Chinese corporate hackers, the Chamber of Commerce, Fakegate

What do they have in common?  Apparently some methodologies, uncovered by the hacktivist group Anonymous.

Details can be found in an interesting, if dense, article at The Nation, which describes how Anonymous revealed dealings the Chamber of Commerce was having with a Cyber Security firm that did not limit itself to defensive measures.

Attorneys for the Chamber were caught negotiating for a contract to launch a cyber campaign using practically identical methods to those attributed to the Chinese, which reportedly could be used to cripple vital infrastructure and plunder trade secrets from Fortune 100 companies. The Chamber was seeking to undermine its political opposition, including the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and MoveOn.org, but apparently had to scotch the plan after it was revealed by Anonymous.

[…]

The story of both the Mandiant report and the American lobbyist hacking conspiracy begins in February of 2011, when the hacktivist group Anonymous stole some 70,000 e-mails from a Bethesda, Maryland-based firm called HBGary Federal and dumped them onto the Internet. HBGary Federal was an affiliate of HBGary, a firm that maintained a database and discussion forum of hacking software called Rootkit.com, which served as a “malware repository where researchers stud[ied] hacking techniques from all over the world.” It appears the Chinese hackers, known as the “Comment Crew,” had participated to gain the types of software used to compromise computers owned by dozens of American interests.

The connection to the Heartland Institute is just circumstantial and I make that connection here:

The presentations, which were also leaked by Anonymous, contained ethically questionable tactics, like creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” to give to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then subsequently exposing the document as a fake to undermine the credibility of the Chamber’s opponents.

I think we have here by far the most plausible explanation for the still mysterious beginning of the whole FakeGate controversy from just over a year ago.  Heartland itself is likely the source of the initial forged document that came into Peter’s possession, but rather than simply running with it into their trap, he unexpectedly sought to verify its contents with a subterfuge of his own and thus got his hands on the real goods.  (BTW, that is what is called real skepticism!).  This also explains Heartlands rather shrill protestations, it is very hard to stomach when plots like that back-fire into your own face!

So, except for the absence of actual evidence, I think we can say “case closed”!

Any thoughts?

 

81 thoughts on “Chinese corporate hackers, the Chamber of Commerce, Fakegate

  1. “If you are going to accuse someone of being a half-wit, at least try to us the correct words. ”

    If you’re going to complain about the wrong words, at least check that a typo isn’t an adequate explanation, else this indicates your desire to see it in place/

    ““Pretend” to be better than you and kai? I don’t have to pretend”

    But you do.

    Here’s you:

    http://xkcd.com/774/

    You’re standing at a spot and seeing two others not in that spot and ASSUMING yourself to be the “moderate” therefore “better”.

    You aren’t.

    Like

  2. I guess that’s the difference between you and me Wow.

    I read what is on the thread before commenting. You apparently, do not.

    I check the sources before commenting. You assume that a tolling denier is telling you the truth and you react without the knowledge to respond properly.

    I make my case based on science and evidence. The sum total of your contribution is to abuse people, and to get into a pointless argument with a troll.

    You get called on a mistake, and your response is to abuse the person who provided you with the correct information.

    As far as you and kai is concerned, I don’t have to assume that I am better than either of you. You make the case very well all by yourselves. In future, I suggest you stick to your childish games with kai – at least you two are evenly matched.

    Like

  3. Yes, the difference between you and me is that you think your position is “moderate” and “better” and cannot be shaken from that faith.

    I do not make any such self-flattering assumptions.

    You only want to be superior.

    I’d prefer to be correct.

    Like

  4. Yup, see what I mean, mandy?

    You don’t even seem to understand the smallest words either.

    You want to be superior.

    I’d *prefer* to be correct.

    If I’m not, that isn’t a “lose”, I just didn’t get my preference.

    You know for someone who opined ” I suggest you stick to your childish games with kai – at least you two are evenly matched.” you certainly seem to have Kai’s M.O. down pat and ready to hand at the slightest provocation.

    Don’t you.

    I guess, like I’d said before, you’re not very smart, are you.

    Like

  5. Oh, and are you saying, since that is a “2 times loser” that you akcnowledge you also failed to be better than either kai or myself?

    Because the arithmetic there doesn’t work out otherwise.

    Like

  6. “…I guess, like I’d said before, you’re not very smart, are you….”

    Poor punctiation Wow – requires a question mark.

    Like

  7. WowMandasMarcoTroll

    look here this climategate 2.0 email:

    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

    From: Keiller, Donald

    Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34

    To: ‘ k.briffa@xxxx

    Cc: ‘ p.jones@xxxx

    Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology

    Dear Professor Briffa,

    my apologies for contacting you directly,

    particularly since I hear that you are unwell.

    However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.

    As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).

    As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;

    1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed

    2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies

    3) The concept of “teleconnection” by which certain trees respond to the “Global Temperature Field”, rather than local climate

    4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.

    Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.

    As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.

    There is a saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.

    Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr. Don Keiller

    “””””””””””””””””””””””

    Are you warmist trolls intelligent enough to value what this means for your beloved hockey stick?

    Like

  8. “look here this climategate 2.0 email:”

    Booooring!

    Look you may get your jollies looking twitching curtains and gossiping, but there’s fuck all science in it and absolutely nothing of interest to any normal human being

    But even for you idiots, that’s a pretty lame post.

    Oh, look someone said they don’t think the science is right.

    Wow. That proves it.

    There are idiots outside scienceblog posters. Seems like this one hasn’t considered that calibration is done with thermometer readings and other proxies. A limited intellect.

    Like

  9. “Poor punctiation Wow – requires a question mark.”

    It wasn’t a question. It was a statement.

    But you’re not very smart, are you.

    Like

  10. “…But you’re not very smart, are you….”

    Missed the question mark again! More poor punctuation wow – you dont learn, do you?

    Like

  11. Yup, once again freddykaitroll continues on the option b) route. Having been shown an idiot for claiming MBH98/99 included Yamal, and being unable to prove that Mann, Briffa and Jones discussed the Yamal issues, he resorts to an Appeal to Authority. Sadly for him, Don Keiller is a complete nobody and his assurance that points 3 and 4 “do not agree with accepted science” suggests he’s never ever opened even a basic textbook on dendrochronology or climate science.

    Like

  12. MarcoTrollTrullyBoo, instead of being childishly offensive (because you are unable to reveice well-based criticism of one of your basic misbeliefs) you should try to understand what I am constanly try to teach you warming trolls. Every “important” “proof” of your AGW speculation is dubious, to put it politely, or even manipulated, to put it realistically. Even when peers within your church are expressing doubts ans criticism and you only behave as primitive watchdog: no sign of balancing your partizan positions and trials to be objective. You always to continue to maintain, that YOU ARE RIGHT, when you only speculate and don’t accept any criticism of your world view. You don’t behave as a scientist, most probably you are not even one, but have always your mouth wide open and repeat the psalms of your bible like indian monks do with their holy wisdoms of nirwana.

    Like

  13. “instead of being childishly offensive”

    You;re going to try something cogent?

    “Every “important” “proof” of your AGW speculation is dubious, to put it politely, or even manipulated, to put it realistically.”

    Apparently not.

    Like

  14. “More poor punctuation wow ”

    Since it was a statement again, it doesn’t need a question mark. the clue is in the name.

    You’re even dumber than i was afraid of, mandy.

    Like

  15. wow. short lesson to you as somebody with low level school education: “are you” is a question. learn it! I hate to admit that mandas is right.

    Like

  16. E.g. this conversation.

    freddykaitroll: I am hurt by your slurs and slanders against me!

    Everyone else: Are you.

    We aren’t asking. We’re sarcastic.

    Like

  17. Freddykaitroll, I am fully willing to learn. However, being a scientist, I actually check what people claim. And thus I found you to falsely claim GISTEMP did something deceptive, found out you did not even know how GISTEMP works, found out that you falsely claimed Mike Mann did anything with Yamal, and it just keeps on going with misrepresentations and falsehoods from your side!

    You are, of course, free to keep holding on to your delusions, but don’t expect us to “learn” anything from your behaviour. I value my skeptic mind, being an actual working scientist with many times more publications than the Don Keiller, whose opinion you seem to value so much that you decided to quote the whole e-mail. I don’t want to become like you.

    Like

  18. wow, “You’re dumb, aren’t you” is a statement”, hahahah, you should nor think that decadent, primitive aristocracy-decadent, snobbish lower-class English is by any measure a standard for normal talking among adults. You don’t even know what a question is and misinterpret that your degenerated british sarcasm makes impression on anybody. Why are you so wicked? Is this really only due your frustation that you are so ignorant with weather, climate and biology.

    Like

  19. Wow, listen:

    “You’re dumb” is a statement, yes

    however

    “aren’t you” is a ridiculous question.

    Why are you so stubbornly wrong?

    Like

  20. “…Yes, I guess that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it mandy….”

    Should have a question mark at the end.

    But to answer your question (poorly punctuated as it may be): No – I direct your attention to post #52.

    Like

  21. Wow, what are you doing there?

    Freddy/Kai has never explained anything – he just claims how smart he is and how dumb the others are.

    Like

  22. Jonas over at his jail thread on Deltoid does the same thing.

    Indeed his is far more evolved since he prattles on about “I has proved it all for you, but you is all too stupid to see it and that shows i is more smarter than you alls!”.

    Joan, however, has several thousand posts to pretend he’s posted his evidence on. kai doesn’t.

    Like

  23. Wow, thank you for your support. I thankfully acknowledge your statement of huge intellectual superiority over climate alarmist followers like JV and others, who are unwilling or unable to “global climate” realism, i.e. to take note for instance that global temperatures are stable now since more than a decade, extremely cold temperature in Antarctica, lowering water vapour levels in the stratosphere, methodological insufficiencies to determine global sea levels etc. etc. etc. etc., facts which fanatic climate realism deniers like JV are never able to understand – and even less – to accept.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s