Official List of Bilderberg Meeting/Topics

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

2016 Bilderberg Meeting

Dresden, Germany 9-12 June
Final list of Participants

CHAIRMAN
Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman and CEO, AXA Group

Aboutaleb, Ahmed (NLD), Mayor, City of Rotterdam
Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG
Agius, Marcus (GBR), Chairman, PA Consulting Group
Ahrenkiel, Thomas (DNK), Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Albuquerque, Maria Luís (PRT), Former Minister of Finance; MP, Social Democratic Party
Alierta, César (ESP), Executive Chairman and CEO, Telefónica
Altman, Roger C. (USA), Executive Chairman, Evercore
Altman, Sam (USA), President, Y Combinator
Andersson, Magdalena (SWE), Minister of Finance
Applebaum, Anne (USA), Columnist Washington Post; Director of the Transitions Forum, Legatum Institute
Apunen, Matti (FIN), Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA
Aydin-Düzgit, Senem (TUR), Associate Professor and Jean Monnet Chair, Istanbul Bilgi University
Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), CEO, Artemis
Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Former President of the European Commission
Baverez, Nicolas (FRA), Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Bengio, Yoshua (CAN), Professor in Computer Science and Operations Research, University of Montreal
Benko, René (AUT), Founder and Chairman of the Advisory Board, SIGNA Holding GmbH
Bernabè, Franco (ITA), Chairman, CartaSi S.p.A.
Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
Blanchard, Olivier (FRA), Fred Bergsten Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute
Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
Breedlove, Philip M. (INT), Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe
Brende, Børge (NOR), Minister of Foreign Affairs
Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Cebrián, Juan Luis (ESP), Executive Chairman, PRISA and El País
Charpentier, Emmanuelle (FRA), Director, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology
Coeuré, Benoît (INT), Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank
Costamagna, Claudio (ITA), Chairman, Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A.
Cote, David M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Honeywell
Cryan, John (DEU), CEO, Deutsche Bank AG
Dassù, Marta (ITA), Senior Director, European Affairs, Aspen Institute
Dijksma, Sharon A.M. (NLD), Minister for the Environment
Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), CEO, Axel Springer SE
Dyvig, Christian (DNK), Chairman, Kompan
Ebeling, Thomas (DEU), CEO, ProSiebenSat.1
Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman and CEO, EXOR; Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
Enders, Thomas (DEU), CEO, Airbus Group
Engel, Richard (USA), Chief Foreign Correspondent, NBC News
Fabius, Laurent (FRA), President, Constitutional Council
Federspiel, Ulrik (DNK), Group Executive, Haldor Topsøe A/S
Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA
Ferguson, Niall (USA), Professor of History, Harvard University
Flint, Douglas J. (GBR), Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc
Garicano, Luis (ESP), Professor of Economics, LSE; Senior Advisor to Ciudadanos
Georgieva, Kristalina (INT), Vice President, European Commission
Gernelle, Etienne (FRA), Editorial Director, Le Point
Gomes da Silva, Carlos (PRT), Vice Chairman and CEO, Galp Energia
Goodman, Helen (GBR), MP, Labour Party
Goulard, Sylvie (INT), Member of the European Parliament
Graham, Lindsey (USA), Senator
Grillo, Ulrich (DEU), Chairman, Grillo-Werke AG; President, Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie
Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
Hadfield, Chris (CAN), Colonel, Astronaut
Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University
Harding, Dido (GBR), CEO, TalkTalk Telecom Group plc
Hassabis, Demis (GBR), Co-Founder and CEO, DeepMind
Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investment, LLC
Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn
Höttges, Timotheus (DEU), CEO, Deutsche Telekom AG
Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard
Jäkel, Julia (DEU), CEO, Gruner + Jahr
Johnson, James A. (USA), Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners
Jonsson, Conni (SWE), Founder and Chairman, EQT
Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. (USA), Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
Kaeser, Joe (DEU), President and CEO, Siemens AG
Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
Kengeter, Carsten (DEU), CEO, Deutsche Börse AG
Kerr, John (GBR), Deputy Chairman, Scottish Power
Kherbache, Yasmine (BEL), MP, Flemish Parliament
Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kleinfeld, Klaus (USA), Chairman and CEO, Alcoa
Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
Lagarde, Christine (INT), Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
Levin, Richard (USA), CEO, Coursera
Leyen, Ursula von der (DEU), Minister of Defence
Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
Logothetis, George (GRC), Chairman and CEO, Libra Group
Maizière, Thomas de (DEU), Minister of the Interior, Federal Ministry of the Interior
Makan, Divesh (USA), CEO, ICONIQ Capital
Malcomson, Scott (USA), Author; President, Monere Ltd.
Markwalder, Christa (CHE), President of the National Council and the Federal Assembly
McArdle, Megan (USA), Columnist, Bloomberg View
Michel, Charles (BEL), Prime Minister
Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
Mitsotakis, Kyriakos (GRC), President, New Democracy Party
Morneau, Bill (CAN), Minister of Finance
Mundie, Craig J. (USA), Principal, Mundie & Associates
Murray, Charles A. (USA), W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD)
Noonan, Michael (IRL), Minister for Finance
Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author, Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair Plc
Ollongren, Kajsa (NLD), Deputy Mayor of Amsterdam
Özel, Soli (TUR), Professor, Kadir Has University
Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Co.
Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute
Philippe, Edouard (FRA), Mayor of Le Havre
Pind, Søren (DNK), Minister of Justice
Ratti, Carlo (ITA), Director, MIT Senseable City Lab
Reisman, Heather M. (CAN), Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister
Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
Schäuble, Wolfgang (DEU), Minister of Finance
Schieder, Andreas (AUT), Chairman, Social Democratic Group
Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Executive Chairman, Alphabet Inc.
Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), CEO, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
Schwab, Klaus (INT), Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum
Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
Simsek, Mehmet (TUR), Deputy Prime Minister
Sinn, Hans-Werner (DEU), Professor for Economics and Public Finance, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
Skogen Lund, Kristin (NOR), Director General, The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise
Standing, Guy (GBR), Co-President, BIEN; Research Professor, University of London
Svanberg, Carl-Henric (SWE), Chairman, BP plc and AB Volvo
Thiel, Peter A. (USA), President, Thiel Capital
Tillich, Stanislaw (DEU), Minister-President of Saxony
Vetterli, Martin (CHE), President, NSF
Wahlroos, Björn (FIN), Chairman, Sampo Group, Nordea Bank, UPM-Kymmene Corporation
Wallenberg, Jacob (SWE), Chairman, Investor AB
Weder di Mauro, Beatrice (CHE), Professor of Economics, University of Mainz
Wolf, Martin H. (GBR), Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times

Press Release

The 64th Bilderberg meeting is set to take place from 9 – 12 June 2016 in Dresden, Germany. A total of around 130 participants from 20 countries have confirmed their attendance. As ever, a diverse group of political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media have been invited. The list of participants is available on www.bilderbergmeetings.org.

The key topics for discussion this year include:

Current events
China
Europe: migration, growth, reform, vision, unity
Middle East
Russia
US political landscape, economy: growth, debt, reform
Cyber security
Geo-politics of energy and commodity prices
Precariat and middle class
Technological innovation

Founded in 1954, the Bilderberg conference is an annual meeting designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, between 120-150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; approximately one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.

The conference is a forum for informal discussions about major issues facing the world. The meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor any other participant may be revealed.

Thanks to the private nature of the conference, the participants are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written. Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.

NATO Launches CyberSpace Mission

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

NATO to Recognize Cyberspace as New Frontier in Defense

Nasdaq: BRUSSELS—Allied defense ministers formally recognized cyberspace as a domain of warfare on Tuesday, an acknowledgment that modern battles are waged not only in air, sea and land, but also on computer networks.

The move comes the same day as the Democratic National Committee announced its computers had been hacked by the Russian government. DNC officials said the hackers made off with its opposition research related to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for President.

The effort is designed to bolster allies’ cyberdefenses, but also will begin a debate over whether NATO should eventually use cyberweapons that can shut down enemy missiles and air defenses or destroy adversaries’ computer networks.

“This is important to all possible conflicts we can foresee,” he said.

Mr. Stoltenberg declined to address the suspected cyberhack on the Democratic National Committee by the Russian government, and wouldn’t name any potential cyber adversaries, noting that NATO’s cyberdefenses weren’t aimed at any one country. U.S. and allied officials have previously said Russia remains the greatest cyberthreat to the alliance.

Developing capabilities to more quickly attribute responsibility for cyberintrusions and cyberattacks is a priority for the alliance, Mr. Stoltenberg said.

“One of the challenge when it comes to cyber is it is not easy to tell who is attacking you,” he said.

The decision by the ministers will allow the alliance to better coordinate its cyberspace efforts and defenses, Mr. Stoltenberg said.

“This is about developing our abilities and capabilities to protect NATO cyber networks but also to help and assist nations in defending their cyber networks,” he said.

For now, the alliance is focused on defending its own secure networks and helping allies build their cyberdefenses.

Tuesday’s announcement to recognize cyberspace as new sphere of conflict or battleground constitutes a bit of catch- up by the alliance. The U.S. military, for example, has expanded its cyber command, improved its training and developed weaponry and defenses to deploy in cyberspace.

The change comes as the number of cyberattacks against the alliance and member states has been increasing, a senior NATO official said.

By making cyber a warfare domain, NATO will open the door to stepped up military planning, dedicate more officers to cyber operations and better integrate electronic warfare into its military exercises.

Two years ago, at the previous summit in Wales, NATO leaders announced a cyberattack on one ally could trigger the alliance’s collective defense provisions.

Under NATO’s founding treaty, each ally primarily has responsibility for its own defense. But NATO officials acknowledge that the alliance is only as strong as its weakest link, which makes helping nations improve their cyber capabilities a priority.

As part of efforts to counter so-called hybrid warfare threats, the use of covert forces to stir unrest or make military gains, NATO has been pushing member countries to improve their cyberdefenses.

Russia has made cyber and electronic warfare a key part of its military operations. U.S. and allied officials said that Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use such techniques to interfere with the military capabilities of its opponents in Ukraine. Russia denies it is involved militarily in Ukraine.

U.S. officials have said countering Russia’s improving militarily capabilities—such as its advanced missiles and air defenses in the Kaliningrad exclave on the border of Poland and Lithuania—could require cyber capabilities.

“Russia has sophisticated cyber capabilities,” said Vaidotas Urbelis, the defense policy director for the Lithuania ministry of defense. “But, come on, NATO nations have invested a lot in cyber and we have the capacity to defend ourselves.”

On Monday, Douglas Lute, the U.S. ambassador to NATO said cyber operations could be a key part of the alliance’s defense against stepped up Russian advances in anti-access weaponry.

“A networked air defense system can be jammed. It can be disrupted by way of cyber techniques,” Mr. Lute said.

A discussion of additional NATO cyber capabilities—or offensive capabilities—is likely to wait until after the conclusion of the alliance summit in Warsaw next month.

The alliance lags well behind its most militarily advanced members, including the U.S. and Britain, in developing its cyber capabilities. In any potential conflict, the alliance would need to rely on the U.S. and its use of cyber weaponry.

“We welcome the decision to recognize cyber as a domain,” said British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, adding the U.K. has committed some $2 billion for its own cyberdefenses and capabilities.

The U.S. Army has been increasing its cyberdefense training at its training centers in the U.S. and Europe. A pilot program begun last year has aimed embedding “cyber elements” with tactical units.

“We know a variety of countries have increasing cyber capabilities that can interfere with your communications, your global position and navigating systems, your targeting systems,” said a U.S. defense official.
*****

Last year saw was a small uptick in defense spending across Europe and Canada, Stoltenberg said. “Our estimates for 2016 show a further increase across NATO’s European allies and Canada,” said he added. “These are only estimates. But they are encouraging.”

The annual real change in NATO defense spending, he said, currently stands at around 1.5 percent, which represents an increase of more than $3 billion.

Plans to Boost Defense Spending

Some 20 NATO allies plan to spend more in real terms on defense this year, Stoltenberg said.

“So, this is real progress,” he said. “After many years of going in the wrong direction, we are starting to go into the right direction.”

With more money comes increased capabilities, Stoltenberg said, noting that NATO has agreed to place four battalions in the eastern nations of the alliance.

“Based on the advice of our military planners, we will agree to deploy by rotation four robust multinational battalions in the Baltic states and in Poland,” he said. “This will send a clear signal that NATO stands ready to defend any ally. More from the Department of Defense.

Militant Islam, Obama Admin Forbidden Terms

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

A distinction needs to be made. Radical extremists are for the force multipliers, those like Anwar al Awlaki. The militants like Mohammed Emwazi are born from the radicals and they are the deadly enforcers of the Islamic doctrine and Sharia.

Don’t blame the FBI for failures, with particular regard to the worst terror attack in American by a gunman, Orlando. Blame the White House. All the Q&A sessions, congressional testimony and press briefings by FBI Director James Comey have had an underlying message, a cry for help, attention and support.

Don’t blame the intelligence community including CENTCOM and the Pentagon for battlefield or rules of engagement failures. That belongs to the entire White House national security team. The Office of National Intelligence has also been affected.

This is not political correctness at all, it is a Barak Obama edict, sensitivity to Islam across our homeland and across the globe. Obama has had a strident mission since he assumed the Oval Office to create a Muslim protective shield. This is beyond dispute.

While not in any chronological order, there are some very key decisions that were made and continue to be made by the Obama administration that affect our national security and this generational war titled the Overseas Contingency Operation.

In April of 2009, Barak Obama delivered ‘The New Beginnings’ speech. In this presentation he spelled out his full agenda in what was to become the long-term mission to elevate Muslims and their organizations at home and globally. The White House objectives have been successful and consequential.

With the new beginning announced, Obama extended his same purpose throughout government agencies, law enforcement and policies as a mandatory doctrine.

‘Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.’ Philip Haney, The Hill.

Directly after the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration did reach out to the Muslim communities to determine who was with peace and national security and who perhaps gave clues of a larger and hidden condition that could be festering that would prove clues to more domestic security challenges.

Then came the Holyland Foundation trial in 2007/2008. The material facts and conditions of the domestic threat, people, money, collaboration and global consequence all converged in a courtroom in Texas.

During the Holy Land trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified in court that CAIR was a front for HAMAS. One trial exhibit submitted by federal prosecutors – and stipulated to by the defense in the case – explained that these organizations were dedicated to a “civilizational-jihadist process” to destroy America from within and replace the Constitution with sharia (Islamic law):

The Ikhwah [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions. (p. 21)

Federal prosecutors specifically cited this internal Muslim Brotherhood planning document as the strategic goal of these U.S.-based Islamic groups – the very same group advising the Obama Administration. The federal judge in the Holy Foundation case agreed with the case presented by the federal prosecutors had made regarding these organizations, stating in one ruling that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF…and with HAMAS.” (p. 14-15) More important details here from the CounterjihadReport.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder was included in the full protection of the terror networks and associated people. Congressman Gohmert of Texas challenged AG Holder to no avail in a chilling exchange.

Here is where the ‘words matter’ material documentation began. The Obama administration took this agenda to new standard.

In 2009, DHS published via the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment a ‘Rightwing Extremism’ document, pinpointing those that may challenge the Obama Muslim doctrine. Additionally, DHS posted The Department of Homeland Security launched a ‘Do’s and Dont’s bulletin.

The entire complexion of the Department of Homeland Security began to change with new personnel and outreach under Secretary Janet Napolitano. The outreach extended to law enforcement agencies of which LAPD demonstrates.

The order to purge documents, training materials and database was made. The proof is here.

Barak Obama was not finished. In 2015, the White House introduced a strategy for CVE, Counter Violent Extremism.

Then comes the foreign policy of Obama. All deference to Iran began before Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and continues today. Secret back channels to Iran using Ambassador Burns began in 2008. Further, there is Iraq and Syria with Islamic State. Documents here on ISIS prove the intelligence and forecasts were known, available and delivered.

This would not be complete without mentioning China, Russia or North Korea where policies are non-existent.

The Paris attack was a slaughter and Obama found it wise to snub the solidarity march with other world leaders.

Obama touted Yemen as one of his successes but the country collapsed. Finally, the Obama policy doctrine crumbled and the cause was fully explained here. Obama wilfully recoiled as he and Hillary did on Benghazi.

It really no longer matters that Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry refuse to use key terms to describe militant Islam, the entire well verse and informed world have defined it for them. What does matter beyond the words are the policies and refusals of missions, strategies and conditions to keep America, her interests and allies safe.

It is no wonder there is no global respect for the Obama administration and there is much less to fear from her.

In summary, Obama owns this terror, owns this jihad and owns the death as well as the genocide. This is his legacy, he owns it as his own scarlet letter.

POTUS, No Executive Order to Close Gitmo

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Official offers details on Gitmo detainees who kill more Americans

An official who spoke to CNN Thursday put the numbers at fewer than 15 who went on to attack Americans or coalition forces in Afghanistan. The number of Americans killed in these attacks is believed to be in the single digits, according to the U.S. official, who is familiar with the matter.

“Because many of these incidents were large-scale firefights in a war zone, we cannot always distinguish whether Americans were killed by the former detainees or by others in the same fight,” the official said. More here.

USN: The White House was unable to come up with a strong legal strategy for executive action in this case, as the White House teams did in the cases of gun control and immigration executive orders, even though Obama serves as commander-in-chief and the office that he occupies traditionally has wider latitude in military matters. Obama sent a closure plan to Congress in February.

Report: Obama Administration Is ‘Not Pursuing’ an Executive Order to Close Guantanamo

TheBlaze: The Obama administration is not planning to use an executive order to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after officials determined that such an order would not be a “viable” strategy, “sources familiar with the deliberations” told Reuters.

According to Reuters, the decision “narrows the already slim chances that President Barack Obama can fulfill his pledge to close the notorious offshore prison before leaving office in January.”

While campaigning for president in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama promised to close the controversial facility if elected. Earlier this year, the president announced a plan to close the facility that was met with opposition in Congress.

The source told Reuters that the administration won’t pursue an executive order to close the facility, although the president is eager to close the prison.

“It was just deemed too difficult to get through all of the hurdles that they would need to get through, and the level of support they were likely to receive on it was thought to be too low to generate such controversy, particularly at a sensitive (time) in an election cycle.”

Myles Caggins, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters, “The administration’s goal is to work with Congress to find a solution to close Guantanamo.”

Related reading: Obama Submitted the Plan to Close Gitmo, Rejected

Related from the White House in 2011:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 7, 2011

FACT SHEET: NEW ACTIONS ON GUANTANAMO AND DETAINEE POLICY

Chinese Govt Makes Millions of Fake Social Media Posts

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Sounds just like Russia…and China has an army that is assigned to keep up the espionage against the West.

Red astroturf: Chinese government makes millions of fake social media posts

“50-cent” posters aim to distract from dissent rather than confront it.

arsT: Data scientists at Harvard University have found that the government of the People’s Republic of China generates an estimated 448 million fake social media posts per year. The posts are an effort to shape online conversations by citizens and to distract them from sensitive topics “and change the subject”—largely through “cheerleading” posts promoting the Chinese Communist Party and the government.

The research, conducted by Harvard professor Gary King and former Harvard graduate students Jennifer Pan and Margaret Roberts and supported by Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Science, made use of a goldmine of propaganda content. This included a leaked archive of e-mails sent to the Zhanggong District Internet Propaganda Office from 2013 to 2014 that showed government workers’ documentation of completion of fake post work, including screen shots. The research also analyzed social media posts on Chinese websites from 2010 to 2015.

Previously, posts like these were believed to be the work of what observers have called the “50-cent Party”—named for what some believed the posters are paid by the state for their propaganda work. As it turns out, the posts analyzed by King and his co-researchers were likely mostly written for free as an extra duty of government employees.

And while the “50c” posts had long been assumed to be focused on attacking critics of the government and the Party, the researchers found instead that “the Chinese regime’s strategy is to avoid arguing with skeptics of the party and the government, and to not even discuss controversial issues. We infer that the goal of this massive secretive operation is instead to regularly distract the public and change the subject, as most of these posts involve cheerleading for China, the revolutionary history of the Communist Party, or other symbols of the regime.” In essence, the fake posts are a government-sponsored “astro-turfing” campaign—an attempt to create the impression of a grassroots groundswell of support for the Party and the government.

The term “astro-turfing” first became widely used to online public relations efforts by Microsoft as the company was fighting a government anti-trust case through the Microsoft-funded group Americans for Technology Leadership, though the term had been used in the past to describe off-line fake grassroots efforts. It has become a common (but unethical) political and marketing practice—particularly as companies try to shape online reviews and comments about their products and services. But none has engaged in this practice on the scale of the Chinese government’s campaign, which used government workers to spread happy talk about the Party and state. Of the posts analyzed from the Zhanggong archive, the researchers found 99.3 percent were contributed by one of more than 200 government agencies. Twenty percent of those posts were posted directly by employees of the Zhanggong Internet Propaganda Office, with smaller percentages coming from other regional and municipal government agencies.

As for the allegation that these astroturfers get paid by the government for their posts, the researchers noted, “no evidence exists that the authors of 50c posts are even paid extra for this work. We cannot be sure of current practices in the absence of evidence but, given that they already hold government and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jobs, we would guess this activity is a requirement of their existing job or at least rewarded in performance reviews.”

Yup, there is more….

Defence forces on alert after Chinese cyber attack

TheNewIndianExpress: An alert has been issued to the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force that a Chinese Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) group called Suckfly, based in Chengdu region, is targeting Indian organisations. India’s defence establishment is its prime target.

Suckfly is involved in carrying out cyber espionage activities by sending out a malware called Nidiran.

According to the alert, Suckfly has stolen certificates from legitimate software developing firms in South Korea and is using them to camouflage its attacks. “Sensitive information from targeting computers and networks is exfiltrated, and this information is being used to undermine the national security and economic capabilities,” the alert issued from the Ministry of Defence states.

APT is a network attack in which an unauthorised person gains access and stays there undetected for a long period of time. The intention of an APT attack is to steal data instead of causing damage to the network or organisation.

“It has successfully carried out cyber espionage by infecting computers of both government and commercial houses of India involved in e-commerce, finance, healthcare, shipping and technology. Targeting of military personnel cannot be ruled out, keeping in mind the sensitive nature of data being handled by them,” the alert adds.

What is alarming for security agencies is that the cyber attack was carried out from the headquarters of China’s People’s Liberation Army. Chengdu Military Command is in charge of security along India’s eastern sector in the Tibet region, including Arunachal Pradesh. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had visited Chengdu Military Command during his visit to Beijing in April.