2nd in Charge at FBI McCabe Under Investigation

Posted on April 3, 2017April 3, 2017 by Denise Simon

Should we be demanding document and evidence preservation? Sure, but as along as there is a pile on, put it out there, eh?

Senate committee targets FBI No. 2 in Trump dossier probe

Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey demanding the story behind the FBI’s reported plan to pay the author of a lurid and unsubstantiated dossier on candidate Donald Trump. In particular, Grassley appears to be zeroing in on the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, indicating Senate investigators want to learn more about McCabe’s role in a key aspect of the Trump-Russia affair.

Grassley began his investigation after the Washington Post reported on February 28 that the FBI, “a few weeks before the election,” agreed to pay former British spy Christopher Steele to investigate Trump. Prior to that, supporters of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign had paid Steele to gather intelligence on Clinton’s Republican rival. In the end, the FBI did not pay Steele, the Post reported, after the dossier “became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials.” It is not clear whether Steele worked under agreement with the FBI for any period of time before the payment deal fell through.

“The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,” Grassley wrote in a letter to Comey dated March 28.

Grassley demanded the FBI turn over all its records relating to Steele and the dossier, in addition to “all FBI policies, procedures, and guidelines applicable when the FBI seeks to fund an investigator associated with a political opposition research firm connected to a political candidate, or with any outside entity.”

CNBC

But the most noteworthy thing about Grassley’s letter is its focus on McCabe. Grassley noted that McCabe is already under investigation by the FBI‘s inspector general for playing a top role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation even though McCabe’s wife accepted nearly $700,000 in political donations arranged by a close Clinton friend, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, for her run for state senate in Virginia.

“While Mr. McCabe recused himself from public corruption cases in Virginia…he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation,” Grassley wrote, “despite the appearance of a conflict created by his wife’s campaign accepting $700,000 from a close Clinton associate during the investigation.”

Now, Grassley wrote, there could be a problem with McCabe’s participation in the Trump-Russia probe. If McCabe had a conflict being too close to Clinton, how could he then investigate Trump? A key passage from Grassley’s letter:

Mr. McCabe’s appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton associates only magnifies the importance of those questions. That is particularly true if Mr. McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI‘s reported arrangement with Mr. Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in the course of the investigation. Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI’s second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation of the Republican presidential campaign.

Grassley followed with a dozen questions, all targeted at McCabe. Has McCabe been involved “in any capacity” in investigating alleged collusion between TrumpWorld and Russia? Has McCabe been involved in surveillance or intercepts of any sort in the case? Has McCabe “made any representations to prosecutors or judges” regarding the Steele dossier? Has McCabe had any interactions with Steele himself? Did McCabe brief anyone in the Obama administration on the Trump-Russia investigation? Was McCabe ever authorized by the FBI to speak to the media about the case? Did he ever do so without authorization? Has anyone in the FBI raised questions about McCabe’s possible Clinton-Trump conflict of interest? Has any complaint been filed about it? Has anyone at the FBI recommended or requested that McCabe recuse himself from the Russia-Trump investigation?

****

McCabe’s background:

Director James B. Comey has named Andrew G. McCabe executive assistant director of the FBI’s National Security Branch. Mr. McCabe most recently served as the assistant director of the Counterterrorism Division.

Mr. McCabe began his career as a special agent with the FBI in 1996. He first reported to the New York Division, where he investigated a variety of organized crime matters. In 2003, he became the supervisory special agent of the Eurasian Organized Crime Task Force, a joint operation with the New York City Police Department.

In 2006, Mr. McCabe shifted his focus to counterterrorism matters when he was promoted to FBI Headquarters as the unit chief responsible for extraterritorial investigations of Sunni extremist targets. He later served as the assistant section chief of International Terrorism Operations Section One (ITOS-1), where he was responsible for the FBI’s counterterrorism investigations in the continental United States.

In 2008, Mr. McCabe was promoted to assistant special agent in charge of the Washington Field Office’s Counterterrorism Division, where he managed several programs, including the division’s National Capital Response Squad, Rapid Deployment Team, Domestic Terrorism Squad, Cyber-CT Targeting Squad, and the Extraterritorial Investigations Squads. He received the FBI Director’s Award for his work on the 56th presidential inauguration.

In September 2009, Mr. McCabe was selected to serve as the first director of the High-Value Interrogation Group. In May 2011, he returned to the Counterterrorism Division at FBI Headquarters as deputy assistant director to oversee the international terrorism investigation program.

Before entering the FBI, Mr. McCabe worked as a lawyer in private practice. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Duke University in 1990 and Juris Doctor from Washington University School of Law in 1993. In 2010, Mr. McCabe was certified by the Director of National Intelligence as a senior intelligence officer.

When is it Enough for Putin and Russia?

Posted on March 31, 2017March 31, 2017 by Denise Simon

NBC

FBI: Russian Citizen Pleads Guilty For Involvement In Global Botnet Conspiracy

The summary below for the most part echoes the same testimony delivered by 6 panel members in two separate hearings before the Senate on March 30, 2017.

Two particular panel witness members were Clint Watts and Thomas Rid. (videos included)

There are several experts and those in media commentary that say there is no evidence of Russian intrusions. But there IS in fact evidence and attribution does required a long time to investigate, collaborate and convey, which is why the FBI has taken so long to provide. There are countless private corporations in the cyber industry, not tied to government in any form. They are hired to protect systems, investigate intrusions and research hacks and variations of interference both nationally and globally.

The United States is hardly the only victim of Russian intrusion, as Europe and the Baltic States are having the exact issues. But Americans rarely pay attention to anything outside the United States.

So, when is enough…enough for Putin? No one knows and due to the constant successes listed so far, there is very little reason for ‘active measures’ of asymmetric warfare tactics to cease….it is cheap ad effective and for the most part anonymous. The mission objective by the Kremlin is division, chaos, leaked propaganda and repeat….works doesn’t it.

DailyMail

Propaganda is nothing new. But Moscow is frighteningly effective—and worse is on the way.

***

What the Russians want: How Russia uses cyber attacks and hybrid warfare to advance its interests

What, exactly, do the Russians want? Their very active cyber operations obviously serve state goals, but what are those goals, and how can they inform a Western response?

ITSEF’s second day opened with a panel on Russian hybrid warfare—a combination of cyberattack and information operations with both conventional and irregular military operations. Larry Hanauer, of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, chaired a discussion among the Hoover Institution’s Herb Lin, Lookout’s Mike Murray, and LIFARS CEO Ondrej Krehel.

Policy driven by resentment.

Hanauer’s opening question was open-ended: what are Russia’s policy goals, and how does it use hybrid warfare to advance them? The panel was in agreement that the key to understanding Russian actions in cyberspace is to recognize them as driven by resentment. Lin called that resentment “longstanding.” It stems from the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and Russia’s treatment internationally since then. Russian leaders and a substantial set of the Russian population views that treatment as disrespectful, contemptuous.

Russia has a very long tradition of using deception and propaganda, Lin said, and he added that the country doesn’t draw clear lines between peace and war. “It’s always war, even below the level of armed conflict.” The long-term goal is restoration of Russia’s place in the world. Creation of chaos through the dissemination of fake news and other information operations is simply battlespace preparation. Cyber, he added, gives you low-cost tools you didn’t have before. “It’s an attack on brainspace, and we’re all in the attack surface.”

Murray agreed, noting one current success of Russian information operations. We’ve been distracted from their intervention in Syria by news and fake news surrounding the US elections.

One of the more prominent features of the Russian way of cyber warfare is their willingness and ability to use criminal organizations for operational purposes. During the Cold War, Krehel explained, “if you did harm to the US, you were a hero.” Among other possibilities, that harm could be reputational or it could be economic, and criminals are well-adapted to inflicting those kinds of harm. There’s a view now, among Russian leaders, that they can expose personal information of essentially all Americans, and that this will yield a comprehensive picture of American finances down to the individual level. It’s very important to the Russian government, Krehel observed, to understand what the US can afford, and what capabilities we’re investing in, and all manner of data go into building up that picture. Lin: agreed that Russian espionage aggregates data in ways that render those data more valuable than the simple loss would impose on any single victim.

As a side note on the Russian President, the panel appeared to agree, as one member put it, that we now see one man, President Putin, who is able to use the resources of a modern nation-state to redress a deeply held personal grievance.

Chaos as statecraft.

This general orientation, according to Murray, can be encapsulated by noting that all war, to Russia, is about political ends. There’s no separation of politics from the economy or business. The increase in chaos we see in Western news, information, and political culture is, from a Russian point of view, a desirable thing.

And chaos serves tactical as well as strategic ends. Krehel expanded on this by asserting that Russia wants chaos because it doesn’t have the funding, the financial resources, of, say, the US. Thus Russian security services hand intelligence over to criminal groups. “A normal government doesn’t hand over its political agenda to criminal groups,” he said, but Russia’s does.

Murray offered an evocative story: “The number two guy in Russia has two pictures on his desk: one of Putin, and the other of Tupac Shakur.” So there’s a kind of gangster ethos at the highest levels. And whie using criminal gangs as cutouts also affords an obvious form of deniability, we shouldn’t be deceived.

In response to Hanauer’s question about who might be the leading cyber actors in the Russian government, Krehel said that they were the organizations one would expect, with the FSB and GRU occupying prominent positions. Different units within the government do cooperate—resource and manpower constraints make this inevitable—and in those services “loyalty is high, and rated very highly.”

You cheated them. Expect payback.

There’s also a common motivation, and Russian information operations play into it, especially domestically. “Russia believes all of you in this room cheated them,” Krehel said, and this theme is consciously exploited to the population as a whole, but particularly to the security services. “So the GRU’s big objective is to cripple you financially. And then they want to make you look ridiculous.”

Lin agreed. “That’s an accurate picture of how it works on the ground. Russia is a thugocracy, a state of organized crime.” He has seen reports (unconfirmed reports, he stressed, but he also clearly thought them plausible) that there are formal memoranda of understanding from the FSB to criminal gangs, outlining what the gangs can expect in return for services. “Other governments have done this, but it’s a way of life in Russia. The line between intelligence services and gangs is very vague.”

There’s no such thing as a win-win, Lin said, in the Russian worldview. “To Russia, it’s always win-lose.” Hanauer noted that this seemed a point of difference between Russia and China, and Lin agreed. Where there have been agreements of a sort between the US and China moderate conduct in cyberspace, Lin thinks there’s little evidence that such deterrent or confidence building agreements will have much effect in US-Russian relations.

Protect what’s important? Everything’s important (to the Russians).

Asked about defensive measures, Lin said that, “while there’s a logic to saying, ‘protect what’s important,’ to a good intelligence agency there’s never too much data.”

There are preferences for certain kinds of targets, which Krehel enumerated: first, oil, second, pharma, and a distant third, tech. Tech was less actively prospected because of Russian confidence that “they’re so much better at tech than we are.” Lin agreed, and said there was some basis for that confidence. “In the physics community, for example, we’ve long noted the sophistication of Russian physicists. They have great theoretical insight.”

Humiliation as statecraft, and the commodity tools used to do it.

Murray said he’d recently heard someone lamenting that he missed the Chinese, who just stole without embarrassing you. “That says a lot about Russian operations.”

Turning to the embarrassment inflicted during the US elections, Hanauer asked what kinds of tools the Russians were using for their attacks? Lin answered that the most consequential hack—Democratic Party operative John Podesta’s email—was phishing, a very basic approach.

Krehel said that, during the run-up to the election, he observed the Democratic and Republican National Committee networks being equally pressured by the Russians, the former more successfully than the latter. The approach in both cases focused on human engineering.

The Russian services, Murray explained, focus on engineering end-to-end systems. “‘PowerShell’ is the magic word for Russian coding.” There’s an emphasis on the least common denominator—phishing, PowerShell, darkside commodity tools—in effect a startup mentality. “All their tools are malleable and in motion, all the time.”

Critical infrastructure and acts of war.

Hanauer asked about the much-feared prospect of an attack on US critical infrastructure. Are we seeing, he asked, Russian attacks on US critical infrastructure? And if and when we do, would these be acts of war? “If they’re not trying [to hit US critical infrastructure]” Lin said, “then someone over there should be fired.” In Murray’s view, “Everyone’s trying to figure out the act-of-war line.” He reviewed briefly the history of Russian attacks (a coordinated mix of criminal and intelligence service attacks) on the Ukrainian power grid. He thought Russia would be more circumspect about doing such things to the US grid because, of course, the US is potentially a more dangerous adversary than Ukraine. But he also thought that if the Russians came to believe such attacks would be useful, they wouldn’t hesitate to undertake them.

– See more at: https://thecyberwire.com/events/sinet-itsef-2017/what-the-russians-want-how-russia-uses-cyber-attacks-and-hybrid-warfare-to-advance-its-interests.html#sthash.FnUREpYT.dpuf

Please Don’t Sign it Mr. Trump, You Cant Sign it…

Posted on March 29, 2017March 29, 2017 by Denise Simon

(CNN)FBI Director James Comey warned Wednesday that Americans should not have expectations of “absolute privacy,” adding that he planned to finish his term leading the FBI.

“There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of judicial reach,” Comey said at a Boston College conference on cybersecurity. He made the remark as he discussed the rise of encryption since 2013 disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed sensitive US spy practices.

“Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America,” Comey added. “In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications.”

Did you get that? What? Keep reading, it gets worse….

Here’s the Data Republicans Just Allowed ISPs to Sell Without Your Consent

Privacy watchdogs blasted the vote as a brazen GOP giveaway to the broadband industry.

Motherboard: Financial and medical information. Social Security numbers. Web browsing history. Mobile app usage. Even the content of your emails and online chats.

These are among the types of private consumer information that House Republicans voted on Tuesday to allow your internet service provider (ISP) to sell to the highest bidder without your permission, prompting outrage from privacy watchdogs.

The House action, which was rammed through by a vote of 215 – 205 on a largely partisan basis by the GOP majority, represents another nail in the coffin of landmark Federal Communications Commission consumer privacy rules that were passed in 2016. The rules, which were set to go into effect later this year, would have required broadband providers to obtain “opt-in” consent before using, sharing, or selling private consumer data.

“Ignoring calls from thousands of their constituents, House Republicans just joined their colleagues in the Senate in violating internet users’ privacy rights,” Craig Aaron, CEO of DC-based public interest group Free Press Action Fund, said in a statement. “They voted to take away the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans just so a few giant companies could pad their already considerable profits.”

Last week, the Senate passed its version of the legislation. President Trump, who “strongly” supports the FCC privacy rollback, is expected to sign the measure soon, as part of the widening Republican campaign to reverse federal safeguards across broad swaths of the economy, including rules protecting the environment, public health, and consumer interests.

Privacy watchdogs say the FCC’s policy is necessary because ISPs can see everything that consumers do online. Unless you use a Virtual Private Network (VPN), every website you visit, every mobile app you use, every online search you conduct, is visible on their networks. Needless to say, this data is immensely valuable because it can be used to create detailed profiles for marketing and tracking purposes.

Related reading: Is Your Favorite Website Spying on You?

Corporate giants like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon already rake in billions of dollars annually from internet, cable, and mobile subscriptions. Now, these broadband firms will be able to make even more money by selling your private data to third party marketers without your permission.

“What the heck are you thinking? What is in your mind?”

Last year, the FCC detailed the data covered by its privacy policy. Thanks to Capitol Hill Republicans, ISPs will no longer be required to obtain “opt-in” consent before using, sharing, or selling this data.

Image: FCC

“What the heck are you thinking?” Rep. Michael Capuano, the Massachusetts Democrat, demanded of his GOP colleagues during floor debate earlier Tuesday. “What is in your mind? Why would you want to give out any of your personal information to a faceless corporation for the sole purpose of them selling it?”

Privacy advocates are particularly outraged because Republican lawmakers are nuking the FCC privacy policy using a controversial legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to nullify recently-approved federal regulations. “Resolutions of disapproval” passed under the CRA cannot be filibustered, and prohibit the agency in question, in this case the FCC, from adopting “substantially similar” privacy rules in the future.

“Once President Trump signs this resolution, there will be no effective federal cop on the beat to proactively protect consumer information collected by ISPs,” Dallas Harris, Policy Fellow at DC-based digital rights group Public Knowledge, said in a statement. “Without the FCC’s broadband privacy rules, Americans go from being internet users to marketing data—from people to the product.”

It should come as no surprise that many of the Republicans leading the charge to roll back the FCC’s privacy rules, including Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have received vast sums of campaign cash from the broadband industry.

Over the course of Blackburn’s 14-year career in the House, she has received $75,750 from AT&T and $72,650 from Verizon, her second and third largest corporate donors, respectively, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Blackburn has also received $66,000 from NCTA, the broadband industry trade group, and $49,500 from Comcast.

For the last year, the broadband industry has complained that the FCC’s privacy policy is unfair because it doesn’t apply to so-called “edge providers” like Google and Facebook, which are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). But instead of fighting to bolster the FTC’s privacy policy to create a level playing field, Republican lawmakers instead chose to eliminate the FCC’s more robust protections. Now the measure moves to Trump’s desk.

“If President Trump was serious about his campaign promises to stand up for the rights of the individual over the powerful special interests in Washington DC, then he would veto this bill,” Nathan White, Senior Legislative Manager at Access Now, said in a statement.

BLM’s McKesson Files for Lawsuit to be Dismissed

Posted on March 28, 2017March 28, 2017 by Denise Simon

Attorneys for BLM Activist Try to Get Officer’s Lawsuit Dismissed

An attorney for Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson urged a federal judge Monday to dismiss a lawsuit by an unnamed Baton Rouge police officer who claims he was injured during a protest four days after the deadly police shooting of Alton Sterling in the city.

A lawyer for the officer, however, asked Chief U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson to allow the suit to move forward and for the officer who filed it to remain anonymous for health and safety reasons.

Jackson took the arguments under advisement and said he would issue a ruling in the coming days, the Advocate reports.

Billy Gibbens, who represents Mckesson argued the suit against Mckesson should be thrown out because it makes only unsupported, speculative allegations.

Donna Grodner, one of the officer’s attorneys, acknowledged in court that it is not known who threw a piece of concrete at the officer, causing him to lose teeth and suffer other injuries during the July 9 protest outside Baton Rouge Police Department headquarters.

The suit, filed in November, alleges Mckesson came to Baton Rouge in July “for the purpose” of “rioting to incite others to violence against police and other law enforcement officers.”

Meanwhile in November of 2016 at a Baton Rouge City Council meeting this happened:

BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) –

Protesters arrested in July after the police shooting of Alton Sterling should each get a few hundred dollars in a settlement, but that didn’t sit well with one of the council members Tuesday night.

“To me, this encourages that same type of behavior to happen again in the future, and under no circumstances will I ever vote for this. I don’t care if we’re paying them a penny. This sets a very dangerous precedent that encourages people to come to Baton Rouge. Mr. McKessen is from out of state, many of these people are from out of state or out of city, to come to our city and protest in our city and then we’re paying them for the privilege of doing so. No thanks,” said Delgado.

Despite objections from John Delgado, the city government, Louisiana State Police, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, and District Attorney’s office all plan to split the payout amongst the protesters, rather than risk a trial.

RawStory

What is DeRay McKesson doing now? Well, he is on the advisory board of the Democrat National Committee under Tom Perez. Beyond that, DeRay is still quite busy with ‘Campaign Zero’.

The Grio reports: Campaign Zero, an anti-police violence resource, launched an online tool that will help activists see where laws that would threaten civil rights are being considered on a state-by-state basis.

The tool, called “Our States,” which was previewed exclusively by Mic, breaks down state proposals and bills that would hurt minorities. The goal is to take the focus off of the federal-level attempts by the Trump administration to enact their promises and to put the focus on Republican-controlled state and local governments that are already moving forward.

“The purpose of Our States is to ensure that citizens know the legislation being proposed in their respective state, so that they can mobilize to either support or oppose it,” activist and Campaign Zero co-founder Deray Mckesson said in a statement to Mic. “The stakes are high.”

“In many of these states, you have Trump’s agenda already being legislated,” Sam Sinyangwe, the data scientist behind Campaign Zero and lead coordinator of the Our States project, said. “If we don’t engage in the states to block them, it will in effect enact Trump’s agenda, despite our efforts to stop it in Washington.”

The website not only provides data on a state-by-state basis for immigration, policing and protest, reproductive justice, voting rights and LGBTQ equality; it also includes suggested strategies to influence change, such as face-to-face meetings and protests.

“Our States is created out of the realization that, in the conversation that we’re having about equity and justice, state level politics rarely comes up in that conversation,” Sinyangwe said in the interview. “If we’re going to block [Trump’s agenda] from happening, we’ve got to create avenues for people to get informed.”

Russia is a Threat, China Aggression is Under-Reported

Posted on March 28, 2017March 28, 2017 by Denise Simon

President Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal which was officially transferred in 2000. Few know about the other canal project in Nicaragua, which is designed to be bigger and better. It was launched by a Chinese billionaire however, it appears the Chinese government is actually behind it.

Image result for china nicaragua canal

The whole matter is shrouded in secrecy while the Panama Canal is going through a huge expansion.

Image result for china militarize islands PBS

China has been creating islands in the South China Sea while other islands are a source of major dispute. China has been seen as militarizing the manufactured islands giving rise to concerns of major cargo and global shipping lanes. Could China be making a worldwide play to control commerce and sea transportation?

Chinese state firms have expressed an interest to develop land around the Panama Canal, the chief executive of the vital trade thoroughfare said, underlining China’s outward push into infrastructure via railways and ports around the world. China’s state firms have in recent years already chalked up investments in key logistics nodes, including Piraeus in Greece and Bandar Malaysia, a major development project that is set to be the terminal for a proposed high-speed rail link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. More here from Reuters.

So is there more to this under reported threat by China? Yes. For instance:

HONG KONG — When the United States Air Force wanted help making military robots more perceptive, it turned to a Boston-based artificial intelligence start-up called Neurala. But when Neurala needed money, it got little response from the American military.

So Neurala turned to China, landing an undisclosed sum from an investment firm backed by a state-run Chinese company.

Chinese firms have become significant investors in American start-ups working on cutting-edge technologies with potential military applications. The start-ups include companies that make rocket engines for spacecraft, sensors for autonomous navy ships, and printers that make flexible screens that could be used in fighter-plane cockpits. Many of the Chinese firms are owned by state-owned companies or have connections to Chinese leaders.

The deals are ringing alarm bells in Washington. According to a new white paper commissioned by the Department of Defense, Beijing is encouraging Chinese companies with close government ties to invest in American start-ups specializing in critical technologies like artificial intelligence and robots to advance China’s military capacity as well as its economy. More here from the New York Times.

Humm, need more? Both China and North Korea are known for hacking. China may have some obscure agreement with North Korea to hack selected global sites. As we know, North Korea is a threat as they are continuing to advance their missile program and super thrust rocket engines which are tied to their nuclear weapons program. China provides that communications, telecom and internet platform and servers for North Korea.

Image result for china hacking BBC

North Korea relies on China for Internet connectivity, partially due to longstanding ties between the two nations and partly because it has few options. North Korea borders just three countries: South Korea, with which it is still technically at war, Russia and China. The Chinese Internet is well developed and the Russian border is far from Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, making China a good choice. Going back to 2014, the U.S. State Department was well aware of all these conditions between China and North Korea, still no solution by the Obama administration.

***

Hackers associated with the Chinese government have repeatedly infiltrated the computer systems of U.S. airlines, technology companies and other contractors involved in the movement of U.S. troops and military equipment, a U.S. Senate panel has found.

Cybersecurity expert Dmitri Alperovitch, chief technology officer with the security firm Crowdstrike, said China had for years shown a keen interest in th the logistical patterns of the U.S. military.

The investigation focused on the U.S. military’s ability to seamlessly tap civilian air, shipping and other transportation assets for tasks including troop deployments and the timely arrival of supplies from food to ammunition to fuel. U.S. authorities charged five Chinese military officers, accusing them of hacking into American nuclear, metal and solar companies to steal trade secrets.

Last month, Community Health Systems (CYH.N), one of the largest U.S. hospital groups, said Chinese hackers had stolen Social Security numbers and other personal data from some 4.5 million patients.

*** North Korea has an elite and secret hacking unit as well known as Bureau 121. The Department of Defense submitted a report to Congress on Bureau 121 using asymmetric warfare. North Korea also has an additional cyber unit known as Office 91.

Office 91 is thought to be the headquarters of North Korea’s hacking operation although the bulk of the hackers and hacking and infiltration into networks is done from Unit 121, which operates out of North Korea and has satellite offices overseas, particularly in Chinese cities that are near the North Korean border. One such outpost is reportedly the Chilbosan Hotel in Shenyang, a major city about 150 miles from the border. A third operation, called Lab 110, participates in much the same work.

There are also several cyberunits under North Korea’s other arm of government, the Workers’ Party of Korea.

Unit 35 is responsible for training cyberagents and is understood to handle domestic cyberinvestigations and operations. Unit 204 takes part in online espionage and psychological warfare and Office 225 trains agents for missions in South Korea that can sometimes have a cyber component. More here from PCWorld.

*** China is well aware of North Korea activities, while China has and is becoming more aggressive globally. There is clearly collusion, yet what is the West and in particular the United States prepared to do in response remains unclear. However, China did approve 38 Trump trademarks. President Trump meets with Xi Jinping, maybe we will know more in April.