Archive for ‘intelligence’

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Weekender: North Korea in the International Media

North Korean troops conducted live-fire drills on the south-eastern coast near South Korea, earlier this week. North Korean troops brandished weapons given to them by new leader Kim Jong Un, Associated Press reported.

Indeed, the respected leader left many guns as souvenirs after inspection tours, as Voice of Korea reported on March 4, and wouldn’t leave any unit behind without some practical advice either, concerning a barber shop, for example:

Sitting on the beds of soldiers without ceremony, he praised that heating conditions have been ensured well, to live warmly in cold winter, too. At the barber’s, he […] that mirrors should be installed not only in the front, but also in the back and both sides, so that they can see if their haircut is good or not.
[Update, December 23, 2012: soundfile now removed. Please contact me by email or comment if you are interested in the soundfile – JR Former link: soundcloud.com/jr_s-soundfiles/vo-korea-20120304]

Chinese media show some guns being brandished on high-resolution military-exercise photos, and some of those may indeed come from the hands of the respected leader:

Mirrors your haircut (click picture for source)

Colt Government, mirrors your haircut (click photo)

In its weekly “Last Week in East Asia” (东亚过去一周时事回顾) program a week ago, IRIB Tehran‘s Chinese service noted that North Korea had condemned U.S.-South Korean military exercises on February 27 as an “unspoken declaration of war”, and that the DPRK Defense Commission had referred to the southern exercise as an inexcusable war of nerves (精神战). That U.S.-South Korean plot would, however, be eliminated by the DPRK’s people and army, by means of a particular war (特殊战争)*).

Apart from their military exercise [of February 27], America and South Korea also announced an exercise for the month of March. To North Korea, these exercises indicate America’s long-term hostile policies on the Korean peninsula.

On February 29, [North Korea] took a position which led to unexpected change. North Korea announced that it would stop nuclear testing, launchings of long-range missiles, and uranium enrichment activities. The North Korean foreign minister announced these positions on the afternoon of February 29. Pyongyang [also] immediately allowed IAEA inspectors to inspect the country’s nuclear-enrichment activities. […] This, of course, satisfied America. Washington decided to provide North Korea with 240,000 tons of grain.

美国和韩国除了执行此次军演外,还宣布在三月份举行另一场军演。这些演习对于朝鲜来说意味着美国在朝鲜半岛长期的敌视政策。

2月29日,朝鲜局势变化进程和该国采取的立场发生了令人难以预料的变化。朝鲜宣布:该国将停止核试验、发射远程导弹以及进行铀浓缩活动。朝鲜外相2月29日下午宣布了这些立场。随即,平壤将允许国际原子能机构核查人员检查该国的铀浓缩活动。朝鲜的这些政策是在朝鲜副外相在北京与美国代表会晤之后做出的。朝鲜现在还没有宣布停止上述活动的确切时间。 […..] 此后,华盛顿和平壤就此方面达成共识,华盛顿也决定向朝鲜提供24万吨粮食。

Then six days ago, there came this bomb shell: headlined Iran allegedly tested atomic bomb in North Korea, Hans Rühle explained in an article for German  weekly Die Welt (or their Sunday edition) how, well, the allegation could make sense.

Die Welt: Ahmadinejad, Kim

Be very afraid, Dear Reader (click picture for “Die Welt” article in German)

Whenever Rühle, a former leading bureaucrat at Germany’s defense ministry, provides detailed data and information, I’m glad if there is most probably someone else on the world-wide web who will translate that stuff into English – or give an account of the gist of it – before I have to. Adam Cathcart did that right away, still on March 4, on the Sino-NK website. Given that he’s not so familiar with Die Welt, and geographically more distant, too, the revulsion threshold he has to overcome to translate that kind of stuff is probably somewhat lower than mine, and I can just keep reading Huanqiu Shibao (Global Times, but not the English-language one), another produce of global quality journalism from another neck of the globe, and sufficiently foreign to me to get some bizarre enjoyment out of translating it.

I had the opportunity to reciprocate, though, in providing my concise, even if possibly somewhat subjective, views of who Rühle is, and what Die Welt is, in another Sino-NK thread:

Hans Rühle, member of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU), until he left, reportedly out of anger for not being promoted within the defense ministry (which has been attributed to a ruse by Helmut Kohl against Rühle). A sober member of the military-industrial complex he is (otherwise), and a classical pre-unification German apparatchick.

Die Welt, without saying so, seems to subscribe to a concept of a muscular liberalism – but not only at home. They used to be explicitly conservative in the past, but have become somewhat more flexible during the past decade (or even longer), so as not to embarrass the yuppies they’ve discerned as a crucial target group. I suppose Rühle writes there, because this helps the paper to suggest that they have background information to offer. I tend to agree with many things Die Welt writes about domestic politics (an over-emphasized ecological “awareness”, for example), and to disagree with the ideology which seems to define their coverage of international politics. If you are looking for Wilhelministic heritage in Germany (in style only, after all, our allies have changed since), their foreign-affairs editorial department may be a good place to start with.

An exception, and probably not the only one, would be Jonny Erling, their China correspondent. He either knows a lot about the country, or he’s successfully judgmental when deciding to whom in China he should talk and listen, on any day.

The Sino-NK post contains both useful English-language links, and a translation of some of the Rühle’s article.

____________

Note

*) Not sure if particular war is the correct translation, or if it should rather be special warfare, for example, but some of the North’s guns did look particular.

____________

Related

» Why are Mass Media losing Relevance, Febr 26, 2009
» Asshole in a Wall Closet, Volker Pispers/Youtube, 2004

____________

Friday, September 2, 2011

German Press Review: Wikileaks’ Leakage

Wikileaks‘ reputation is now quite probably tarnished – not only among those who never believed that it would work in the way its founder or co-founder Julian Assange asserted it would, anyway, but also among some of the public who so far admired the whistle-blowing platform, and among those who may have considered feeding Wikileaks with new confidential documents now or in the future.

To which extent Wikileaks – or online whistleblowing more in general – have lost credit among those who previously liked the concept, now that an unknown number of documents are publicly disclosed unredacted (i. e. without removing names of people from the classified documents who may otherwise face threats for being uncovered) is hard to tell. Experience would suggest that many Wikileaks fans will simply follow Assange’s example and exclusively blame  the mess on the Guardian (one of the papers who cooperated with Wikileaks and redacted the files before publication in the past) for the publication of the encrypted files’ password.

Among the German media, the extent to which they see Wikileaks damaged varies from paper to paper. Die Welt, conservative, tries to contain itself, and quotes U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, as previously quoted by the New York Times:

We continue to carefully monitor what becomes public and to take steps to mitigate the damage to national security and to assist those who may be harmed by these illegal disclosures to the extent that we can.

Wikileaks, too, writes Die Welt,

understands that it isn’t worth it. A human life weighs more heavily than the elucidation of real or supposed grievances.

Do they?

Die Welt wasn’t among the mainstream media partners who cooperated with Wikileaks. Der Freitag, a not-so-mainstream paper from the left, however, had become an Openleaks partner – the platform founded by Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German national who had fallen out with Assange. According to Die Welt, Der Freitag reported Wikileaks’ passport leak last week. A cooperation partner of Openleaks, or Openleaks itself, may therefore be responsible for now general knowledge of the Guardian disclosure, which had spread privately over several months, reached critical mass last week –  “critical mass” being the wording used in a statement Wikileaks e-mailed to reporters on Thursday.

According to the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Wikileaks have now put all their remaining files or “cables”, a total of 251,287,  online – neither edited by themselves, nor by a cooperation partner. [This number may refer to the encrypted, or to intentionally published files. The Wall Street Journal reported this Friday that “in recent days, as German media reported that the full set of unredacted cables was online outside of WikiLeaks’ control, WikiLeaks scrambled to publish more than 100,000 of its previously unreleased cables”, and that “some of the newly released cables reportedly contained the names of confidential informants”]. Either way,

This could mean that informants and activists in dictatorships and war zones become endangered, as now, intelligence services and warring parties can read the data, too,

muses Andrian Kreye of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, but adds that even Dinah PoKempner, a solicitor with Human Rights Watch (HRW) isn’t aware of people having been arrested or gotten into harms way for having been mentioned in the cables. Rather, in Tunesia or Egypt, the revelations had played an important role for the protest movements.

Either way, suggests Kreye, Wikileaks had lately relied on nothing but on data Bradley Manning had passed on to them. Those files were all public now – and Wikileaks hadn’t received any new files since. One reason could be that the platform doesn’t work any more, and anonymity was therefore technically unfeasible now, writes Kreye.

Even if Assange’s allegations against the Guardian are true, Wikileaks could have chosen a safer way of passing the files on to their cooperation partners, and could – and probably should – have deleted the unedited file immediately after download by the Guardian and other partners, suggests Johannes Kuhn, another Sueddeutsche journalist. Both Assange and the Guardian’s David Leigh (the latter mentioned the complete password publicly) should face questions.

And despite PoKempner’s suggestion that no informants are known to have been harmed so far, worries about the safety of those mentioned in the files still aren’t unjustified. On August 19, Assange had phoned Der Freitag’s (i. e. Domscheit Berg’s partner publication) publisher Jakob Augstein. Assange feared for the safety of informants, Der Freitag reported on August 25.  Augstein assured him that his paper wouldn’t publish information which could endanger informants of the American government.

Now, out of control when it comes to the daily whistle-blowing routine, Assange is back to explaining the world to the world.

“Media organizations that proudly tell the public that they seek the truth are liars,”

he told an audience in Sao Paulo, through a video link from England on Thursday, and:

“In our negotiations with The New York Times and The Guardian, we constantly saw the difference between what the population wants and the angles that are chosen by media groups. The population is much less conservative.”

Maybe some “conservatism” at Wikileaks wouldn’t have hurt.

____________

Related

» Through the Course of his Work, May 9, 2011
» Why Wikileaks can’t Work, December 1, 2010
____________

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Tsai Ing-wen’s Campaign Office hacked, Xinhua too Impartial to be the Source

Tsai Ing-wen‘s election campaign office suffered a hacking attack, Yahoo Taiwan   reported on Tuesday. Tsai is both the oppositional DPP’s chairperson, and its presidential nominee for Taiwan’s presidential and Legislative-Yuan elections scheduled in January.

According to an account of the Yahoo report in English by Echo Taiwan, the hacks came with a Trojan horse, aiming at info stealing, not at damaging data.

[Tsai’s] office holds all the info regarding how the DPP had planned and is planning to campaign for the president and legislator elections early next year, including how to deploy the resources, who is gonna take charge of what, etc.

Reportedly, IP trackings suggest that the hacks originated from China’s Xinhua News Agency, individual hackers, and from some “special group” in Taiwan. Xinhua denies involvement.

“As a news service provider, we have an impartial and objective stance on the election of the Taiwan region, and we will never interfere in the matter”, China Daily quoted a Xinhua spokesman.

Incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou’s campaign office also confirmed having suffered recent hacking attacks, although it did not reveal details or whether any information was leaked,

reports AsiaOne.

As for the suspected identity of the hackers, the campaign office said time constraints prevented them from looking into the high number of hacking activities, and to chase after each case would be futile.

An AFP report tiptoes toward the cui-bono question: “Observers say China would prefer Ma to win instead of DPP chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen”.

____________

Vocabulary

  • Taiwan’s translation for hacker: 駭客 (hài kè) 駭 is an exclamation or sigh expressing shock; ke stands for “guest” (shocking guest).
  • China’s translation for hacker: 黑客 (hēi kè) means “black guest”.

____________

Related

» Malware Networks, Cooperation Appreciated, April 6, 2010

____________

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Taiwan: Just another Day in the KMT Archives

Special Investigation: Another Day in the KMT Archives

Special Investigation: Another Day in the KMT Archives

____________

Related

» Who’s Afraid of an Independent Commission against Corruption, July 2, 2011

» Detective Li, June 30, 2010

Friday, May 27, 2011

It’s just Network Security Training

China’s military has set up an elite Internet security task force tasked with fending off cyberattacks, state media reported on Friday, denying that the initiative is intended to create a “hacker army”,

reports AFP, via Channel Asia (Singapore).

If this information, given by China’s defense ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng, will indeed ring alarm bells around the world among governments and businesses wary of Beijing’s intentions is a different question. Geng actually confirmed what has been common wisdom for several years, even if Beijing now added an official story to it.

Foreign expertise would be welcome, too, People’s Daily‘s English edition quotes Geng.

According to Guy-Philippe Goldstein, a novelist and a strategy consultant, cyber war will amount to destabilizing innovation in warfare. Goldstein offered some history of such innovation, too, in an article for the Süddeutsche Zeitung (Munich), in 2009. He also named the – few – countries that in his view have the potential to get in on cyber warfare.

Singapore’s Morning News (联合早报) special correspondent Zhang Xiaozhong wrote an article on hacker schools in China, also in 2009. Zhang suggested that while there was a variety of motivations to become a skilled hacker, it wasn’t every Chinese hacker’s goal to pursue a military career, or to use hacking as a toll in political activism. On the other hand, Zhang’s description of the scene in China would indeed suggest that the military forces had an exceptionally deep talent pool to draw from at its disposal, when it built the team whose existence Geng confirmed on Friday.

The Chinese hacking “industry” is highly ambivalent in the way it presents itself, and in the way it wants to be seen.

In general, hacking schools don’t like to be referred to as hacking schools,

Zhang wrote.

A hackers base security adviser, Wang Xianbing (王献冰), had previously told a paper quoted by Zhang that “we are a network security training school”.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

Washington and Islamabad: Dupe or Dump

It’s easy to see that the Abottabad operation (aka Neptune Spear) which killed Osama bin Laden has caused ill-feeling in Pakistan (and it would have caused, umm, ill feelings in America  if the Obama administration had missed the opportunity to capture or kill the man.) That said, I’m not very familiar with the issues, and can’t  judge if

the aspirations of an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis reveals that the US is “enemy number one” and has the status of a foe,

as Pakistan’s The News quotes (unnamed) defence experts.
But I can imagine that Islamabad’s leeway to account to the public, for its – even if duplicitous – alliance with America, is getting smaller with each independent American military operation on Pakistan’s soil. There isn’t much coverage of Pakistani public opinion in our media – but that public does exist, too.

Operation Neptune Spear: just porn?

Operation Neptune Spear: just porn?

How sure should we be that the environment for US interests in Pakistan won’t deteriorate, as its operations in Pakistan continue without explicit agreement? And if Islamabad openly “dumped” the alliance with Washington, or vice versa – would American operations become easier, or more difficult?

Pakistan, almost for sure, would then be a failed state for good. Would the Obama administration want to undertake the task of rebuilding it?

That wouldn’t go down well with American public opinion.

I can’t tell how far one can go in interpreting the law of nations, or how far one should go. But they weren’t written for the sake of devotion. Not everyone who advocates respect for them is necessarily a dreamer. We might have done away with many principles of state-to-state relations if they weren’t actually very practical.

____________

» “No longer prepared to listen”, Washington Post, May 15, 2011
» “No one is going to believe them”, Pakistan Observer, no publishing date given (but apparently of May 15)

Monday, May 9, 2011

Assange: through the Course of his Work

I had some discussions with Ned, a Catholic blogger from Australia, in 2008 / 2009, during the American presidential election campaign, and the early days of Barack Obama‘s presidency. This short thread is the only one I can find right now – either way, Ned distrusted Obama’s liberal-asshole background (this is a more complex issue than you might think; he was by no means in love with GWB, Palin, or Limbaugh either), and he distrusted what he referred to as Obama’s messiahdom.

His objections to the hype (that’s how I understand the messiah referral) was something I could always relate to, even though I still believe that America had a choice between two good candidates in 2008  – John McCain and Barack Obama -, and chose the better one of the two, the one who focused on rebuilding America, rather than the world.

But if that hpye angered Ned, why is he silent now, as one of his very Australian compatriots, Julian Assange, has become the global hero?

Julian Assange: some insight

Julian Assange: some insight (click on this picture for video)

Assange was interviewed by Russia Today‘s (RT) Laura Emmett earlier this month, and her introductory remark and question seem to be  ideal characteristics of an interview with a hyped personality:

Julian, thanks for talking to RT. Now, through the course of your work, it’s reasonable to assume that you have some insight into how political decisions are being made. What do you make of the recent events in the Middle East and North Africa. Do you think that we are seeing genuine social unrest, or are we seeing some kind of orchestrated revolt? And if so, who do you think is behind all this?

Why should Assange have particular insight into how political decisions are made – except for decisions he participates in? He knows how to shed light on confidential “cables”, and he may be called an IT expert. And if I had a chat with someone in a pub and got to hear views like his, I’d think that this is an unusually informed and observing contemporary. But that would be that. I wouldn’t think for a moment that he’d have particular insights into political decision-making, simply because what he says.

That’s not to say that the interview wouldn’t worth to be listened to. From 1’50”, Assange discusses “social networking”, and here, he is involved and both knows more than most people you could ask, and is prepared to say things that many other knowledgeable people wouldn’t be prepared to say.

When listening very closely to Assange’s answer to Emmett’s question – if the UK were still a haven for terrorists (3’10”) -, I seem to understand that Assange believes that it may still be a haven for terrorists. But it’s a quickly-mumbled reply, and he immediately switches to more exhaustive remarks about the UK’s role as a haven for oligarchs and former regime dictators.

Emmett’s next question is about why Wikileaks released Guantanamo information now – is it because Obama has recently announced his re-election campaign, and obviously, closing Guantanamo was one of his main election promises?

Seems that Emmett’s previous question about the UK’s role as a safe haven for terrorism wasn’t that important after all. What really matters is that Obama has “given up on closing Guantanamo”. The reporter is doing little more than throwing in cues for Assange. Many “mainstream media” people would do a better job in quizzing their respondents.

To be fair, the video is edited – from 40 to only 13 minutes. But in short, the only reason to watch the video is that it offers information you may not get elsewhere. If the Guardian (5’59”) sucks, Russia Today sucks even more. Mind you – the Guardian has, according to Assange, reduced the information provided by Wikileaks, beyond the reductions both sides had previously agreed to. The paper has, however, gone far beyond what Russia Today would ever dare, or ever want to do in publishing confidential information.

Mr Ed wants to share this farm's secrets with you

You can look - but you may still be clueless (click on this photo, if you like)

Confidentiality isn’t merely a tool to keep “common people” uninformed – and it isn’t meant to be such a tool in the first place. The intended structure is that members of the government’s executive branch can expect that they can discuss sensitive issues, such as how to deal with a representative of a foreign state, without having to expect that next time they meet that very representative, he will know exactly how they are viewing him – or his intentions. Another aspect of that structure is that democratically-elected members of  parliamentary committees will scrutinize the government’s work and documents – confidential ones included.

Every company of any size has the right to develop strategies without making them public – and every such company will still face some – select – scrutiny. Think of the fiscal authorities. But confidential material only needs to become a public matter when it constitutes an offense. In my humble profession, too, I have the right to talk with one, two, or several colleagues at the same time, to choose my interlocutors carefully, and I’m not obliged to reveal everything we’ve talked about to others. Such rights to confidentiality, too, are limited to what is legal, or in accordance with the rules of procedure. Some confidentiality is essential for decision-making.

Nobody knows the standards by which Wikileaks itself publishes the material it gains from its sources. Wikileaks accounts neither to the authors of its sources, nor to the public. And Wikileaks fans don’t seem to have a problem with that. They let explanations like these suffice:

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in the leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive ‘secrecy tax’) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaptation.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.

But it isn’t the world’s most secretive organizations whose members will be prepared to “leak” information. Don’t hold your breath for leaks from the Chinese bureaucracy, or even from Russia’s. Either members will either be to concerned for their own safety, or too patriotic to leak anything.

Let’s get back to Obama…

There were many reasons as to why he was frequently given messiah-like treatment (hosanna one day one, crucify-that-loser on day 300 (give it a few hundred days either way), and currently he’s-cool-he-caught-Osama). When people believe that a single person or party can solve their problems, they are most probably lazy. If Obama will take care of all that undefined stuff, and we will have full employment, public happiness, or whatever within four years. Be prepared to cry.

Or Assange will take care of all that stuff, and every government will be held accountable. The problem is: everyone who reads easily accessible sources – papers, online articles, and – even if only once a year – a carefully-chosen non-fictional book, will be better informed than anyone who would care to work his way through every damned cable that has been published by Wikileaks since last year. There is no shortcut to a society that holds its government – and its corporations – accountable. It takes more than Assange’s work. And while Obama’s performance does play a certain role after all, Assange’s doesn’t.

Most European societies, plus American society, plus many more around the globe, offer the conditions it takes to be judgmental, and to act in accordance with ones judgment.

Wikileaks is doing more damage than good to such an environment. There is no shortcut to individual judgment. Only the ability to judge, and to act, can hold bureaucracies accountable.

____________

Related
Guantanamo Files, Wikileaks, ca. April 24, 2011

Friday, April 1, 2011

Enorth: Internet Freedom is Cyberwarfare

When the first line of an article contains 372 characters (blanks not counted), things are likely to get complicated. Enorth (Tianjin) carries such an article today, and urges all the countries of the world to be on their guard, regarding U.S. state secretary Hilary Clinton‘s position on internet freedom.

[Main link: http://news.enorth.com.cn/system/2011/04/01/006289911.shtml – links within blockquotes were added during translation. The article is apparently Enorth’s own work, as even Xinhua attributes it to them (author: Zhang Qiang, 张强), because no particular other source is given there. – JR]

When America spreads high-sounding advocacy for the “concept of internet freedom of information”  and criticizes other sovereign countries by name for their legitimate management of internet affairs, it may, while ruling two thirds of the empire (三分天下有其二),  still serve the emperor*): firstly, while extending the internet from being a provider of information, to becoming a platform, the West advocates it is “a quintessential expression of thought and information freedom”, but in fact, with the innovative development of the internet, its center of gravity is changing again, as it switches from being a simple form of entertainment and information exchange, to more complex expressions of thoughts, that is to say that although the internet is a virtual space, it constitutes a real influence on real political and economic life, which is why America’s March 2005 Strategic Defense Report (国防战略报告) points out that the internet is [strategically] as important as land, sea, air, and space, and that America must maintain its advantages in these five fields, and secondly, the department of defense’s advanced research project considered the necessities of future wars since 1969, and fourty years after it had funded an embryonic version of the internet, the ARPANET, America now uses the internet as a source of its advantage, mastering its core technology, and controlling its global gateways – as the internet’s root server, and as its hegemonist.

"There are currently no comments"

"There are currently no comments"

The article is part of an apparent CCP propaganda strategy to encourage Chinese internet users’ cooperation in, or at least their tolerance of, internet censorship, but it is more explicit in alleging a role of the internet in American or “Western” warfare against China, than a previous Huanqiu Shibao article a week ago.

The Enorth article suggests that China’s and other countries’   “reasonable internet administration”, “in accordance with their own interests and safety considerations” (于自身利益与安全考虑之下的合理管控行为) hampered American hegemonist ambitions, and that Clinton’s open “fault-seeking” (or gesticulations – 指手画脚) with the internal affairs of sovereign states were reflecting this.

In its second paragraph, the Enorth article quotes a New York Times‘ report of December 2005 about cooperation between intelligence agencies and telecommunication companies to establish a procedure of gathering information from internet messages. An American broadcaster (apparently CBS) is quoted as having reported on January 11, 2006, that several years earlier, the CIA had used high-end technology to steal intelligence reports from other countries (从互联网上窃取他国情报), and that, according to a person responsible, the CIA hadn’t stopped controlling the internet for even one day. This had been particularly true in the aftermath of 9-11, 2001. In its third paragraph, the article concludes:

We are afraid that the American clamor for internet freedom can’t simply be seen as coming from a perspective of information flows: on the one hand, as a country’s dependence on the internet in terms of politics, economics, military matters, and social life has grown, America alone is in control of the root server, which worries many countries. On the other hand, a U.S. government internet safety evaluation report of May 29, 2009 says that threats from the internet had become one of the serious threats America were facing. To be in the foremost position in the internet warfare, the American defense department even created a cyberwarfare department on May 23, 2009, the meaning of which is evident without explanations or words (不言而明).

____________

Note

*) the article uses a figure of speech from the Analects of Confucius, chapter 8, verse 20. The verse in full:

Shun has five great officials and thus he is able to govern well. Emperor Wu said:”I have ten great officials.” Confucius said:”Indeed, talent is hard to find, is it not true? Following the time of Yao and Shun, talents are now plentiful. Yet one of the ten was a woman, so in actual fact there is nine. When Emperor Wen ruled two thirds of the empire, he still serve the Emperor of Shang Dynasty. Such virtue of Emperor Wu is indeed magnificent.”
In modern Chinese: 帝舜有五位次贤臣,所以天下太平。周武王说:“我有十位贤臣。” 孔子说:“人才难求,难道不是吗?唐尧、虞舜时代之后,与周五王的时代最是人才济济。可是十人中,有一位是妇人,所以实际上只有九人罢了;当初周文王三分 天下拥有其中之二,却仍以臣子之礼侍奉殷商,周文王的德义,可以说是做到了至仁至义了。” /
Classical: 舜有臣五人而天下治。武王曰:“予有乱臣十人。”孔子曰:“才难,不其然乎?唐虞之际,于斯为盛。有妇人焉,九人而已。三分天下有其二,以服事殷。周之德, 其可谓至德也已矣。”
Source: Chinese-Wiki, Analects of Confucius

____________

Related

People’s Daily Senior Editor discusses Real World, December 13, 2010
Net Nanny: Hostile Acts on the Internet, April 20, 2010
Malware Networks, Cooperation Appreciated, April 6, 2010
The Internet is a Military Secret, August 14, 2009
Serve your Country, Become a Network Security Adviser, July 31, 2009

____________

%d bloggers like this: