they should be circumspect in launching this more journalistic endeavor. This story has all the journalistic integrity of a Bud Light ad.

Those crazy lulzsec kids are up to it again

In another major piece of mischief, this one just in time for the holidays, the New York Times reports those irascible kids at lulzsec have unleashed their mad haxor skillz by overwhelming the website of another major US security firm. This one is called Stratfor Global Intelligence Service (the little creeps stole the "d" from the end of the company's name, for crying out loud), which publishes a daily(!)  newsletter with thousands of subscribers, and counts among its customers Bank of America, Doctors Without Borders, the UN, and the Defense Department. These are heavyweight tech security guys for hire. Only they gave up their email system, their customer list, their system passwords, and the credit card information of 90,000 accounts to hackers. The security people are the same people who are advising the Department of Defense and Lockheed-Martin on keeping their systems secure-- and were pwned by pimply and very angry teens from the boondocks of Scotland or Ohio.

Lulzsec (or Anonymous, or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays) are now going radical Robin Hood and using stolen credit card numbers to wire money to some specially selected-- they held an online vote-- charities like cancer research and Wikileaks. Also named as a recipient of their largesse is the Tor project, which is an open source "anonymizer" system, that allows internet connections that can't be traced. This is also apparently a protest in support of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of leaking lots of sensitive, though not top-secret, state department cables to Wikileaks nearly two years ago. It's unclear how this can help Manning except perhaps by publicizing his predicament.

I'm too cynical to think anything will come of this beyond my (dare I say our?) complete delight in seeing those security tech bozos have their noses rubbed in the terrible stink of their epic fail in their own area of expertise! These guys think computer threats will likely come from North Korea, who I believe still use hand-cranked computers. These guys are play soldiers, and have never outgrown their GI Joes. When asked to comment on the situation at Stratfor, the spokesperson at another security organization kind of back-pedaled on their usually macho stance. 

“The scary thing is that no matter what you do, every system has some level of vulnerability,” says Jerry Irvine, a member of the National Cyber Security Task Force. “The more you do from an advanced technical standpoint, the more common things go unnoticed. Getting into a system is really not that difficult.” (from the NY Times article cited above)

So what Mr. Irvine is saying is "we can't really protect computer systems," but that is a professional opinion, and hence is billable.

This is the military industrial complex thrashing around, trying to swallow up all the cash that's been thrown to them in these, our incredibly insecure times, when the NSA is competing with Google to gather more information about Americans, because we're at war with anyone who's poorer than we are (and to whom we don't already owe a lot of money). The LulzSec attacks are about the only thing remotely funny about the whole situation.

[Ed. Some followup:]
The WSJ is reporting people who posted supportive statements on Stratfor's Facebook page (which they set up since their email system was so mercilessly pwned... snort) are being attacked by Anonymous, though the attacks seem to be confined to posting hostile FB messages. Twitter also seems to be a site of running skirmishes. We'll stay tuned for more.

Toxic Waste Dumping Rascals!

Following up a story I published in this blog quite awhile ago, this story in the New York Times tells how a court in the Netherlands has upheld a million dollar fine for Trafigura's dumping a boatload of highly toxic petroleum waste-- sulfur and naphtha, mixed with caustic soda which was used to scrub out an oil tanker full of high sulfur oil from Mexico. They dumped ridiculously toxic sludge into sewers in Ivory Coast, killing as many as a dozen Ivorians outright, and making thousands ill.

Trafigura, one of the worlds largest trading firms, paid a local Ivory Coast waste hauler to dispose of the embarrassing cargo, which they felt was too expensive to dispose of in the Netherlands. The stuff was so poisonous, under EU law, it was illegal to remove it from the country (in this case the Netherlands), and that's what this, previously contested, fine was for. The Ivorian waste hauler was tried, convicted, and executed in his country. Trafigura is reported to have paid $200 million in fines in Ivory Coast.

The deeply disturbing moral of this story is no matter what a large corporation with global reach does, there's no government large or powerful enough to punish them. Trafigura has even been accused of manipulating the press to minimize the damage from airing the story. A small group of men, in the name of greed, commits criminally negligent toxic dumping, multiple deaths resulting, and manages to wriggle out of the predicament with nary a logo change. The fine in Africa most likely lined the pockets of strong men, who are eager to do business with them again. The EU fine will be used to further insulate the global business community from the reach of national law enforcement entities.

Why I don't trust Fidelity

This afternoon I logged into Fidelity to look at my 401K. I was slightly bummed out when I read the headline on my year to date "Summary," which indicated: {paste}"Personal Rate of Return from 01/01/2011 to 12/19/2011 is -3.6%"

So then, I thought I'd look at what other investment options they had, and into which I could move my money. I clicked the link to the listing of all funds, which showed me this:

(my fund) Inception Date 10/17/1996

3.31

13.99

1.25

4.24

6.32

11/30/2011

This says I've made a little over 3% (first number column above) on my fund. But my summary says I've lost almost 4%, and the difference is significant. Hello? Is anyone in the financial sector even pretending to be transparent or honest? It's like if I have to ask I can't afford it or something. These are called temporary losses, a setback, a downturn. It's more dollar loss than my father ever earned in a year in his life.

I don't even know what to do about my 401K. My plan was to research another fund into which I could move my current funds. But if there's such a big gap in what they say about my own fund, how will I know which of the other funds I should trust? Should I assume they have their signs reversed in the fund list? Should I invest in the fund with -10.0% gains for the year? How can I possibly plan when the data on which to base any decision are wrong? I'm almost certain I've had to click agree to never hold Fidelity responsible for anything they say or publish, nor to use it to make decisions. They're "held harmless."

I shall endeavor to follow up on this post when I've made a decision; though I may not make a decision.

And elsewhere in financial news-- there is a new advertising battle going on among credit card issuers, which argue over whether they give back more money than the competing credit card. Credit cards give money now-- double and triple points. If you buy a mattress, or a vacation, you'll make money! Happy holidays.

Do Mainers care what Forbes thinks about their business climate?

I heard the stunning news today that Forbes Magazine rated Maine's business climate the worst in the country. Yup, we're number 50. The bottom. And how can this happen when Maine has a vocally and actively pro-business governor? They were looking for hotels, cheap heating oil (does this exist?), transportation, sports arenas, and low taxes. That kind of thing.

Maine isn't huge in any of these amenities, and hence we just didn't get checked off on a lot of items on the Forbes list. We kind of flunked it. Well, not flunked actually. We got the lowest score, but I know for a fact we have all of the things Forbes wanted, we just don't have as much as elsewhere. We may be a little short of chain restaurants and strip malls too, but we're catching up.

But here's my question. I'm serious here. My question is, who gives a rat's ass what Forbes magazine thinks of the business climate in Maine? They're shilling a magazine. The "contest" is an advertisement. Forbes is also competing with some businesses in Maine (and many elsewhere), and has a vested interest in the scores. It's safe and effective to just not listen to them. It's dumb misguided to take them seriously-- it's like betting on the Coke vs. Pepsi taste-off. Or caring.

I'd be interested to hear your view-- leave a comment if you feel so moved.

More big pharma news, hope still for sale

As expected, heads turned after the FDA rejected Genentech's block-buster drug Avastin as a treatment for breast cancer. Avastin has many other uses, but even with the FDA sanction, the drug as breast cancer treatment will not be stopped completely.

no company wants to be cast as so heartless that it would deprive a seriously ill cancer patient of a drug that might offer hope, however slim.

Genentech hopes to continue to supply this vital service to its customers, extending hope to their patients, while they charge private insurance and the government as much as $90,000/yr. per patient. For the hope. You can still fill out a form to establish you're under a specific income level and qualify for a $30K reduction in the price. They're incredibly generous.

Big pharma thrashes to protect its market

I've written several times on this blog about Avastin, the "last hope" pharmaceutical-- chemotherapy in other words-- which has the magical property of transfusing all of a patient's assets, including their entitlements under Medicare/Medicaid, into the coffers of the company who makes it.

Well, last weekend they released the results of a new study, or at least tossed out a trial balloon, implying that Avastin, manufactured by Genentech, can be used to destroy fat cells in obesity patients. I thought, reading about this at the time, what a dangerous and violent intervention this suggests-- treating obesity with chemotherapy is like treating zits with a belt sander.

Now, less than one week later, here's another bit of news which puts the first into perspective. The FDA no longer approves Avastin as a treatment for advanced breast cancer. The reason cited is it's not been shown to influence the outcome of breast cancer treatment except to make the patients sicker in their last days, and wring out the last of their money. A normal round of Avastin costs $85,000+, though with an application demonstrating financial need, the company will underwrite about $30,000 of that. Now that the FDA no longer approves of Avastin for cancer treatment, the company has offered to make their chemical available to melt fat from morbidly obese patients. Until now, insurance companies and Mediare/Medicaid paid the tab.

Imagine that! Federal entitlement funds, nearly $90,000 per patient, are injected directly into the bloodstream of big pharma. Well they can't do that with breast cancer patients now. They'll have to do it to the morbidly obese for now. Fie! And doesn't this demonstrate reverse income distribution?

Maybe it's time to Occupy our own health.

The Cold Hard Face of Protectionism

There's a story in the Wall Street Journal about how Maytag is laying off 6,000 US workers. Apparently they've noticed they're selling far fewer large appliances in the US, and counter-intuitively, their raw materials costs are going up. An economist would say this is fine and normal. They say the market has descended to only people replacing their appliances, not to upgrade. I have no doubt this is a fine market reaction. There is no need to produce more appliances than we as a society can buy. The jobs, raw materials, and sales can go elsewhere.

However, we don't expect the capitalists to roll over and take factory closings, reduced sales, reduced profits, and market fluctuations. No, they're now blaming manufacturers of competing products from Asia of dumping products below cost, and enlisting the Department of Commerce to levy a "fee" to cover the difference between the cost and the price. This is legal, but dubious.

What's really happening here? The drop in appliance demand is a normal market adjustment-- it's directly related to the real estate business, which despite very low interest rates suffers from several distressing issues. First, there are few qualified buyers. Real estate prices remain unstable and depressed. And there's horrible unemployment. It's no wonder there's lower demand for new appliances. No problem. It's happened lots of times in the past. The markets will adjust.

But what Maytag wants to do is to shrink AND take some money away from the Asians. This is what gangsters do. Hire some muscle on the waterfront, and some money changes hands. And as a result the prices for our appliances stay high, Maytag gets to expense a lot of capital write-offs, more money is spent in the legal system, the Department of Commerce gets to flex its power. And more of Maytag's infrastructure is sure to be shipped to Latin America, Brazil, Mexico, or Asia. All of the manufacturers mentioned in the article are global businesses. Their shrinkage in the US will be offset by gains in other markets. And yet, they will surely write off large losses in the USA, reducing their US taxable income and hence their taxes. They're laying off 10% of their US workers.

[Maytag] faced intense price pressure from South Korean competitors LG Electronics Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. as they attempt to expand their U.S. market share by offering steep discounts on high-end appliances.

The U.S. Commerce Department on Thursday issued a preliminary determination that found Samsung, LG and other appliance manufacturers sold imported refrigerators in the U.S. at prices below the refrigerators' production costs.

The department said anti-dumping fees ranging from 4% to nearly 37% could be imposed on refrigerators with bottom-mounted freezers unless the manufacturers increase their prices. Whirlpool filed a product dumping complaint against the companies earlier this year.

So the thing is, the Department of Commerce should not be allowed to levy new fees on imported appliances, because it will do nothing to help consumers, and does nothing but buoy prices against the wise feedback from the market, for the benefit of an industry which will move their capacity to another market. Why is it plutocrats are total free-market zealots, except when they go totally protectionist defending their own markets? It's stupid, greedy, devious, and anti-free market. And enlisting government help is corrupt.

I'm sorry the link to the Wall Street Journal only connects to a part of the article and a paywall, but I wasn't able to find a working link to the information elsewhere. (Here's the best article I found) I got to read the whole WSJ article because it was linked from Google. I don't blame the WSJ for charging money for their material. This link connects to a long, detailed, and well written article, with high quality original reporting, that no doubt cost the WSJ a lot to produce and publish. Unfortunately, this means in order to learn about the foibles of the capitalists, you need to be rich enough to subscribe to the Journal. Grrr...