So, to unwind and get back to normal I stop by at Sandra’s Blog for a giveaway and a guest post about communications back in my time and now. Compared to my son—who texts without looking at the screen—my generation wrote notes on tiny pieces of paper, switching several hands until reaching the receiver, mostly at the other site of the class. For finals girls wrote sparknotes on … both thighs, abbreviating words only we could understand. I guess wearing a skirt had its advantages . Guys on the other hand, wrote on their forearms. Talk about sweating bullets figuratively and literally wearing long-sleeved shirt when, without air conditioner there was no difference between the outside scorching temperatures and the classroom air.

Don’t forget to stop by at Sandra’s to read the guest post and for a chance to win an e-copy of A World Apart.

Happy Sunday everyone!

]]> http://comm663.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/the-hottest-english-words-in-china/ Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:42:46 +0000 scarlett http://comm663.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/the-hottest-english-words-in-china/ http://toinformistoinfluence.com/2011/08/20/the-cyberworld-points-at-china/ Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:21:59 +0000 Joel Harding http://toinformistoinfluence.com/2011/08/20/the-cyberworld-points-at-china/ Please read a thought provoking article, U.S, China bicker over Cyber terrorism, on Vanguard. The author, Hugo Odiogor, is on to something, but missed some basic fact checking. Pyongyang is not the capital of China for instance, it’s Beijing. Mr. Odiogor, might I suggest a few people you might want to interview before publishing your next article?

Jamie Metzl has published one of the more definitive pieces about Chinese cyber spies, and published it on the Asia Society website here simply titled “China and Cyber-Espionage”.  His sources are all fairly official, not articles written for “splash and cash”, my term for journalism only seeking attention and money.

There are perhaps three experts to whom I look to whenever I want to know more about China and ‘cyber’.  One is Tim Thomas, whom I consider a close and trusted friend.  Tim is really an expert on Russia but he has built up a rich understanding of the Chinese cyber and information warfare programs.  This quote from the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission website is most telling:  “He is the author of several publications on Information Warfare including “Decoding the Virtual Dragon: Critical Evolutions in the Science and Philosophy of China’s Information Operations and Military Strategy” and “Dragon Bytes: Chinese Information-War Theory and Practice.”

The second expert I look to is Dr. James Mulvenon.  James is internationally recognized and I have made it a point to listen to what he says.  Here is a very good CSIS interview where he presents a methodology for cyber cooperation with the Chinese. I recently heard James speak at the National Press Club in Washington DC and he not only has a firm grasp on recent developments, he also understands the ramifications and implications of what is happening.   I hope to one day consider James a friend, we’ve just never had the opportunity to work together.

My third expert is Charles Hawkins, whom I consider a close and very trusted friend.  Charles has made more trips to China than anyone I know and the pictures he sends me remind me that some people actually have the guts to do what most only dream.   Charles has introduced me to some amazing people, some of whom I consider close friends now, and if you ever get the opportunity to share a drink with this man, you are truly blessed.  A recent picture he shared with me preceded what could have turned into an international incident, but I dare not expose Chinese naivete or risk Charles’s access to this sensitive area by writing anything more.  Let’s just say he lives the life that could easily make me jealous!

A point I would like to establish at this point is that China is a very patient nation, their cyber strategy has probably been written but probably won’t be acknowledged.  Some point at “Unrestricted Warfare” as a possible overarching strategy for how to compete and win against technologically superior nations, mostly the US, but since it is not an official PLA publication it might not be entirely accurate.  Carson Checketts wrote a very good analysis of Unrestricted Warfare in the IO Journal when I was the editor in Harmony and Chaos: The Principles of China’s Unrestricted Warfare.

In December 2010 I traveled to China, to Shanghai, to Xi’an, to Beijing and back to Shanghai, to talk with Chinese leaders, philosophers and academics, about information warfare and cyber warfare.  I had a wonderful host, Dr.  Zhang Zhexin, who enabled the entire trip and set up the talks.  One senior military leader could not make his appointment, I was honored to even be considered on his calendar!  I spoke at Fudan University, at the Shanghai Institute of International Studies, at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and at the Center for American Studies at Tsinghau University.  For the most part nothing truly revolutionary was discussed, my main point to the Chinese leaders, scholars and practitioners with whom I spoke was simple.  I said “The US is spying on you and China is spying on the US, only we’re not getting caught!”   I can easily say this because all nations gather intelligence and our two great nations are certainly no exceptions.  The overarching goal of this trip, however, was to establish relationships.  Sadly, my job has since been eliminated but I am seeking a means to continue our relationships in a semi or even an official capacity.  Suggestions?

My point, after meandering all over the place, is that every time I turn around I see another episode of China caught committing espionage against the US, now on a massive scale.  While the rest of the world is seeking to define and quantify cyberwar, cyber espionage and cyber theft and only then find ways to stop it, I believe the Chinese are nimbly spanking our butts in cyberspace – and we don’t have the guts to stop them.  We have few public discussions about cyber anything where the experts don’t wind up pointing fingers at the Chinese and accusing them – publicly – of waging de facto cyberwar on the US.  Perhaps the Chinese are not bringing our electrical grids down.  Perhaps they are not causing an economic downturn by turning off our financial transaction network, we’re doing it all on our own.  Perhaps they have not caused massive cyber outages in our military communications or command and control systems.  Perhaps they have not gone down the list of our critical infrastructures and taken them out one by one, but they are doing a heckuva job on the defense industrial base and other supported and related industries.  No, they do not ravage (deny, degrade or destroy) their information systems, they only copy material produced by hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars of research and development and then they have the latest technology.  Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were electrocuted for sharing atomic bomb technology.  Who do we hold accountable for, de facto, sharing everything else with the Chinese? When will we blame the Chinese?

Update:  An excellent and very much in-depth analysis by Andrew Erickson and Gabe Collins: China SignPost™ (洞察中国) #46: “A Smoking Cursor? New Window Opens on China’s Potential Cyberwarfare Development–CCTV 7 program raises new questions about Beijing’s support for hacking” found here.

This kind of straight talk is very effective usually…   Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter gave another straight-talk speech directed at “hoodlums” in in Philadelphia who use social media coordinated flash mobs to spread violence and seemingly random trashing of stores.   Here is the entire speech.  ..and it worked. According to PhillyMag, there were no flash mobs this past weekend.  Combined with a 9 pm curfew it seems that the youth of Philly and more importantly their parents, might be beginning to understand and take control.

Straight talk seems to be preferred to girl talk, we’re seeking straight talk to explain the London riots, and we seek straight talk advice about paying off the balance of our credit cards.  Straight talk is even a radio show in the town in which I grew up!

So why do we prefer straight talk but never seem to get it?  I blame society for this, American society.  We no longer allow a child to fail, we let them try again and again until they succeed.  We no longer hold people accountable, we find ways to avoid blaming them.  In other words we avoid the truth.  It’s almost easy to lie to someone’s face and not be truthful.  I spent 26 years in the Army and the most refreshing part was when friends told me “This is really messed up” and then why…  By the time I got into a leadership position I discovered there was a planning sequence and certain steps had to be taken to avoid disaster.   A politically incorrect saying is appropriate here, taught to me by my company XO, 1LT Sandra Gansel, in 1978:  “Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance”.

We, everyone, need more straight talk.  It doesn’t have to be politically correct (that also is destroying society), it doesn’t have to protect the environment nor destroy it.  Straight talk is telling the facts, objectively and filling in the nuances if the subjective nature of the issues play an important part.

I’m sitting here thinking of the worst boss I ever had.  He couldn’t tell the truth to save his life.  He lied for a living, quite literally.  I watched him play with carefully calculated figures just so he could appear better.   He was definitely not a straight shooter and was a terrible leader.

Now I’m thinking of the best leader I ever had.  I would have walked through the fires of hell for that man, mainly because he not only spoke the truth but appreciated it from his subordinates.  When the time came he spoke the truth that our boss was full of caa-caa poo-poo and to continue doing what I was doing.  He had the…  guts to do what was right, the insight to see where things were heading and in return he was the most effective leader I ever met.   Skip Baptista, you are the greatest.

I have a few different perspectives on this app.  Not having actually seen it I still think it has the potential for a great leap forward in openness and transparency for the Chinese PLA.  According to a friend of mine, Timothy L. Thomas, the Chinese and Russian information warfare expert at the US Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the PLA is surprisingly open and many military authors write prolifically about strategy, tactics, techniques, doctrine and so on.  He has browsed through the PLA bookstore on numerous occasions, I missed my opportunity when I visited Beijing, choosing instead to shop online with the help of my gracious host.  Not that I can read Chinese but I’m still trying to find the latest books on information warfare and cyber warfare from the PLA.  Back to the topic… I’m assuming the office populating this app with stories is a government associated entity in China and is somehow responsible for Public Affairs or Public Relations for the military. There is also a chance that it is somehow connected with the Foreign Propaganda Office, but I’m not sure, perhaps even an intelligence agency.  Regardless of origins I am nearly certain there are very tight restrictions on what information can be released and I’m also certain there are multiple approval levels.  We struggle with that same “release authority” with the US military.  When I was still on active duty the number of approvals required for the simplest of matters was overwhelming and disheartening.  We’ve made huge improvements since, reducing the levels of approvals required by increasing education and subtly changing the trust factors of our leaders.  Don’t get me wrong, many of our leaders today are still extremely paranoid and  will never trust subordinates.

The problem of easier release authorities is that whoever writes must not only know but understand the guidelines within which he or she can work.  Good guidance would be: write without endangering any soldiers or operations, in other words don’t release personal details or operational details.  Classified material is an entirely different matter, often seniors tap dance around classified material and still inadvertently release enough information that classified details can still be discerned or at least deduced.  Regardless, the writers and approval authorities must be diligent to protect sensitive information.

The problem with such an app is also perception.

• Anytime any news is released one has to wonder if the release is altruistic and made just to inform the public.
• Is it designed to put fear into the hearts of enemies?
• Is it meant to send an unwritten message, to fill a gap and, possibly create a false perception of the truth or to create more understanding?
• Is it intended to bolster morale and support of the people, friendly citizens?  Whose friendly citizens?
• Is it intended to illuminate a gap and therefore become a subtle request for money, people or equipment? I saw this once in the late 90s when one of the papers I wrote showed up verbatim in the Washington Times and it sure as heck wasn’t me that released it!  (must restrain tongue What, too Dilbertesque?)
• Is it bravado?
• Is it intended to say something else?
• What is the bias of the author?
• Who is the intended audience?
• What scale or level of impact is this intended to achieve?

This list is not at all all encompassing, I’d love to hear from others about more questions one should ask while reading news.

Only long term reading, analysis and understanding can tell, and then again, any one message can deviate from the norm.  Growing complacent allows one’s guard to falter, exposing weakness.  Trust comes from long term relationships and ongoing reinforcing actions. I have friends I’ve known for decades, I know their strengths and weaknesses and how they talk, what they mean, how formal or informal their personalities are in different circumstances and they know mine. The same for news releases and apps designed for that purpose.

Another problem with apps is that more and more computer exploits are built into new apps, smart and cell phones are the latest and future platform for emerging exploits. Does the app allow a hacker or attack or even spy to place a Remote Access Tool on the phone?  How about a remotely detonated payload (when executed will your phone turn off or launch a malicious attack)? Will it turn your smart phone into a zombie?  Will it become a launch platform for further exploitation?  Will you become a source for foreign intelligence?

I have predicted, as have many computer experts, that the next wave of cyber attacks will come through smart phones, cell phones and their data networks.  Smart phones are almost ubiquitous and attacks launched either using the smart phones or attacking smart phones will be devastating on a scale we have not seen to date.

I’m sure that many apps have a backdoor or other hidden functions built in. Until I read it in the press I won’t know, but I’m hoping every app is being examined closely. This app must have been examined closely to appear in the Apple App store, I’m just not sure it was examined from a security standpoint.

Bob Livingston, on his blog the Personal Liberty Digest, published a piece entitled John Kerry: Media Should ‘Not Give Equal Time’ (To Views He Disagrees With).  This was sent to me by a good friend and shared with a fairly senior email discussion group I belong to.  After I read the comments I did some searching, who else picked up the story?  I searched the Washington Post, nada.  The New York Times, zilch.  The LA Times, zero.  This leads me to wondering, if these mainstream legitimate news sources aren’t carrying this highly explosive statement and exposing it for what it is, who is?  I found it on History.com, as “John Kerry: Media Has “Responsibility” To “Not Give Equal Time” To Tea Party “. I found it in the Democratic online bastion of Maplewood/South Orange, NJ online “Well of course he would be in favor of thought control” and the discussion is actually quite good!   Real Clear Politics carried it as John Kerry: Media Has “Responsibility” To “Not Give Equal Time” To Tea Party” and includes the video.

It wasn’t until I searched MSNBC.com that I grew very suspicious of the coverage, after all it was on an MSNBC show, “Morning Joe” on Friday, August 5th, 2011 where Senator Kerry made his statement.  MSNBC published a statement by Senator Kerry that damned the Tea Party, “This is the Tea Party downgrade because a minority of people in the House of Representatives countered even the will of Republicans in the United States Senate who were prepared to do a bigger deal,” said Senator John Kerry“.  To be truthful, that article did include a statement by Senator John McCain that gave balance in coverage, but there was no mention of the Senator’s attack on the media or how they should or should not give coverage to opposing statements, specifically referring to the Tea Party.

I retired  as a US Army military intelligence officer in 2003, and part of my nonstandard schooling was media coverage.  I would prepare to brief the Commanding General of the US Army’s Intelligence and Security Command every morning and I realized that many of the answers I would be asked were not covered by intelligence reporting.  I learned to watch CNN, I learned to cruise the websites for all the major media and I learned that many of these websites would have wildly conflicting reporting on the same incidents.  After all this I would sometimes pick up the phone and talk with embassy personnel in the area to fill in the gaps, by the time I left that job I was absolutely convinced that the mainstream media was, in fact, biased to the extreme.  When I read Bob Livingston’s piece on Senator Kerry I realized that this was a perfect example of selective media coverage and not merely bias.

To give balance to this blog article, however, I must mention an incident that occurred to me in 2010.  I was invited by a coworker to tour a media research facility in Alexandria, VA.  The mission of this place was to work towards establishing fair and balanced coverage of news events, a noble cause indeed.  As I walked through their facility, observed their products and talked with a few of their workers, I realized what they actually did was to promote extreme right wing coverage.  It wasn’t fair and it was rather sickening, but it sought to give balance to a largely Democratically oriented mainstream media. If you want to know the name of this place, I would like not to get sued, so please contact me personally.

Propaganda is now an evil term, in Islam it would be known as haram or forbidden.  It took on that meaning after Joseph Goebbels served as the Propaganda Minister for the Nazis from 1933 until 1945.  I will devote a blog to this in a future edition, suffice it to say that what the press is doing cannot be categorized as propaganda.

But what the press is doing by not covering these highly controversial and damaging statements will effectively marginalize the mainstream media.  A number of newspapers have forever closed their doors, online content is rising in prominence but lacks the rigor that great reporters have.  I have friends that report for the Washington Post and the New York Times and they go to extraordinary lengths to verify their data, portray the proper nuance in their articles and protect their sources if necessary.  They also present very balanced reporting which is very objective.   These are the exceptions, I am sad to say and until more great news sources present themselves as credible and fair, we, Joe and Jane Netizen, are going to be saturated with unfair stories and selective coverage by the mainstream media.

1. If the internet is available at all, use proxy servers or a VPN to maneuver around firewalls or blocked websites
2.  If the internet is completely unavailable, use dial up lines with dial up modems. The biggest problem is that most modern computers do not contain dial up modems.
3. Use a satellite phone or terminal, the issue is severely reduced bandwidth.
4. Receive a downlink or other sort of an internet feed from a neighboring country, and remotely transmit and receive.

Assuming there is no diplomatic place from which to establish communications from inside a denied area, one can always use a satellite phone and connect to a computer for two way communications. The problem here is the data-rate. Satellite phones have a notoriously low data rate, ranging from 60 to 512 kilobits per second, which makes downloading and uploading a simple webpage very slow. Uploading a video through this link would be very, very painful, and that is one of the primary purposes of a few of these efforts – sharing with the world what is actually happening inside a denied area. The rebels in Benghazi, Libya, were sharing their satellite phones and using them, with success, but it was frustrating to those on the ground.
How does one get the internet into and, more importantly, get data requests out of a denied area? One can always establish a ground station in a neighboring country and build a tall antenna and broadcast into the neighboring denied area. If you can establish a high data rate downlink from a dedicated satellite channel, this will provide lots of data that can be fed into a retransmission system. The best current technology to rebroadcast is WiMax, in my opinion, because at 31 miles maximum range, the data rate is close to 70 Megabits per Second. This gets the data into a denied area, and WiMax can also receive a WiMax signal from inside the denied area requesting specific internet data.
Again, let’s think about the laws of physics and consider a horizon, because it’s difficult to transmit through a solid object, such as the earth. If a person is six foot tall, the horizon is approximately three miles in the distance, assuming a smooth surface. The exact formula is Distance (in kilometers) is approximately 3.856 times the square root of the height of the observer. The obstacle now is establishing a link into a denied area. If you search for radio propagation you will find the formula to determine antenna height needed to transmit to your targeted area. If the targeted area is 200 miles from the border, your transmit/receive antenna must be very, very high.
Once you have established a WiMax link in a denied area, one can rebroadcast the signal over a local WiFi network, which can also be meshed to other WiFi nodes.  The biggest problem here is a maximum range of around 300 feet (approximately 100 meters).  To cover a large city requires many, many nodes.  These should be considered both temporary and vulnerable. The greater the number of nodes, the more vulnerable they are to a domestic intelligence service’s attempts to discover and destroy them.
The biggest drawback to establishing a WiMax link in a denied area is that at some point we need a human to put the system into place. This puts a human at risk of being accused of being a foreign spy. A WiMax link may also be considered only a temporary measure because the domestic intelligence service in the denied area might hear about the internet connection and seek to locate and remove it.

This is a synopsis of a much larger presentation and many of the details have been ignored to make this more understandable.

I apologize if this appears to be a lecture, I’m just sharing this information the best way I know how.  Cheers!

Update:  11 May 2011 @ 1613.  I spoke with someone who was embedded with the rebels in Benghazi, Libya.  A text-heavy Google Search page would take hours, sometimes up to 10 hours to load.  Incredibly a Facebook page, even though more graphic intensive, loaded more quickly – but it still took hours.  This is a testament to how ineffective a satellite-centric solution might be.

We can fault the individuals who allow themselves to be trapped in this way, but I believe the environment created by leaders has a great deal to do with this malaise. Reason: if you put these same individuals in an environment of trust and challenge, nearly all of them would quickly rise up to become happy and productive workers. It is essential that each individual in the workforce find real meaning in the work being done, and the responsibility is on leaders to make that happen.

Some good research into this conundrum was presented by Viktor Frankl a half century ago in his famous book, Man’s Search for Meaning. Frankl posits that it “is a peculiarity of man that he must have something significant yet to do in his life, for that is what gives meaning to life.” He discovered this universally human trait while surviving the most horrible of life conditions in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. One cannot imagine a more oppressive environment, but believe it or not, many people at work feel like they are in a kind of concentration camp. The antidote is for leaders to create something significant yet to do.

Dave and Wendy Ulrich, co-authors of The Why of Work put it this way. “In organizations, meaning and abundance are more about what we do with what we have than about what we have to begin with.” They point out that workers are in some ways like volunteers who can choose where they allocate their time and energy. For their own peace and health, it is imperative that workers feel connected to the meaning of their work.

What can leaders do to ensure the maximum number of people have a sense of purpose and meaning in their work? Here are a dozen ideas that can help.

1. Create a positive vision of the future. Vision is critical because without it people see no sense of direction for their work. If we have a common goal, then it is possible to actually get excited about the future.

2. Generate trust. Trust is the glue that holds people together in a framework of positive purpose. Without trust, we are just playing games with each other hoping to get through the day unscathed. The most significant way leaders help create trust is by rewarding candor, which is accomplished by not punishing people for speaking their truth.

3. Build morale the right way. This means not trying to motivate people by adding hygiene factors like picnics, bonuses, or hat days. Motivate people by treating them with respect and giving them autonomy. Leaders do not motivate people, rather they create the environment where people decide whether to become motivated. This sounds like doubletalk, but it is a powerful message most leaders do not understand.

4. Recognize and celebrate excellence. Reinforcement is the most powerful tool leaders have for changing behavior. Leaders need to learn how to reinforce well and avoid the mine-field of reinforcement mistakes that are easy to make.

5. Treat people right. In most cases focusing on the Golden Rule works well. In some extreme cases the Golden Rule will not be wise because not all individuals want to be treated the same way. Use of the Platinum Rule (Treat others the way they would like to be treated) is helpful as long as it is not taken to a literal extreme.

6. Communicate more and better. People have an unquenchable thirst for information. Lack of communication is the most often mentioned grievance in any organization. Get some good training on how to communicate in all modes and practice all the time.

7. Unleash maximum discretionary effort in people. People give effort to the organization out of choice, not out of duty. Understand what drives individuals to make a contribution and be sure to provide that element daily. Do not try to apply the same techniques to all individuals or all situations.

8. Have high ethical and moral standards. Operate from a set of values and make sure people know why those values are important. Leaders need to always live their values.

9. Lead change well. Change processes are in play in every organization daily, yet most leaders are poor at managing change. Study the techniques of successful change so people do not become confused and disoriented.

10. Challenge people and set high expectations. People will rise to a challenge if it is properly presented and managed. Challenged individuals are people who have found meaning in their work.

11. Operate with high Emotional Intelligence. The ability to work well with people, upward, sideways, and downward allows things to work smoothly. Without Emotional Intelligence, leaders do not have the ability to transform intentions into meaning within people.

12. Build High Performing Teams. A sense of purpose is enhanced if there is a kind of peer pressure brought on by good teamwork. Foster great togetherness of teams so people will relate to their tasks instinctively.

This is a substantial list of items, but most of them are common sense. Unfortunately they are not common practice in most organizations. If you want to have people rise to their level of potential, they must all have a sense of meaning. To accomplish that, focus on the above items, and see a remarkable transformation in your organization.