GreenTechSupport GTS 井上創学館 IESSGK

GreenTechSupport News from IESSGK

news20090628BRT

2009-06-28 19:54:58 | Weblog
[Biography of the Day] from [Britannica]
June 28



[On This Day] from [Britannica]
June 28



[Today's Word] from [Dr. Kazuo Iwata]
June 28
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
Nature never deceives us; it is always we who deceive ourselves.
Jean Jacques Rousseau (born this day in 1712)

(人間は自由に生まれながら、あらゆるところで鎖につながれている。
自然はけっしてわれわれを騙さない。自分自身を欺くものは、つねにわれわれである。)

news20090628JT1

2009-06-28 18:56:59 | Weblog
[TODAY'S TOP STORIES] from [The Japan Times]

[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Aso leaning toward early August election
LDP executives may also be reshuffled to boost poll numbers


(Kyodo News) As speculation grows over the timing of the next general election, Prime Minister Taro Aso began moving Saturday toward holding it in early August, coalition sources said.

On Saturday night, Aso met with Hiroyuki Hosoda, the secretary general of his Liberal Democratic Party, to discuss election matters. What they concluded was not immediately clear.

"It is almost certain that Prime Minister Aso will dissolve the Lower House sometime in July. I would like to ask him whether he plans to dissolve the chamber soon or wait for various bills to be passed," Hosoda told reporters in Nara Prefecture before the meeting.

Hosoda has repeatedly said that he hopes high-profile bills, including one to revise the Organ Transplant Law and another to allow Japan to inspect North Korean cargo ships on the high seas, get past the Diet before Aso dissolves the Lower House.

Even so, Hosoda said he wouldn't try to push the issue with Aso.

According to the sources, Aso is apparently considering dissolving the House of Representatives in early or mid-July to hold the pivotal election on Aug. 2 or Aug. 9.

Aso himself floated the idea of holding an August election in a meeting Friday night with Akihiro Ota, leader of New Komeito, the ruling LDP's junior coalition partner, the sources said.

Despite New Komeito's repeated requests not to hold the election close to the July 12 Tokyo assembly race, Aso told Ota it would be difficult to keep the Tokyo assembly election and the general election more than a month apart, the sources said. Tokyo is New Komeito's power base.

Aso also said Thursday at a news conference that his call to dissolve the Lower House would come "in the not-so-distant future."

On Friday, he suggested the time frame for the remark covered up to around two months.

"What impression do you get if I say 'in the not-so-distant future?' I don't think one month is so distant. I don't think two months are also so distant," Aso told reporters. "I will make the decision on the timing (for the dissolution) at an appropriate time."

Aso's remarks were perceived as a way for testing the waters for a July dissolution before the Tokyo assembly election and a general election in early August.

The sources also said Aso is considering reshuffling the LDP's leadership as early as Thursday, after the Cabinet approves a ceiling for fiscal 2010 budget requests on Wednesday.

The reshuffle is aimed at refreshing the LDP's image before the election, the sources said.

According to the lawmaker, Aso plans to replace Secretary General Hosoda, Policy Research Council Chairman Kosuke Hori and General Council Chairman Sasagawa. But Aso will let Election Strategy Council Chairman Makoto Koga stay in his post, the lawmaker said.

DPJ targets budget
The Democratic Party of Japan will freeze some of the measures in the supplementary budget for fiscal 2009 if it becomes the ruling party, DPJ leader Yukio Hatoyama said Saturday.

Speaking in Sapporo, Hatoyama said the opposition-leading party would review the supplementary budget, which has been approved by the Diet, and that some of the measures would be frozen if deemed unnecessary.

"It will be difficult to stop the policy measures that are already being implemented, but we will slam the brakes on things that aren't necessary," Hatoyama said.

The party will submit a revised supplementary budget to the Diet to allocate funds for measures that are effective and important, he said.

As an example, Hatoyama said that some of the budget should be spent on welfare payments for single-parent households instead of building a new media center in Tokyo to promote animation and art. The welfare payments were terminated in April.

A bill being sponsored by the opposition to resume state welfare payments for single-parent households cleared the House of Councilors on Friday.

It is unlikely to clear the Diet, however, because the ruling bloc, which controls the powerful Lower House, opposes it.


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, June 28, 2009
North threatens to shoot spy planes

SEOUL (AP) North Korea threatened Saturday to shoot down any Japanese planes that intrude into its airspace, accusing Tokyo of spying near one of its missile sites.

The North has designated a no-sail zone off its eastern coast lasting from Thursday to July 10 for military drills, raising concerns it might test-fire short- or mid-range missiles in the coming days in violation of a U.N. resolution.

North Korea's air force said Japan's E-767 surveillance aircraft conducted aerial espionage near the Musudan-ri missile site on its northeast coast Wednesday and Thursday.

The country's official mouthpiece, the Korean Central News Agency, said the air force "will not tolerate even a bit the aerial espionage by the warmongers of the Japanese aggression forces but mercilessly shoot down any plane intruding into the territorial air of the (North) even 0.001 mm."

Officials of the Air Self-Defense Force were not immediately available for comment Saturday.

The threat against the alleged aerial espionage is rare, although the North has regularly complained of U.S. spy missions in its airspace.

Japan is very sensitive to North Korea's missile programs, as its islands lie within easy range. In 1998, a North Korean missile flew over Honshu. Tokyo has since spent billions of dollars on developing a missile shield with the United States and has launched a series of spy satellites primarily to watch developments in North Korea.

But in April, another rocket flew over the island, drawing a strong protest from Tokyo. Pyongyang claims it put a satellite into orbit.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Toyota to work on weekends

NAGOYA (Kyodo) Toyota Motor Corp. will resume weekend production in July to meet strong demand for the remodeled Prius hybrid car, company officials said Saturday.

Toyota resumed overtime work in June but has decided it needs to operate its Prius plant in Toyota, Aichi Prefecture, on July 11 to catch up with brisk demand for the gasoline-electric car, the officials said. Toyota canceled weekend work hours last December.

"We'd like to improve as soon as possible the situation where purchasers are waiting for delivery," a Toyota official said.

Orders for the car, unveiled in May, have already hit 200,000 so far. The new cars are expected to be delivered in February, at the earliest.

Weekend production had been suspended as part of efforts to adjust output to deal with the global depression in the automobile market.

Toyota Auto Body Co., a Toyota manufacturing unit, will also operate its plant in the city of Kariya on July 11 and its plant in Inabe, Mie Prefecture, on July 4 and 11, the officials said.

The Kariya plant, which is also in Aichi, produces the new Prius, while the Inabe factory manufactures the Alphard and Vellfire minivans.

The Alphard and Vellfire are selling well.


[BUSINESS NEWS]
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sato's call to freeze Japan Post IPOs challenges privatization

(Kyodo News) Internal affairs minister Tsutomu Sato urged Japan Post Holdings Co. on Friday to freeze its initial public offerings of shares in itself and two of its subsidiaries planned for fiscal 2010.

"No one believes stock offerings are appropriate," Sato told a news conference.

The government ordered Japan Post in April to improve its business practices following several scandals, including its aborted sale of the Kampo no Yado resort inn network.

"I doubt if it should consider the matter while carrying out business improvements over the next one year," the minister said.

Sato touched on the IPO freeze for the first time since taking the helm of the Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry.

He succeeded Kunio Hatoyama, who resigned June 12 to protest Prime Minister Taro Aso's decision to allow Yoshifumi Nishikawa to retain the Japan Post presidency, despite the scandals.

Sato's remarks on the IPO freeze are expected to prompt calls to reconsider the privatization of the postal system, which started in October 2007 with its breakup into Japan Post as a holding company and four subsidiaries under it.

Sato had earlier called for re-examining the privatization process, which is planned to take 10 years.

Japan Post has plans to list itself and two subsidiaries — Japan Post Bank Co. and Japan Post Insurance Co. — in fiscal 2010 at the earliest. Japan Post is required under law to release all shares in the two subsidiaries by September 2017. The government is set to retain an equity stake of at least one-third in the holding company even after its IPO.

news20090628JT2

2009-06-28 18:49:16 | Weblog
[TODAY'S TOP STORIES] from [The Japan Times]

[ENVIRONMENT]
Sunday, June 28, 2009
OUR PLANET EARTH
Priorities and politics 'must change fast' to head off global calamity
By STEPHEN HESSE

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer declared: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

Reading the most recent book by James Gustave Speth, Dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, brings these words repeatedly to mind.

As one of America's leading environmentalists, Speth's writings attract great attention — especially given his other roles as founder of the World Resources Institute and co-founder of the the Natural Resources Defense Council, two of Washington's most respected environmental organizations.

Speth was also chair of the Council on Environmental Quality under U.S. President Jimmy Carter, headed the U.N. Development Programme, and received the Asahi Glass Blue Planet Prize in 2002.

His most recent work — described by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as "the most compelling plea we have for changing our lives and our politics" — is titled "The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability" (2008, CQ Press). There, Speth spells out the great challenges humanity faces and his thoughts on how to overcome them. The Japanese translation is due out this fall.

"All of us who have been part of the environmental movement in the United States must now face up to a deeply troubling paradox: Our environmental organizations have grown in strength and sophistication, but the environment has continued to go downhill, to the point that the prospect of a ruined planet is now very real. How could this have happened?" Speth said in an article last autumn — asking a question that also applies to environmentalism worldwide.

The situation, he declares, is bad.

"Half the world's tropical and temperate forests are now gone. The rate of deforestation in the Tropics continues at about an acre a second, and has for decades. Half the planet's wetlands are gone. An estimated 90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are overfished or fished to capacity. Almost half the corals are gone or seriously threatened.

"Species are disappearing at rates about 1,000 times faster than normal. Desertification claims a Nebraska-sized area of productive capacity each year globally [an area only 15 percent smaller than the size of Honshu].

"Persistent toxic chemicals can now be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us," he writes.

Most people have heard such facts and figures before, but Speth is as well aware of our successes as our failures. Indeed, it is this objectivity that makes him such a thoughtful voice for change.

"All we have to do to destroy the planet's climate and biota and leave a ruined world to our children and grandchildren is to keep doing exactly what we are doing today, with no growth in human population or the world economy. Just continue to generate greenhouse gases at current rates; just continue to impoverish ecosystems and release toxic chemicals at current rates; and the world in the latter part of this century won't be fit to live in.

"But human activities are not holding at current levels — they are accelerating, dramatically. The size of the world economy has more than quadrupled since 1960, and is projected to quadruple again by mid-century. It took all of human history to grow the $7-trillion world economy of 1950. We now grow by that amount in a decade," he explains.

The problem is clear, according to Speth: Modern capitalism is out of control. We have come to believe that, given enough time and space, continuous economic growth will make all 6.5 billion of us better off materially, socially, politically and spiritually.

But, as he notes in "The Bridge at the Edge of the World," our planet remains finite. Both time and space conspire against our pursuit of unlimited growth.

Indeed, growth has become the overarching belief system of humanity.

"Communism aspired to become the universal creed of the 20th century, but a more flexible and seductive religion succeeded where communism failed: the quest for economic growth. Capitalists, nationalists — indeed almost everyone, communists included — worshipped at this same altar because economic growth disguised a multitude of sins," notes historian J.R. McNeill, one of dozens of authorities Speth enlists in this work.

Thinking back to Schopenhauer, those who worship free-hand capitalism and laissez-faire government will ridicule and oppose Speth. But for those seeking an even-handed look at the shortcomings of the status quo, "The Bridge at the End of the World" offers a cogent and well- documented journey through our past, present and future(s).

Speth peels back the many layers of our global societal onion: the workings of the market and contemporary environmentalism; our addiction to growth, consumption and corporations; studies confirming that even as a nation's Gross Domestic Product rises, life satisfaction remains level; and the seeds for transformation we already possess — but must take up and plant — including new ways of doing business and new politics.

The last time I spoke with Speth was at Yale in 2004, just after his book "Red Sky at Morning" was published. This time we talked by e-mail, and I asked if any of his observations in the new book have been altered by the recent financial meltdown.

"The economic collapse serves to further delegitimize the current order, and opens the door further to fundamental challenges. For decades, anti-regulation market fundamentalists have argued with increasing success against government interference in the economy. As a result, investor, consumer and environmental protection have all been weakened far past the danger point. Thanks to the crisis, we may be able to say goodbye to that era," he replied.

Asked what role he would like to see Japan play in the coming decade, Speth offered several suggestions.

"I would like to see Japan pioneer in becoming a post-growth society, as described in the book. The world also needs Japanese leadership in three upcoming areas: in negotiating a post-Kyoto climate agreement; in making the Biodiversity Convention succeed in protecting biodiversity (the upcoming meeting of convention members will be in Japan, hosted by the government); and in seeking to reform the process of global environmental governance, which today is deplorably weak, much weaker than global economic governance. I describe this last need in 'Red Sky at Morning,' " he said.

China is a different story.

"Like the United States, China is a huge problem for the global environment. The good news is that the Chinese authorities now know this, I believe, and understand that their domestic environmental challenges are intimately linked to their global ones, and that there are new industries and products to be built solving both," Speth noted.

I suspect he would agree with Schopenhauer's progression of truth, but in his book he chooses the greater optimism of Mahatma Gandhi: "First they laugh at you, then they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win," quotes Speth.

Speth is one of this generation's keenest observers and potential reformers. He sees "we're headed toward a ruined planet" — but he is also committed to finding solutions, to finding another path, one that "leads to a bridge across the abyss."

"The Bridge at the Edge of the World" offers no promises, but as Speth develops his case against status-quo capitalism, growth at all costs, and misguided governance, he maintains guarded optimism that we can change direction.

To do so, though, will require a concerted change in our priorities and practices. If we don't, we are very likely to end up where we are headed.

news20090628JT3

2009-06-28 18:33:01 | Weblog
[TODAY'S TOP STORIES] from [The Japan Times]

[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Jackson enjoyed loyal following in Japan
By YURI KAGEYAMA
The Associated Press

Despite years of child molestation accusations and deep financial difficulties, Michael Jackson could always count on one nation for unquestioning fan loyalty and lucrative advertising deals — Japan.

His death in Los Angeles on Thursday at age 50 shook the country. Many Japanese TV channels switched to special programming, and a major online retailer was flooded with orders for Jackson's recordings. The government's top spokesman and other ministers expressed their condolences.

"He was a superstar. It is an extremely tragic loss. But it is fantastic he was able to give so many dreams and so much hope to the people of the world," said health minister Yoichi Masuzoe.

Jackson chose Japan — the biggest pop music market in Asia — as the place to make his first public appearance since being acquitted of molestation charges in 2005, a delicate period in his career when his marketability began tanking.

At a ceremony in Tokyo in 2006, Jackson choked up before fans screaming "I love you" as he accepted the Japan MTV "Legend Award." He later visited an orphanage on a trip largely untarnished by the bad press he had received back home.

Japan has long been famous for the royal treatment it gives visiting foreign musicians, and the courteous and deferential coverage it gives to American celebrities. Reports of Jackson's court proceedings didn't fascinate the Japanese as much as his high-spending late-night shopping spree at an electronics store and his visits to Tokyo Disneyland after the park had closed.

Steve McClure, the former Tokyo bureau chief for Billboard magazine, said Japanese fans are fiercely loyal, even with stars who have fallen from grace elsewhere, and that was likely an attraction for Jackson.

He often visited Japan and showed a lot of affection for his fans there; he often became tearful when met with emotional displays from cheering Japanese crowds.

Jackson definitely saw Japan as a good source of income. He sold 4 million Top 10 records, making him the top-selling foreign male artist in Japan. He also appeared in TV commercials for Suzuki scooters and Sony TVs.

Fans displayed the depth of their love — and pockets — for Jackson in 2007 by hosting a ¥400,000 a plate buffet dinner for the star, who appeared but did not perform at the event. Four hundred fans took in performances by several Japanese Jackson impersonators and got their pictures taken with the man himself.

"Japan is one of my favorite places to visit in the world," Jackson said when he appeared on stage at the end of the six-hour party just long enough to express his gratitude. The fee for his appearance was never disclosed.

Perception — however unfair and condescending — is widespread in the music industry that Japanese audiences are unsophisticated and will pay big bucks for any music, including that produced by acts that have failed or lost popularity in the West.

"He was milking Japan for what it was worth because he still had these pretty dedicated fans who apparently didn't mind parting with money to just have the privilege of being in the same room as him," said McClure, who now produces an online music industry magazine, McClure's Asia Music News. "He couldn't do it in the States."

Tatsuro Yagawa, spokesman for Tower Records Japan, which set up special areas to showcase Jackson's music Friday, said sales of Jackson's music contributed greatly to the success of his business.

"We have scored massive sales thanks to him. He is one of the greatest artists in history," Yagawa said.

The retailer said CD sales began picking up following news of his death.

Upon hearing of the King of Pop's death, 44-year-old office worker Michiaki Koiso rushed out to buy a Jackson compilation album.

"I couldn't do anything else," he said sadly in Tower Records in downtown Tokyo.

Jackson was to embark on a comeback tour next month in London. No Japanese dates had been announced.

"I was hoping he would come again to Japan someday," Koiso said.


[NATIONAL NEWS]
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Use of medical helicopters surged to more than 5,600 flights in 2008

(Kyodo News) Medical helicopters flew 5,635 times in fiscal 2008 ended this March, or more than six times more than when Japan launched aeromedical services in 2000, a medical society reported Saturday.

The number of hospitals participating in the service rose to 18 from only five in the first year, but expanding that will require more finances and medical staff, the Japanese Society for Aeromedical Services said.

An aeromedical helicopter costs about ¥170 million a year to operate, a sum that is paid by the central and municipal governments. The government has earmarked enough funds for six more helicopters in fiscal 2009.

But the subsidies are far short of what is necessary because the government's estimate of how often they are used is far below reality, and this is starting to make other hospitals reluctant about participating in the service, the society said.

An aeromedical helicopter can cover an area with a 50-km radius in 15 minutes.

Compared with ambulances, helicopters shorten response times by an average of 26 minutes, which reduces fatalities by 27 percent.

news20090628LAT

2009-06-28 17:30:57 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [Los Angeles Times]

[Top News]
Governor's last stand: his way or IOUs
Schwarzenegger's high-stakes strategy could close the budget abyss or cause a meltdown of state government.

By Michael Rothfeld and Evan Halper
10:57 PM PDT, June 27, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, seeking to conquer what could be the last budget crisis of his tenure, is engaged in a high-stakes negotiating strategy with lawmakers that could force him to preside over a meltdown of state government.

As legislators have scrambled to stop the state from postponing payment of its bills and issuing IOUs starting next week, the governor has vowed to veto any measure that fails to close the state's entire $24-billion deficit.

In doing so, Schwarzenegger has sent the message that he would rather allow the state to begin shutting down than let lawmakers push its troubles off for months by closing only part of the shortfall. The latter prospect could swallow up the rest of his governorship.

"Whatever needs to be done," Schwarzenegger told reporters outside his Capitol office Friday when asked why he would be willing to delay payments to needy Californians. "I know that there is a history in this building of always being late with the budget, to drag it out and to kick that can down the alley. . . . I don't think we have this luxury this time."

The governor readily admits that he sees the crisis as a chance to make big changes to government -- to "reform the system," he said Friday -- with proposals he has struggled to advance in the past.


Among them: reorganizing state bureaucracy, eliminating patronage boards and curbing fraud in social services that Democrats have traditionally protected. The governor also would like to move past the budget crisis to reach a deal on California's water problems that has so far eluded him.

By agreeing to a partial budget solution such as one the Assembly approved Thursday, the governor would lose leverage to accomplish many of those things. Without the pressure of imminent insolvency, Democrats might be less likely to agree to his demands.

But if his strategy fails, he could be blamed for unnecessarily subjecting state residents to misery.

"I don't believe the governor wants his legacy to be that he had the opportunity to avoid IOUs for Californians and that he failed to take it because he wanted to play a game of chicken," Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said last week.

California Controller John Chiang has announced that on Thursday he will begin issuing IOUs on the scale of $3 billion a month, delaying payments to college students, welfare recipients, the elderly, the blind and the disabled. The state is on track to run out of cash by the end of July.

The governor has pushed lawmakers to move with urgency, but he has also made clear that his two priorities are ensuring that the state will not raise taxes, as it did in February, and that it closes the whole deficit in one shot.

The Assembly approved measures totaling $5 billion Thursday that would have cut education funding and deferred some expenses, extending the timeline before the state would run out of money. But the Senate rejected the proposal before it reached the governor's desk, so he did not have to exercise a veto, as he had promised to do.

Even if he had, said Bruce Cain, professor of political science at UC Berkeley, the time is ripe for Schwarzenegger to take a gamble: The governor has no obvious designs on future office that might require him to be cautious, and voters who rejected tax hikes in May's election appear to support his approach. In any case, Cain said, most Californians will see those to be hurt by IOUs as vendors and "overpaid state employees," not themselves.

"The reality of what these cuts he is pushing for will mean hasn't hit home with the public yet," Cain said. "They see him standing up to unions and trying to cut all the waste and fraud. . . . Until the middle class bleeds in a way they care about, Arnold has the upper hand."

In this final year before he becomes a lame duck, the governor has attempted to use the budget standoff to burnish the kind of legacy he originally sought, as a populist change agent who promised to control California's finances, "blow up the boxes" of Sacramento's bureaucracy and attack the Capitol's sacred cows.

"We must use this crisis as an opportunity to make government more efficient, which is a much better option than raising your taxes," Schwarzenegger said in a radio address this weekend.

In past years, his plans ran into opposition organized largely by well-funded labor groups and Democrats, who say his proposals are really meant to strangle government. Now he is newly armed with negotiating power over Democratic lawmakers desperate to preserve state programs.

Back on the governor's demand list is a plan to cut the pensions received by state workers, which unions have stymied before but which he thinks may gain traction with a cash-strapped public. Schwarzenegger also views this as an ideal time to once again target growth and fraud in the state's multibillion-dollar in-home healthcare program, which employs 300,000 unionized workers.

His agenda includes anti-fraud efforts and tougher enrollment requirements for the state's food stamp programs, efforts that advocates for the poor say are designed to discourage people from participating. In his radio address, he said the state and counties could get by with a "fraction" of the 27,000 workers now handling eligibility for Medi-Cal and food stamps by using Web-based enrollment.

Schwarzenegger has revived plans to allow local school districts to contract out for services like school bus transportation and lawn maintenance, a proposal favored by the GOP but despised by school employee unions.

Gary Jacobson, a professor of political science at UC San Diego, said Schwarzenegger has put himself at risk of antagonizing the public by holding out for some of these ideas while forcing deep cuts and forswearing new taxes that could alleviate some of the pain.

"When it hits people how much damage this budget has done, they are going to say, 'So what that he got some of these things through? Look at what he has done to us in the meantime. State parks are closed. Classrooms are huge. People are being thrown out of the hospital. Medical clinics are shutting down,' " Jacobson said.

"When all this hits," he added, "it is going to be hard to imagine people will look on him favorably because he got some of the structural reforms he wanted."

news20090628NYT1

2009-06-28 16:57:33 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World]
U.S. and Russia Differ on a Treaty for Cyberspace
By JOHN MARKOFF and ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: June 27, 2009

The United States and Russia are locked in a fundamental dispute over how to counter the growing threat of cyberwar attacks that could wreak havoc on computer systems and the Internet.

Both nations agree that cyberspace is an emerging battleground. The two sides are expected to address the subject when President Obama visits Russia next week and at the General Assembly of the United Nations in November, according to a senior State Department official.

But there the agreement ends.

Russia favors an international treaty along the lines of those negotiated for chemical weapons and has pushed for that approach at a series of meetings this year and in public statements by a high-ranking official.

The United States argues that a treaty is unnecessary. It instead advocates improved cooperation among international law enforcement groups. If these groups cooperate to make cyberspace more secure against criminal intrusions, their work will also make cyberspace more secure against military campaigns, American officials say.

“We really believe it’s defense, defense, defense,” said the State Department official, who asked not to be identified because authorization had not been given to speak on the record. “They want to constrain offense. We needed to be able to criminalize these horrible 50,000 attacks we were getting a day.”

Any agreement on cyberspace presents special difficulties because the matter touches on issues like censorship of the Internet, sovereignty and rogue actors who might not be subject to a treaty.

United States officials say the disagreement over approach has hindered international law enforcement cooperation, particularly given that a significant proportion of the attacks against American government targets are coming from China and Russia.

And from the Russian perspective, the absence of a treaty is permitting a kind of arms race with potentially dangerous consequences.

Officials around the world recognize the need to deal with the growing threat of cyberwar. Many countries, including the United States, are developing weapons for it, like “logic bombs” that can be hidden in computers to halt them at crucial times or damage circuitry; “botnets” that can disable or spy on Web sites and networks; or microwave radiation devices that can burn out computer circuits miles away.

The Pentagon is planning to create a military command to prepare for both defense and offensive computer warfare. And last month, President Obama released his cybersecurity strategy and said he would appoint a “cybersecurity coordinator” to lead efforts to protect government computers, the air traffic control system and other essential systems. The administration also emphasizes the benefits of building international cooperation.

The Russian and American approaches — a treaty and a law enforcement agreement — are not necessarily incompatible. But they represent different philosophical approaches.

In a speech on March 18, Vladislav P. Sherstyuk, a deputy secretary of the Russian Security Council, a powerful body advising the president on national security, laid out what he described as Russia’s bedrock positions on disarmament in cyberspace. Russia’s proposed treaty would ban a country from secretly embedding malicious codes or circuitry that could be later activated from afar in the event of war.

Other Russian proposals include the application of humanitarian laws banning attacks on noncombatants and a ban on deception in operations in cyberspace — an attempt to deal with the challenge of anonymous attacks. The Russians have also called for broader international government oversight of the Internet.

But American officials are particularly resistant to agreements that would allow governments to censor the Internet, saying they would provide cover for totalitarian regimes. These officials also worry that a treaty would be ineffective because it can be almost impossible to determine if an Internet attack originated from a government, a hacker loyal to that government, or a rogue acting independently.

The unique challenge of cyberspace is that governments can carry out deceptive attacks to which they cannot be linked, said Herbert Lin, director of a study by the National Research Council, a private, nonprofit organization, on the development of cyberweapons.

This challenge became apparent in 2001, after a Navy P-3 surveillance plane collided with a Chinese fighter plane, said Linton Wells II, a former high-ranking Pentagon official who now teaches at the National Defense University. The collision was followed by a huge increase in attacks on United States government computer targets from sources that could not be identified, he said.

Similarly, after computer attacks in Estonia in April 2007 and in the nation of Georgia last August, the Russian government denied involvement and independent observers said the attacks could have been carried out by nationalist sympathizers or by criminal gangs.

The United States is trying to improve cybersecurity by building relationships among international law enforcement agencies. State Department officials hold out as a model the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, which took effect in 2004 and has been signed by 22 nations, including the United States but not Russia or China.

But Russia objects that the European convention on cybercrime allows the police to open an investigation of suspected online crime originating in another country without first informing local authorities, infringing on traditional ideas of sovereignty. Vladimir V. Sokolov, deputy director of the Institute for Information Security Issues, a policy organization, noted that Russian authorities routinely cooperated with foreign police organizations when they were approached.

This is not the first time the issue of arms control for cyberspace has been raised.

In 1996, at the dawn of commercial cyberspace, American and Russian military delegations met secretly in Moscow to discuss the subject. The American delegation was led by an academic military strategist, and the Russian delegation by a four-star admiral. No agreement emerged from the meeting, which has not previously been reported.

Later, the Russian government repeatedly introduced resolutions calling for cyberspace disarmament treaties before the United Nations. The United States consistently opposed the idea.

In late April, Russian military representatives indicated an interest in renewed negotiations at a Russian-sponsored meeting on computer security in Garmisch, Germany.

John Arquilla, an expert in military strategy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who led the American delegation at the 1996 talks, said he had received almost no interest from within the American military after those initial meetings. “It was a great opportunity lost,” he said.

Unlike American officials who favor tightening law enforcement relationships, Mr. Arquilla continues to believe in cyberspace weapons negotiations, he said. He noted that the treaties on chemical weapons had persuaded many nations not to make or stockpile such weapons.

The United States and China have not held high-level talks on cyberwar issues, specialists say. But there is some evidence that the Chinese are being courted by Russia for support of an arms control treaty for cyberspace.

“China has consistently attached extreme importance to matters of information security, and has always actively supported and participated in efforts by the international community dedicated to maintaining Internet safety and cracking down on criminal cyber-activity,” Qin Gang, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, said in a statement.

Whether the American or Russian approach prevails, arms control experts said, major governments are reaching a point of no return in heading off a cyberwar arms race.

Cyberwar
Responding to a Growing Threat
Computers, indispensable in peace, are becoming ever more important in political conflicts and open warfare. This article is the sixth in a series examining the growing use of computer power as a weapon.

Privacy May Be a Victim in Cyberdefense Plan
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER
A plan to create a new Pentagon cybercommand is raising privacy and diplomatic concerns.
June 13, 2009

Contractors Vie for Plum Work, Hacking for U.S.
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JOHN MARKOFF
The government’s push into cyberwarfare has set off a rush among big military companies to secure billions of dollars in contracts and attract top young talent.
May 31, 2009

Cadets Trade the Trenches for Firewalls
By COREY KILGANNON and NOAM COHEN
In cyberwar games conducted by military schools with the National Security Agency, hackers replace snipers.
May 11, 2009

Iranians and Others Outwit Net Censors
By JOHN MARKOFF
Computers are becoming more crucial in global conflicts, not only in spying and military action, but also in determining what information reaches people.
May 1, 2009

U.S. Steps Up Effort on Digital Defenses
By DAVID E. SANGER, JOHN MARKOFF and THOM SHANKER
A new international race has begun to develop cyberweapons and systems to protect against them.
April 28, 2009

news20090628NYT2

2009-06-28 16:45:03 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World > Cyberwar]
Privacy May Be a Victim in Cyberdefense Plan
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — A plan to create a new Pentagon cybercommand is raising significant privacy and diplomatic concerns, as the Obama administration moves ahead on efforts to protect the nation from cyberattack and to prepare for possible offensive operations against adversaries’ computer networks.

President Obama has said that the new cyberdefense strategy he unveiled last month will provide protections for personal privacy and civil liberties. But senior Pentagon and military officials say that Mr. Obama’s assurances may be challenging to guarantee in practice, particularly in trying to monitor the thousands of daily attacks on security systems in the United States that have set off a race to develop better cyberweapons.

Much of the new military command’s work is expected to be carried out by the National Security Agency, whose role in intercepting the domestic end of international calls and e-mail messages after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, under secret orders issued by the Bush administration, has already generated intense controversy.

There is simply no way, the officials say, to effectively conduct computer operations without entering networks inside the United States, where the military is prohibited from operating, or traveling electronic paths through countries that are not themselves American targets.

The cybersecurity effort, Mr. Obama said at the White House last month, “will not — I repeat, will not — include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic.”

But foreign adversaries often mount their attacks through computer network hubs inside the United States, and military officials and outside experts say that threat confronts the Pentagon and the administration with difficult questions.

Military officials say there may be a need to intercept and examine some e-mail messages sent from other countries to guard against computer viruses or potential terrorist action. Advocates say the process could ultimately be accepted as the digital equivalent of customs inspections, in which passengers arriving from overseas consent to have their luggage opened for security, tax and health reasons.

“The government is in a quandary,” said Maren Leed, a defense expert at the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies who was a Pentagon special assistant on cyberoperations from 2005 to 2008.

Ms. Leed said a broad debate was needed “about what constitutes an intrusion that violates privacy and, at the other extreme, what is an intrusion that may be acceptable in the face of an act of war.”

In a recent speech, Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a chief architect of the new cyberstrategy, acknowledged that a major unresolved issue was how the military — which would include the National Security Agency, where much of the cyberwar expertise resides — could legally set up an early warning system.

Unlike a missile attack, which would show up on the Pentagon’s screens long before reaching American territory, a cyberattack may be visible only after it has been launched in the United States.

“How do you understand sovereignty in the cyberdomain?” General Cartwright asked. “It doesn’t tend to pay a lot of attention to geographic boundaries.”

For example, the daily attacks on the Pentagon’s own computer systems, or probes sent from Russia, China and Eastern Europe seeking chinks in the computer systems of corporations and financial institutions, are rarely seen before their effect is felt inside the United States.

Some administration officials have begun to discuss whether laws or regulations must be changed to allow law enforcement, the military or intelligence agencies greater access to networks or Internet providers when significant evidence of a national security threat was found.

Ms. Leed said that while the Defense Department and related intelligence agencies were the only organizations that had the ability to protect against such cyberattacks, “they are not the best suited, from a civil liberties perspective, to take on that responsibility.”

Under plans being completed at the Pentagon, the new cybercommand will be run by a four-star general, much the way Gen. David H. Petraeus runs the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from Central Command in Tampa, Fla. But the expectation is that whoever is in charge of the new command will also direct the National Security Agency, an effort to solve the turf war between the spy agency and the military over who is in charge of conducting offensive operations.

While the N.S.A.’s job is chiefly one of detection and monitoring, the agency also possesses what Michael D. McConnell, the former director of national intelligence, called “the critical skill set” to respond quickly to cyberattacks. Yet the Defense Department views cyberspace as its domain as well, a new battleground after land, sea, air and space.

The complications are not limited to privacy concerns. The Pentagon is increasingly worried about the diplomatic ramifications of being forced to use the computer networks of many other nations while carrying out digital missions — the computer equivalent of the Vietnam War’s spilling over the Cambodian border in the 1960s. To battle Russian hackers, for example, it might be necessary to act through the virtual cyberterritory of Britain or Germany or any country where the attack was routed.

General Cartwright said military planners were trying to write rules of engagement for scenarios in which a cyberattack was launched from a neutral country that might have no idea what was going on. But, with time of the essence, it may not be possible, the scenarios show, to ask other nations to act against an attack that is flowing through their computers in milliseconds.

“If I pass through your country, do I have to talk to the ambassador?” General Cartwright said. “It is very difficult. Those are the questions that are now really starting to emerge vis-à-vis cyber.”

Frida Berrigan, a longtime peace activist who is a senior program associate at the New America Foundation’s arms and security initiative, expressed concerns about whether the Obama administration would be able to balance its promise to respect privacy in cyberspace even as it appeared to be militarizing cybersecurity.

“Obama was very deliberate in saying that the U.S. military and the U.S. government would not be looking at our e-mail and not tracking what we do online,” Ms. Berrigan said. “This is not to say there is not a cyberthreat out there or that cyberterrorism is not a significant concern. We should be vigilant and creative. But once again we see the Pentagon being put at the heart of it and at front lines of offering a solution.”

Ms. Berrigan said that just as the counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had proved that “there is no front line anymore, and no demilitarized zone anymore, then if the Pentagon and the military services see cyberspace as a battlefield domain, then the lines protecting privacy and our civil liberties get blurred very, very quickly.”

news20090628NYT3

2009-06-28 16:37:04 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World > Cyberwar]
Contractors Vie for Plum Work, Hacking for U.S.
By CHRISTOPHER DREW and JOHN MARKOFF
Published: May 30, 2009

MELBOURNE, Fla. — The government’s urgent push into cyberwarfare has set off a rush among the biggest military companies for billions of dollars in new defense contracts.

The exotic nature of the work, coupled with the deep recession, is enabling the companies to attract top young talent that once would have gone to Silicon Valley. And the race to develop weapons that defend against, or initiate, computer attacks has given rise to thousands of “hacker soldiers” within the Pentagon who can blend the new capabilities into the nation’s war planning.

Nearly all of the largest military companies — including Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon — have major cyber contracts with the military and intelligence agencies.

The companies have been moving quickly to lock up the relatively small number of experts with the training and creativity to block the attacks and design countermeasures. They have been buying smaller firms, financing academic research and running advertisements for “cyberninjas” at a time when other industries are shedding workers.

The changes are manifesting themselves in highly classified laboratories, where computer geeks in their 20s like to joke that they are hackers with security clearances.

At a Raytheon facility here south of the Kennedy Space Center, a hub of innovation in an earlier era, rock music blares and empty cans of Mountain Dew pile up as engineers create tools to protect the Pentagon’s computers and crack into the networks of countries that could become adversaries. Prizes like cappuccino machines and stacks of cash spur them on, and a gong heralds each major breakthrough.

The young engineers represent the new face of a war that President Obama described Friday as “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” The president said he would appoint a senior White House official to oversee the nation’s cybersecurity strategies.

Computer experts say the government is behind the curve in sealing off its networks from threats that are growing more persistent and sophisticated, with thousands of intrusions each day from organized criminals and legions of hackers for nations including Russia and China.

“Everybody’s attacking everybody,” said Scott Chase, a 30-year-old computer engineer who helps run the Raytheon unit here.

Mr. Chase, who wears his hair in a ponytail, and Terry Gillette, a 53-year-old former rocket engineer, ran SI Government Solutions before selling the company to Raytheon last year as the boom in the military’s cyberoperations accelerated.

The operation — tucked into several unmarked buildings behind an insurance office and a dentist’s office — is doing some of the most cutting-edge work, both in identifying weaknesses in Pentagon networks and in creating weapons for potential attacks.

Daniel D. Allen, who oversees work on intelligence systems for Northrop Grumman, estimated that federal spending on computer security now totals $10 billion each year, including classified programs. That is just a fraction of the government’s spending on weapons systems. But industry officials expect it to rise rapidly.

The military contractors are now in the enviable position of turning what they learned out of necessity — protecting the sensitive Pentagon data that sits on their own computers — into a lucrative business that could replace some of the revenue lost from cancellations of conventional weapons systems.

Executives at Lockheed Martin, which has long been the government’s largest information-technology contractor, also see the demand for greater computer security spreading to energy and health care agencies and the rest of the nation’s critical infrastructure. But for now, most companies remain focused on the national-security arena, where the hottest efforts involve anticipating how an enemy might attack and developing the resources to strike back.

Though even the existence of research on cyberweapons was once highly classified, the Air Force plans this year to award the first publicly announced contract for developing tools to break into enemy computers. The companies are also teaming up to build a National Cyber Range, a model of the Internet for testing advanced techniques.

Military experts said Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, which have long been major players in the Pentagon’s security efforts, are leading the push into offensive cyberwarfare, along with the Raytheon unit. This involves finding vulnerabilities in other countries’ computer systems and developing software tools to exploit them, either to steal sensitive information or disable the networks.

Mr. Chase and Mr. Gillette said the Raytheon unit, which has about 100 employees, grew out of a company they started with friends at Florida Institute of Technology that concentrated on helping software makers find flaws in their own products. Over the last several years, their focus shifted to the military and intelligence agencies, which wanted to use their analytic tools to detect vulnerabilities and intrusions previously unnoticed.

Like other contractors, the Raytheon teams set up “honey pots,” the equivalent of sting operations, to lure hackers into digital cul-de-sacs that mimic Pentagon Web sites. They then capture the attackers’ codes and create defenses for them.

And since most of the world’s computers run on the Windows or the Linux systems, their work has also provided a growing window into how to attack foreign networks in any cyberwar.

“It takes a nonconformist to excel at what we do,” said Mr. Gillette, a tanned surfing aficionado who looks like a 1950s hipster in his T-shirts with rolled-up sleeves.

The company, which would allow interviews with other employees only on the condition that their last names not be used because of security concerns, hired one of its top young workers, Dustin, after he won two major hacking contests and dropped out of college. “I always approach it like a game, and it’s been fun,” said Dustin, now 22.

Another engineer, known as Jolly, joined Raytheon in April after earning a master’s degree in computer security at DePaul University in Chicago. “You think defense contractors, and you think bureaucracy, and not necessarily a lot of interesting and challenging projects,” he said.

The Pentagon’s interest in cyberwarfare has reached “religious intensity,” said Daniel T. Kuehl, a military historian at the National Defense University. And the changes carry through to soldiers being trained to defend and attack computer and wireless networks out on the battlefield.

That shift can be seen in the remaking of organizations like the Association of Old Crows, a professional group that includes contractors and military personnel.

The Old Crows have deep roots in what has long been known as electronic warfare — the use of radar and radio technologies for jamming and deception.

But the financing for electronic warfare had slowed recently, prompting the Old Crows to set up a broader information-operations branch last year and establish a new trade journal to focus on cyberwarfare.

The career of Joel Harding, the director of the group’s Information Operations Institute, exemplifies the increasing role that computing and the Internet are playing in the military.

A 20-year veteran of military intelligence, Mr. Harding shifted in 1996 into one of the earliest commands that studied government-sponsored computer hacker programs. After leaving the military, he took a job as an analyst at SAIC, a large contractor developing computer applications for military and intelligence agencies.

Mr. Harding estimates that there are now 3,000 to 5,000 information operations specialists in the military and 50,000 to 70,000 soldiers involved in general computer operations. Adding specialists in electronic warfare, deception and other areas could bring the total number of information operations personnel to as many as 88,700, he said.

news20090628NYT4

2009-06-28 16:29:05 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World > Cyberwar]
Cadets Trade the Trenches for Firewalls
By COREY KILGANNON and NOAM COHEN
Published: May 10, 2009

WEST POINT, N.Y. — The Army forces were under attack. Communications were down, and the chain of command was broken.

Pacing a makeshift bunker whose entrance was camouflaged with netting, the young man in battle fatigues barked at his comrades: “They are flooding the e-mail server. Block it. I’ll take the heat for it.”

These are the war games at West Point, at least last month, when a team of cadets spent four days struggling around the clock to establish a computer network and keep it operating while hackers from the National Security Agency in Maryland tried to infiltrate it with methods that an enemy might use. The N.S.A. made the cadets’ task more difficult by planting viruses on some of the equipment, just as real-world hackers have done on millions of computers around the world.

The competition was a final exam of sorts for a senior elective class. The cadets, who were computer science and information technology majors, competed against teams from the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine as well as the Naval Postgraduate School and the Air Force Institute of Technology. Each team was judged on how well it subdued the threats from the N.S.A.

The cyberwar games at West Point are just one example of a heightened awareness across the military that it must treat the threat of a computer attack as seriously as it does an attack carried out by a bomber or combat brigade. There is hardly an American military unit or headquarters that has not been ordered to analyze the risk of cyberattacks to its mission — and to train to counter them. If the hackers were to succeed, they could change information on the network and cripple Internet communications.

In the desert outside Las Vegas, in a series of inconspicuous trailers, some of the most highly motivated hackers in the United States spend their days and nights probing the military’s vast computer networks for weaknesses to exploit.

These hackers — many of whom got their start as teenagers devoted to computer screens in their basements — have access to the latest in attack software. Some of it was developed by cryptologists at the N.S.A., the nation’s largest intelligence agency, where most of the government’s talent for breaking and making computer codes resides.

The hackers have an official name — the 57th Information Aggressor Squadron — and a real home, Nellis Air Force Base.

The Army last year created its own destination for computer experts, the Network Warfare Battalion, where many of the cadets in the cyberwar games hope to be assigned. But even so, the ranks are still small.

The Defense Department today graduates only 80 students a year from its cyberwar schools, causing Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to complain that the Pentagon is “desperately short of people who have capabilities in this area in all the services, and we have to address it.” Under current Pentagon budget proposals, the number of students cycled through the schools will be quadrupled in the next two years.

Part of the Pentagon’s effort to increase the military’s capabilities are the annual cyberwar games played at the nation’s military academies, including West Point, where young cadets in combat boots and buzz cuts talk megabytes instead of megatons on a campus dotted with statues of generals, historic armaments and old stone buildings.

While the Pentagon has embraced the need for offensive cyberwarfare, there were no offensive maneuvers in the games last month, said Col. Joe Adams, who teaches Information Assurance and stood at the head of the classroom during the April exercise.

Cadet Joshua Ewing said he and his fellow Blue Team members “learn all the techniques that a hacker would do, and we try to beat a hacker.”

These strategies are not just theoretical. Most of these cadets will soon be sent to Afghanistan to carry out such work, Cadet Ewing said.

When the military deploys in a combat zone or during a domestic emergency, establishing a secure Internet connection is an early priority. To keep things humming, the military’s experts must fend off the ordinary chaos of the Internet as well as attacks devised to disable the communications system, like flooding e-mail servers with so many junk messages that they collapse.

Underscoring how seriously the cadets were taking the April games, the sign above the darkened entranceway in Thayer Hall read “Information Warfare Live Fire Range” and the area was draped with camouflage netting.

One group had to retrieve crucial information from a partly erased hard drive. One common method of hiding text, said Cadet Sean Storey, is to embed it in digital photographs; he had managed to find secret documents hidden this way. He was seeking a password needed to read encrypted e-mail he had located on the hard drive.

Other cadets worked in tandem, as if plugging a leaky dam, to keep the entire system working as the N.S.A. hackers attacked the engine that runs a crucial database as well as the e-mail server.

They shouted out various Internet addresses to inspect — and usually block — after getting clearance from referees. And there was that awkward moment when the cadet in charge, Salvatore Messina, had to act without clearance because the attack was so severe he couldn’t even send an e-mail message.

The cadets in this room do get their share of ribbing. But one cadet, Derek Taylor, said today’s soldiers recognize that technological expertise can be as vital as brute force in saving lives. West Point takes the competition seriously. The cadets who helped install and secure the operating system spent a week setting it up. The dean gives a pep talk; professors bring food.

Brian McCord, part of the team that installed the operating system, said he was chosen because his senior project was deeply reliant on Linux. The West Point team used this open-source operating system, freely available on the Internet, instead of relying on proprietary products from big-name companies like Microsoft or Sun Microsystems.

“It seems weird for the Army with its large contracts to be using Linux, but it’s very cheap and very customizable,” Cadet McCord said. It is also much easier to secure because “you can tweak it for everything you need” and there are not as many known ways to attack it, he said.

West Point emerged victorious in the games last month. That means the academy, which has won five of the last nine competitions, can keep the Director’s Cup trophy, which is displayed near a German Enigma encoding machine from World War II. Cracking the Enigma code helped the Allies win the war, and the machine is a stark reminder of the pivotal role of technology in warfare.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: May 13, 2009
An article on Monday about military training to counter computer attacks misstated part of the name of one institution that fielded a team in a competition to establish and protect a computer network against cyberattacks. It is the Naval Postgraduate School, not the Naval Postgraduate Academy.

news20090628NYT5

2009-06-28 16:19:41 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World > Cyberwar]
Iranians and Others Outwit Net Censors
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: April 30, 2009

The Iranian government, more than almost any other, censors what citizens can read online, using elaborate technology to block millions of Web sites offering news, commentary, videos, music and, until recently, Facebook and YouTube. Search for “women” in Persian and you’re told, “Dear Subscriber, access to this site is not possible.”

Last July, on popular sites that offer free downloads of various software, an escape hatch appeared. The computer program allowed Iranian Internet users to evade government censorship.

College students discovered the key first, then spread it through e-mail messages and file-sharing. By late autumn more than 400,000 Iranians were surfing the uncensored Web.

The software was created not by Iranians, but by Chinese computer experts volunteering for the Falun Gong, a spiritual movement that has beem suppressed by the Chinese government since 1999. They maintain a series of computers in data centers around the world to route Web users’ requests around censors’ firewalls.

The Internet is no longer just an essential channel for commerce, entertainment and information. It has also become a stage for state control — and rebellion against it. Computers are becoming more crucial in global conflicts, not only in spying and military action, but also in determining what information reaches people around the globe.

More than 20 countries now use increasingly sophisticated blocking and filtering systems for Internet content, according to Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based group that encourages freedom of the press.

Although the most aggressive filtering systems have been erected by authoritarian governments like those in Iran, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, some Western democracies are also beginning to filter some content, including child pornography and other sexually oriented material.

In response, a disparate alliance of political and religious activists, civil libertarians, Internet entrepreneurs, diplomats and even military officers and intelligence agents are now challenging growing Internet censorship.

The creators of the software seized upon by Iranians are members of the Global Internet Freedom Consortium, based largely in the United States and closely affiliated with Falun Gong. The consortium is one of many small groups developing systems to make it possible for anyone to reach the open Internet. It is the modern equivalent of efforts by organizations like the Voice of America to reach the citizens of closed countries.

Separately, the Tor Project, a nonprofit group of anticensorship activists, freely offers software that can be used to send messages secretly or to reach blocked Web sites. Its software, first developed at the United States Naval Research Laboratories, is now used by more than 300,000 people globally, from the police to criminals, as well as diplomats and spies.

Political scientists at the University of Toronto have built yet another system, called Psiphon, that allows anyone to evade national Internet firewalls using only a Web browser. Sensing a business opportunity, they have created a company to profit by making it possible for media companies to deliver digital content to Web users behind national firewalls.

The danger in this quiet electronic war is driven home by a stark warning on the group’s Web site: “Bypassing censorship may violate law. Serious thought should be given to the risks involved and potential consequences.”

In this cat-and-mouse game, the cat is fighting back. The Chinese system, which opponents call the Great Firewall of China, is built in part with Western technologies. A study published in February by Rebecca MacKinnon, who teaches journalism at the University of Hong Kong, determined that much blog censorship is performed not by the government but by private Internet service providers, including companies like Yahoo China, Microsoft and MySpace. One-third to more than half of all postings made to three Chinese Internet service providers were not published or were censored, she reported.

When the Falun Gong tried to support its service with advertising several years ago, American companies backed out under pressure from the Chinese government, members said.

In addition, the Chinese government now employs more than 40,000 people as censors at dozens of regional centers, and hundreds of thousands of students are paid to flood the Internet with government messages and crowd out dissenters.

This is not to say that China blocks access to most Internet sites; most of the material on the global Internet is available to Chinese without censorship. The government’s censors mostly censor groups deemed to be state enemies, like the Falun Gong, making it harder for them to reach potential members.

Blocking such groups has become more insidious as Internet filtering technology has grown more sophisticated. As with George Orwell’s “Newspeak,” the language in “1984” that got smaller each year, governments can block particular words or phrases without users realizing their Internet searches are being censored.

Those who back the ragtag opponents of censorship criticize the government-run systems as the digital equivalent of the Berlin Wall.

They also see the anticensorship efforts as a powerful political lever. “What is our leverage toward a country like Iran? Very little,” said Michael Horowitz, a fellow at the Hudson Institute who advises the Global Internet Freedom Consortium. “Suppose we have the capacity to make it possible for the president of the United States at will to communicate with hundreds of thousands of Iranians at no risk or limited risk? It just changes the world.”

The United States government and the Voice of America have financed some circumvention technology efforts. But until now the Falun Gong has devoted the most resources, experts said, erecting a system that allows the largest number of Internet users open, uncensored access.

Each week, Chinese Internet users receive 10 million e-mail messages and 70 million instant messages from the consortium. But unlike spam that takes you to Nigerian banking scams or offers deals on drugs like Viagra, these messages offer software to bypass the elaborate government system that blocks access to the Web sites of opposition groups like the Falun Gong.

Shiyu Zhou, a computer scientist, is a founder of the Falun Gong’s consortium. His cyber-war with China began in Tiananmen Square in 1989. A college student and the son of a former general in the intelligence section of the People’s Liberation Army, he said he first understood the power of government-controlled media when overnight the nation’s student protesters were transformed from heroes to killers.

“I was so disappointed,” he said. “People believed the government, they didn’t believe us.”

He decided to leave China and study computer science in graduate school in the United States. In the late 1990s he turned to the study of Falun Gong and then joined with a small group of technically sophisticated members of the spiritual group intent on transmitting millions of e-mail messages to Chinese.

Both he and Peter Yuan Li, another early consortium volunteer, had attended Tsinghua University — China’s Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Li, the son of farmers, also came to the United States to study computer science, then joined Bell Laboratories before becoming a full-time volunteer.

The risks of building circumvention tools became clear in April 2006 when, Mr. Li later told law enforcement officials, four men invaded his home in suburban Atlanta, covered his head, beat him, searched his files and stole two laptop computers. The F.B.I. has made no arrests in the case and declined to comment. But Mr. Li thinks China sent the invaders.

Early on, the group of dissidents here had some financial backing from the International Broadcasting Bureau of the Voice of America for sending e-mail messages, but the group insists that most of its effort has been based on volunteer labor and contributions.

The consortium’s circumvention system works this way: Government censorship systems like the Great Firewall can block access to certain Internet Protocol addresses. The equivalent of phone numbers, these addresses are quartets of numbers like 209.85.171.100 that identify a Web site, in this case, google.com. By clicking on a link provided in the consortium’s e-mail message, someone in China or Iran trying to reach a forbidden Web site can download software that connects to a computer abroad that then redirects the request to the site’s forbidden address.

The technique works like a basketball bank shot — with the remote computer as the backboard and the desired Web site as the basket. But government systems hunt for and then shut off such alternative routes using a variety of increasingly sophisticated techniques. So the software keeps changing the Internet address of the remote computer — more than once a second. By the time the censors identify an address, the system has already changed it.

China acknowledges that it monitors content on the Internet, but claims to have an agenda much like that of any other country: policing for harmful material, pornography, treasonous propaganda, criminal activity, fraud. The government says Falun Gong is a dangerous cult that has ruined the lives of thousands of people.

CONTINUED ON newsNYT6

news20090628NYT6

2009-06-28 16:18:23 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World > Cyberwar]
Iranians and Others Outwit Net Censors
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: April 30, 2009

CONTINUED FROM newsNYT5

Hoping to step up its circumvention efforts, the Falun Gong last year organized extensive lobbying in Congress, which approved $15 million for circumvention services.

But the money was awarded not to the Falun Gong consortium but to Internews, an international organization that supports local media groups.

This year, a broader coalition is organizing to push for more Congressional financing of anti-filtering efforts. Negotiations are under way to bring together dissidents of Vietnam, Iran, the Uighur minority of China, Tibet, Myanmar, Cuba, Cambodia, Laos, as well as the Falun Gong, to lobby Congress for the financing.

Mr. Horowitz argues that $25 million could expand peak usage to as many as 45 million daily Internet users, allowing the systems to reach as many as 10 percent of the Web users in both China and Iran.

Mr. Zhou says his group’s financing is money well spent. “The entire battle over the Internet has boiled down to a battle over resources,” he said. “For every dollar we spend, China has to spend a hundred, maybe hundreds of dollars.”

As for the Falun Gong software, it proved a little too popular among Iranians. By the end of last year the consortium’s computers were overwhelmed. On Jan. 1, the consortium had to do some blocking of its own: It shut down the service for all countries except China.

news20090628NYT7

2009-06-28 16:12:48 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World > Cyberwar]
U.S. Steps Up Effort on Digital Defenses
By DAVID E. SANGER, JOHN MARKOFF and THOM SHANKER
Published: April 27, 2009
This article was reported by David E. Sanger, John Markoff and Thom Shanker and written by Mr. Sanger.

When American forces in Iraq wanted to lure members of Al Qaeda into a trap, they hacked into one of the group’s computers and altered information that drove them into American gun sights.

When President George W. Bush ordered new ways to slow Iran’s progress toward a nuclear bomb last year, he approved a plan for an experimental covert program — its results still unclear — to bore into their computers and undermine the project.

And the Pentagon has commissioned military contractors to develop a highly classified replica of the Internet of the future. The goal is to simulate what it would take for adversaries to shut down the country’s power stations, telecommunications and aviation systems, or freeze the financial markets — in an effort to build better defenses against such attacks, as well as a new generation of online weapons.

Just as the invention of the atomic bomb changed warfare and deterrence 64 years ago, a new international race has begun to develop cyberweapons and systems to protect against them.

Thousands of daily attacks on federal and private computer systems in the United States — many from China and Russia, some malicious and some testing chinks in the patchwork of American firewalls — have prompted the Obama administration to review American strategy.

President Obama is expected to propose a far larger defensive effort in coming days, including an expansion of the $17 billion, five-year program that Congress approved last year, the appointment of a White House official to coordinate the effort, and an end to a running bureaucratic battle over who is responsible for defending against cyberattacks.

But Mr. Obama is expected to say little or nothing about the nation’s offensive capabilities, on which the military and the nation’s intelligence agencies have been spending billions. In interviews over the past several months, a range of military and intelligence officials, as well as outside experts, have described a huge increase in the sophistication of American cyberwarfare capabilities.

Because so many aspects of the American effort to develop cyberweapons and define their proper use remain classified, many of those officials declined to speak on the record. The White House declined several requests for interviews or to say whether Mr. Obama as a matter of policy supports or opposes the use of American cyberweapons.

The most exotic innovations under consideration would enable a Pentagon programmer to surreptitiously enter a computer server in Russia or China, for example, and destroy a “botnet” — a potentially destructive program that commandeers infected machines into a vast network that can be clandestinely controlled — before it could be unleashed in the United States.

Or American intelligence agencies could activate malicious code that is secretly embedded on computer chips when they are manufactured, enabling the United States to take command of an enemy’s computers by remote control over the Internet. That, of course, is exactly the kind of attack officials fear could be launched on American targets, often through Chinese-made chips or computer servers.

So far, however, there are no broad authorizations for American forces to engage in cyberwar. The invasion of the Qaeda computer in Iraq several years ago and the covert activity in Iran were each individually authorized by Mr. Bush. When he issued a set of classified presidential orders in January 2008 to organize and improve America’s online defenses, the administration could not agree on how to write the authorization.

A principal architect of that order said the issue had been passed on to the next president, in part because of the complexities of cyberwar operations that, by necessity, would most likely be conducted on both domestic and foreign Internet sites. After the controversy surrounding domestic spying, Mr. Bush’s aides concluded, the Bush White House did not have the credibility or the political capital to deal with the subject.

Electronic Vulnerabilities

Cyberwar would not be as lethal as atomic war, of course, nor as visibly dramatic. But when Mike McConnell, the former director of national intelligence, briefed Mr. Bush on the threat in May 2007, he argued that if a single large American bank were successfully attacked “it would have an order-of-magnitude greater impact on the global economy” than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mr. McConnell, who left office three months ago, warned last year that “the ability to threaten the U.S. money supply is the equivalent of today’s nuclear weapon.”

The scenarios developed last year for the incoming president by Mr. McConnell and his coordinator for cybersecurity, Melissa Hathaway, went further. They described vulnerabilities including an attack on Wall Street and one intended to bring down the nation’s electric power grid. Most were extrapolations of attacks already tried.

Today, Ms. Hathaway is the primary author of White House cyberstrategy and has been traveling the country talking in vague terms about recent, increasingly bold attacks on the computer networks that keep the country running. Government officials will not discuss the details of a recent attack on the air transportation network, other than to say the attack never directly affected air traffic control systems.

Still, the specter of an attack that could blind air traffic controllers and, perhaps, the military’s aerospace defense networks haunts military and intelligence officials. (The saving grace of the air traffic control system, officials say, is that it is so old that it is not directly connected to the Internet.)

Studies, with code names like Dark Angel, have focused on whether cellphone towers, emergency-service communications and hospital systems could be brought down, to sow chaos.

But the theoretical has, at times, become real.

“We have seen Chinese network operations inside certain of our electricity grids,” said Joel F. Brenner, who oversees counterintelligence operations for Dennis Blair, Mr. McConnell’s successor as national intelligence director, speaking at the University of Texas at Austin this month. “Do I worry about those grids, and about air traffic control systems, water supply systems, and so on? You bet I do.”

But the broader question — one the administration so far declines to discuss — is whether the best defense against cyberattack is the development of a robust capability to wage cyberwar.

As Mr. Obama’s team quickly discovered, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies both concluded in Mr. Bush’s last years in office that it would not be enough to simply build higher firewalls and better virus detectors or to restrict access to the federal government’s own computers.

“The fortress model simply will not work for cyber,” said one senior military officer who has been deeply engaged in the debate for several years. “Someone will always get in.”

That thinking has led to a debate over whether lessons learned in the nuclear age — from the days of “mutually assured destruction” — apply to cyberwar.

But in cyberwar, it is hard to know where to strike back, or even who the attacker might be. Others have argued for borrowing a page from Mr. Bush’s pre-emption doctrine by going into foreign computers to destroy malicious software before it is unleashed into the world’s digital bloodstream. But that could amount to an act of war, and many argue it is a losing game, because the United States is more dependent on a constantly running Internet system than many of its potential adversaries, and therefore could suffer more damage in a counterattack.

In a report scheduled to be released Wednesday, the National Research Council will argue that although an offensive cybercapability is an important asset for the United States, the nation is lacking a clear strategy, and secrecy surrounding preparations has hindered national debate, according to several people familiar with the report.

The advent of Internet attacks — especially those suspected of being directed by nations, not hackers — has given rise to a new term inside the Pentagon and the National Security Agency: “hybrid warfare.”

It describes a conflict in which attacks through the Internet can be launched as a warning shot — or to pave the way for a traditional attack.

Early hints of this new kind of warfare emerged in the confrontation between Russia and Estonia in April 2007. Clandestine groups — it was never determined if they had links to the Russian government — commandeered computers around the globe and directed a fire hose of data at Estonia’s banking system and its government Web sites.

The computer screens of Estonians trying to do business with the government online were frozen, if they got anything at all. It was annoying, but by the standards of cyberwar, it was child’s play.

In August 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, the cyberattacks grew more widespread. Georgians were denied online access to news, cash and air tickets. The Georgian government had to move its Internet activity to servers in Ukraine when its own servers locked up, but the attacks did no permanent damage.

CONTINUED ON newsNYT8

news20090628NYT8

2009-06-28 16:10:03 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] from [The New York Times]

[World > Cyberwar]
U.S. Steps Up Effort on Digital Defenses
By DAVID E. SANGER, JOHN MARKOFF and THOM SHANKER
Published: April 27, 2009
This article was reported by David E. Sanger, John Markoff and Thom Shanker and written by Mr. Sanger.

CONTINUED FROM newsNYT7

Every few months, it seems, some agency, research group or military contractor runs a war game to assess the United States’ vulnerability. Senior intelligence officials were shocked to discover how easy it was to permanently disable a large power generator. That prompted further studies to determine if attackers could take down a series of generators, bringing whole parts of the country to a halt.

Another war game that the Department of Homeland Security sponsored in March 2008, called Cyber Storm II, envisioned a far larger, coordinated attack against the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It studied a disruption of chemical plants, rail lines, oil and gas pipelines and private computer networks. That study and others like it concluded that when attacks go global, the potential economic repercussions increase exponentially.

To prove the point, Mr. McConnell, then the director of national intelligence, spent much of last summer urging senior government officials to examine the Treasury Department’s scramble to contain the effects of the collapse of Bear Stearns. Markets froze, he said, because “what backs up that money is confidence — an accounting system that is reconcilable.” He began studies of what would happen if the system that clears market trades froze.

“We were halfway through the study,” one senior intelligence official said last month, “and the markets froze of their own accord. And we looked at each other and said, ‘Our market collapse has just given every cyberwarrior out there a playbook.’ ”

Just before Mr. Obama was elected, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a policy research group in Washington, warned in a report that “America’s failure to protect cyberspace is one of the most urgent national security problems facing the new administration.”

What alarmed the panel was not the capabilities of individual hackers but of nations — China and Russia among them — that experts believe are putting huge resources into the development of cyberweapons. A research company called Team Cymru recently examined “scans” that came across the Internet seeking ways to get inside industrial control systems, and discovered more than 90 percent of them came from computers in China.

Scanning alone does no damage, but it could be the prelude to an attack that scrambles databases or seeks to control computers. But Team Cymru ran into a brick wall as soon as it tried to trace who, exactly, was probing these industrial systems. It could not determine whether military organizations, intelligence agencies, terrorist groups, criminals or inventive teenagers were behind the efforts.

The good news, some government officials argue, is that the Chinese are deterred from doing real damage: Because they hold more than a trillion dollars in United States government debt, they have little interest in freezing up a system they depend on for their own investments.

Then again, some of the scans seemed to originate from 14 other countries, including Taiwan, Russia and, of course, the United States.

Bikini Atoll for an Online Age

Because “cyberwar” contains the word “war,” the Pentagon has argued that it should be the locus of American defensive and offensive strategy — and it is creating the kind of infrastructure that was built around nuclear weapons in the 1940s and ’50s.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is considering proposals to create a Cyber Command — initially as a new headquarters within the Strategic Command, which controls the American nuclear arsenal and assets in space. Right now, the responsibility for computer network security is part of Strategic Command, and military officials there estimate that over the past six months, the government has spent $100 million responding to probes and attacks on military systems. Air Force officials confirm that a large network of computers at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama was temporarily taken off-line within the past eight months when it was put at risk of widespread infection from computer viruses.

But Mr. Gates has concluded that the military’s cyberwarfare effort requires a sharper focus — and thus a specific command. It would build the defenses for military computers and communications systems and — the part the Pentagon is reluctant to discuss — develop and deploy cyberweapons.

In fact, that effort is already under way — it is part of what the National Cyber Range is all about. The range is a replica of the Internet of the future, and it is being built to be attacked. Competing teams of contractors — including BAE Systems, the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University and Sparta Inc. — are vying to build the Pentagon a system it can use to simulate attacks. The National Security Agency already has a smaller version of a similar system, in Millersville, Md.

In short, the Cyber Range is to the digital age what the Bikini Atoll — the islands the Army vaporized in the 1950s to measure the power of the hydrogen bomb — was to the nuclear age. But once the tests at Bikini Atoll demonstrated to the world the awesome destructive power of the bomb, it became evident to the United States and the Soviet Union — and other nuclear powers — that the risks of a nuclear exchange were simply too high. In the case of cyberattacks, where the results can vary from the annoying to the devastating, there are no such rules.

The Deterrence Conundrum

During the cold war, if a strategic missile had been fired at the United States, screens deep in a mountain in Colorado would have lighted up and American commanders would have some time to decide whether to launch a counterattack. Today, when Pentagon computers are subjected to a barrage, the origin is often a mystery. Absent certainty about the source, it is almost impossible to mount a counterattack.

In the rare case where the preparations for an attack are detected in a foreign computer system, there is continuing debate about whether to embrace the concept of pre-emption, with all of its Bush-era connotations. The questions range from whether an online attack should be mounted on that system to, in an extreme case, blowing those computers up.

Some officials argue that if the United States engaged in such pre-emption — and demonstrated that it was watching the development of hostile cyberweapons — it could begin to deter some attacks. Others believe it will only justify pre-emptive attacks on the United States. “Russia and China have lots of nationalistic hackers,” one senior military officer said. “They seem very, very willing to take action on their own.”

Senior Pentagon and military officials also express deep concern that the laws and understanding of armed conflict have not kept current with the challenges of offensive cyberwarfare.

Over the decades, a number of limits on action have been accepted — if not always practiced. One is the prohibition against assassinating government leaders. Another is avoiding attacks aimed at civilians. Yet in the cyberworld, where the most vulnerable targets are civilian, there are no such rules or understandings. If a military base is attacked, would it be a proportional, legitimate response to bring down the attacker’s power grid if that would also shut down its hospital systems, its air traffic control system or its banking system?

“We don’t have that for cyber yet,” one senior Defense Department official said, “and that’s a little bit dangerous.”

news20090628WP

2009-06-28 15:25:22 | Weblog
[Today's Newspaper] fom [The Washington Post]

[Politics > Health-Care Reform 2009 ]
Health-Care Activists Targeting Democrats
Sniping Among Liberals May Jeopardize Votes Needed to Pass Bill

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 28, 2009

In the high-stakes battle over health care, a growing cadre of liberal activists is aiming its sharpest firepower against Democratic senators who they accuse of being insufficiently committed to the cause.

The attacks -- ranging from tart news releases to full-fledged advertising campaigns -- have elicited rebuttals from lawmakers and sparked a debate inside the party over the best strategy for achieving President Obama's top priority of a comprehensive health-system overhaul.

The rising tensions between Democratic legislators and constituencies that would typically be their natural allies underscore the high hurdles for Obama as he tries to hold together a diverse, fragile coalition. Activists say they are simply pressing for quick delivery of "true health reform," but the intraparty rift runs the risk of alienating centrist Democrats who will be needed to pass a bill.

In recent days -- and during this week's congressional recess -- left-leaning bloggers and grass-roots organizations such as MoveOn.org, Health Care for America Now and the Service Employees International Union have singled out Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) for the criticism more often reserved for opposition party members.

"Will Mary Landrieu sell out Louisiana for $1.6 million?" says one Internet ad that suggests a link between contributions she has received from the medical industry and her reluctance to back the creation of a government-sponsored insurance option.

In many instances, the ad buys are relatively small. But Obama demonstrated the political power of Internet-based grass-roots activity in the presidential campaign. Still, as health care moves from electoral rallying cry to the tedious work of legislating, Obama finds himself caught between his campaign foot soldiers and the elected politicians who will vote.

One of his most stalwart supporters, for instance, says time is running out on efforts by the president and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to forge a bipartisan compromise on legislation affecting more than one-fifth of the economy.

"We are getting to the point if people aren't going to respond to the patience and openness of Senator Baucus, we should begin to make a different plan," said Andrew Stern, president of the 2 million-member SEIU.

Stern said his organization issued a release chastising Feinstein last week, because she should "put her foot on the gas, not the brake" on health reform.

"The gas pedal to go where?" Feinstein replied, explaining she has questions about how a broad expansion of health coverage will be paid for.

"I do not think this is helpful. It doesn't move me one whit," she said. "They are spending a lot of money on something that is not productive."

Much of the sparring centers around whether to create a government-managed health insurance program that would compete with private insurers. Obama supports the concept, dubbed the "public option," but he has been vague on details. Left-of-center activists want a powerful entity with the ability to set prices for doctors and hospitals.

But in the Senate, where the Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, members are weighing alternatives such as a nonprofit cooperative or a "fallback" provision that would kick in only if market reforms fail.

"Democratic senators are taking millions of dollars from insurance and health-care interests and getting lobbied by those donors and coming out against a position that 76 percent of Americans agree on," said Adam Green, interim chief executive of Change Congress.

While recent polls show high initial support for a government option, the number declines if told the insurance industry could fold as a result. Change Congress and its sister group Progressive Change Campaign Committee are airing cable and Internet ads against lawmakers such as Landrieu and Nelson, who have not endorsed a robust public plan.

Green, in an interview, was hard-pressed to articulate a substantive argument for the public plan but said that it "has become a proxy for the question of Democrats who stand on principle and represent their constituents."

The Web-based MoveOn.org plans to run ads this week against Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) over the issue.

"The Democrats were voted into office to fix this problem," said MoveOn political advocacy director Ilyse Hogue. "It is absolutely our job to hold them accountable."

One Democratic strategist who is working full-time on health reform was apoplectic over what he called wasted time, energy and resources by the organizations.

The strategist, who asked for anonymity because he was criticizing colleagues, said: "These are friends of ours. I would much rather see a quiet call placed by [Obama chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel saying this isn't helpful. Instead, we try to decimate them?"

Richard Kirsch, campaign manager of the labor-backed Health Care for America Now coalition of 1,000 groups, believes grass-roots pressure and targeted advertising are already having an impact. After the group aired a spot in Pennsylvania attacking Specter for remarks critical of a public plan -- and supplemented that with flyers and phone calls -- the lawmaker shifted.

At an event Thursday, Specter said he is willing to consider a compromise. "That shows Senator Specter has come a long way," Kirsch said.

Listening to constituents, even those speaking over the airwaves, is part of "representative democracy," Specter said.

But Kirsch may still end up being disappointed by the newest Democratic senator. Specter, voicing the sort of flexibility the groups dislike, said, "This legislation is so complicated and so important that we all ought to be flexible and not approach it with fixed positions."

Like Specter, Wyden is sanguine about ads in his home state intended to pressure him to embrace a liberal bill.

"I get an election certificate from the people of Oregon," said Wyden, whose bipartisan health bill picked up its 14th co-sponsor last week. "As far as these ads are concerned, I pay them no attention."

news20090628SLT

2009-06-28 09:56:42 | Weblog
[Today's Paper] from [Slate Magazine]

Day of Rest
By Lydia DePillis
Posted Sunday, June 28, 2009, at 4:29 AM ET

The New York Times (NYT) leads with a look at the push-and-pull between the U.S. and Russia over how to regulate cyberspace, an increasingly perilous frontier as governments rely more on computer networks and hackers get better at destroying them. The Washington Post (WP) leads with news that left wing groups—Moveon, the SEIU, and others—are trying to whip moderate Democrats into line behind a strong healthcare reform package by targeting ads against them in their home states. The legislators, though, don't seem to be listening, and some in the advocacy community think high-profile finger-shaking isn't the best use of money. The Los Angeles Times (LAT) leads with a snapshot of crunch time in Sacramento, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto any budget plan that doesn't close the deficit, a do-or-die move that could force the complete shutdown of state government.

On the cybersecurity question: Russia wants an international treaty that would prevent governments from embedding malicious code that could be activated in the event of war. The U.S., leery of internet censorship, would rather focus on law enforcement, cracking down on the thousands of non-governmental cybercriminals, many of whom are based in Russia and China. Either way, experts fear that the two countries are in danger of touching of a next-generation arms race, building ever more dangerous code, rather than missiles. The Post also fronts a spat over a more tangible security issue, this one within the American government: whether to send National Guard troops to police drug activity on the border with Mexico, as several Southern governors have requested. Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, herself a former border governor, favors sending the troops, while Defense Secretary Robert Gates views it as an unsustainable expansion of the military's zone of responsibility.

On page two, the Post peeks inside the political parties' baby-step progress towards reforming their presidential nominating processes, which no one really likes but which no one can yet agree how to overhaul. Proposals include moving the start date of primaries back a month and helping states that fall later on the calendar to remain politically relevant, as well as scrapping delegates altogether—2012 could look a lot different, depending on what the national committees ultimately decide. For what it's worth, 62 percent of Americans think Sonia Sotomayor should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. The poll also asked Americans other things, like what they thought of the fact that she is female and Hispanic; most people don't mind, though there's a deep split between Republican and Democratic approval.

In advance of Monday's 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riot, the NYT highlights the gap between President Obama's action on gay rights and a culture that is rapidly progressing towards greater acceptance. Part of the problem are Democratic memories of having action on issues like same-sex marriage turned against them, as well as the administration's already-full plate. Gay leaders, after all of Obama's campaign promises, are disillousioned with the slow pace of change.

The papers all have big Sunday feature leads, including the NYT's damning dissection of the grantmaking process for cancer research, which has become diseased itself by old patterns of distributing money—the National Cancer Institute, which has distributed $105 billion since it was founded in the 1970s, now functions more as a "jobs program" to keep labs in business rather than a source of funding for innovative research. The Post runs an eye-level blow-by-blow of last Monday's red line crash, while the LAT continues its excellent gang coverage with a look at the dangerous role of gang interventionist, or community figure who acts as a liaison between the police and gang leaders—a dicey job in South L.A.

In middle East news, the NYT characterizes the true nature of the Taliban's disappearance from the Swat Valley, which seems like more like a calculated withdrawal than a rout, suggesting the militia has relocated to gather strength elsewhere. Iraq has reached a landmark in its drive to re-enter the world economy with the first auction of rights to drill in its vast oil fields. Thirty-five foreign companies were picked to bid for eight contracts, in a politically fraught process that Iraqi parliamentarians call too friendly to the oil investors and that the companies call too demanding, though they have been willing to accept strict terms in the service of gaining a toehold in the country.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not happy about President Barack Obama's harsh criticism of his government's conduct in post-election violence, which has so far claimed 17 lives. The other candidates have rejected the idea of a recount, saying that the results would inevitably be biased, and Tehranians are getting depressed. Back in Week in Review, the NYT asks the question: Could Ahmadinejad, by following the many repressive regimes before him, actually pull it off? More cheerily, the Post presents an optimistic view of womens' role in Iran's post-election tumult, saying that they've become media heroines and outspoken voices on their own behalf, inspiring those in even more repressive neighboring countries.

The Michael Jackson coverage continues, as investigators conducted a three-hour interview with the doctor who was with the pop star when he expired. The doctor is not suspected of wrongdoing, but is considered a witness in a case where nothing has yet been ruled out. Meanwhile, Jackson's body has undergone a second autopsy, an expensive procedure that can deliver results much faster than one done by law enforcement officials; fans could know within days. The NYT wonders whether fame will ever be the same again. The Post runs the reminiscence of a former Korea reporter who ran into Jackson in a fancy Seoul hotel, which might also do something to explain this baffling phenomenon. The LAT takes a critical look at TMZ, which takes a no-holds-barred approach to breaking news and trumpets itself as the only truly independent celebrity gossip outlet in Hollywood. And, a day after devoting almost its entire front page to the story, the paper runs a column questioning whether the media may have gone overboard with this one.