Quotulatiousness

October 7, 2013

CSEC’s sudden media prominence … in Brazil

Filed under: Americas, Cancon, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:50

If you haven’t heard of CSEC before, you’re certainly not alone. The signals intelligence service known as Communications Security Establishment Canada has been eager not to be in the public eye, but allegations are being made that CSEC has been spying on the Brazilian government’s mining and energy ministry:

The impact for Canada of these revelations could be equally grave: they come at a time when Brazil has become a top destination for Canadian exports, when a stream of delegations from the oil and gas industries are making pilgrimages to Rio de Janeiro to try to get a piece of the booming offshore oil industry, and when the Canadian government is eager to burnish ties with Brasilia. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird visited Brazil in August, and spoke repeatedly about the country as a critical partner for Canadian business.

[…]

While CSEC’s role in conducting economic espionage has been alluded to before, how it does this job has not. The significance of the documents obtained by Globo in Brazil is that they speak to how “metadata” analysis by CSEC can be used to exploit a rival country’s computer systems.

The CSEC-labeled slides about the “Olympia” program describe the “Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy” as a “new target to develop” despite “limited access/target knowledge.”

The presentation goes on to map out how an individual’s smartphone — “target’s handset” — can be discerned by analysis, including by cross-referencing the smartphone’s Sim card with the network telephone number assigned to it and also to the handset’s unique number (IMEI).

The “top secret” presentation also refers to attacks on email servers.

“I have identified MX [email] servers which have been targeted to passive collection by the Intel analysts,” one slide says, without explaining who the speaker is.

Harsanyi – Better openly partisan than “impartial” media

Filed under: Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:22

David Harsanyi thinks the political scene would be better if more media outlets were up-front about their partisan stance rather than pretending to be objective and impartial:

As much as it pains me, let me take a few moments to defend MSNBC. Last week’s much-talked about testy exchange between anchor Thomas Roberts and Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus has been predictably negative. Media bias is a perpetual grievance of the Right — for obvious reasons. But maybe the only way to improve on the situation is to champion more openly ideologically driven political journalism? By any measure, it’s a lot less destructive than what we had for decades: a media feigning impartiality.

[…]

It can be uncomfortable watching a head-on collision of hackery, but the truth is the entire exchange is weirdly honest, entertaining and informative. It’s not often a TV anchor admits to viewers that he’s reading “directly from what the president just gave us.” Roberts is standing in for the president. Perfect. It’s not as if Reince Priebus was on MSNBC to offer his dispassionate impression of the situation, either. He should be challenged. And though the table-setting question is preposterously biased, it’s exactly the kind of question Priebus should be able to deflect. And he gets to do it in front of an audience that generally detests Republicans. I saw many people on Twitter wondering why Priebus does it to himself. They should be wondering why he doesn’t do it more often.

We all know where MSNBC or FOX News stand. It’s establishment media masquerading as impartial that has the real impact. This bias is rooted in insularity, showing a lack curiosity about the other side’s worldview — the ignorance about religion, guns or free-market economic ideas are the most glaring example — and, even worse, a lack of skepticism towards its own conceptions about how things work.

To the untrained eye, the Obamacare rollout may seem like an unmitigated disaster. But editors at Reuters (“Web traffic, glitches slow Obamacare exchanges launch”) or the Associate Press (“Rollout of ‘historic’ Obamacare in California hits some snags”) will try to dissuade people of this notion. Bias doesn’t only manifest in what you write but what you don’t, in what goes above the fold and what sort of delicate nouns and adjectives you sprinkle in your headlines.

Even the “revised” official Chinese economic stats are dodgy

Filed under: China, Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:23

In a survey of China’s military and economic status, Strategy Page mentions the perennial issue of unreliable official economic statistics for China:

Chinese officials are becoming more open about the problems they have getting accurate economic information for such things like annual GDP and unemployment rates. Apparently Chinese GDP has not been growing steadily at near ten percent a year for decades. Chinese officials do eventually (months or years later) get more accurate data and while Chinese GDP has actually been steadily growing over the last three decades the annual growth has actually varied from 5-15 percent. Chinese official policy was to keep everyone calm by issuing less variable annual growth rates. In short, the official numbers were doctored. For more accurate and immediate indicators of economic activity Chinese and foreign economists and business leaders use things like electricity production, railroad traffic and similar data that cannot be manipulated by local officials to make their city or province look more successful. Many financial exerts inside and outside China fear that all this official manipulation of economic data (an ancient practice in China) is masking some serious economic problems that could go sideways at any time and cause a banking crises that would paralyze the economy for a while and cause political chaos. It’s very much a crouching tiger and hidden dragon. This is an ancient phrase warning that behind seeming success and talent lurks the possibility of imminent disaster. Chinese are ever mindful of these bits of ancient wisdom.

I didn’t see this deal coming

Filed under: Football — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:32

The bye week is supposed to be a fairly quiet time for an NFL team … get away from the team facilities, rest up, and (especially) stay out of trouble. It’s not such a quiet time for the coaches or the front office, of course, as the business side of the league year continues through the bye week pretty much without a pause. One of the things a team will often do during a bye is look for players who could help the team out due to injuries or sub-par play. I would not have been surprised to see the Vikings work out a number of defensive backs over the last week — the corners have been a significant weak spot so far this season.

What I didn’t expect, however, was a move to sign another quarterback:

1500ESPN‘s Andrew Krammer has more:

Freeman, 25, was in his fourth full season as the starter in Tampa Bay before the Buccaneers benched their former 17th-overall pick after an 0-3 start. A reported schism between Freeman and coach Greg Schiano led to Freeman’s attempted trade and ultimate release.

He’s got a 24-35 record as a starter, regressing after his best statistical season in 2010, when the Buccaneers finished 10-6 off of Freeman’s Pro Bowl year — 25 touchdowns and six interceptions.

In a little more than two seasons since, Freeman is 11-23 as a starter, with 45 touchdowns to 42 interceptions. He lost eight of his last nine games in Tampa Bay.

Freeman was the third quarterback selected in the 2009 draft, behind Matthew Stafford (1st) and Mark Sanchez (5th). He’s the only of the three without a playoff appearance.

The Vikings now find themselves with three somewhat serviceable quarterbacks in Christian Ponder, Matt Cassel and Freeman. Ponder began the season to the tune of five interceptions and two fumbles in an 0-3 start before a rib injury sidelined him before the team’s Sept. 29 victory against the Pittsburgh Steelers in London. Cassel threw for two touchdown and no interceptions in the 34-27 win, but coach Leslie Frazier was noncommital during the bye week in choosing a starter.

Last week, when Freeman’s release from the Buccaneers was announced, Arif Hasan was quick to point out that he might be an excellent fit for Minnesota:

But there’s significant reason to believe that’s not the final chapter on Josh Freeman. Over the last two years, Freeman generated 6.5 net yards per passing attempt and 6 adjusted net yards per passing attempt-good for 11th and 16th in the league, respectively.

He hasn’t been the most accurate passer, but he generally makes up for it with deep throws, having hit 13.3 yards per completion was the second-best in the league, just after Cam Newton. In fact, his average depth of target-passes completed and missed-was an astonishing 10.7, tied for first in the league alongside Colin Kaepernick and Andrew Luck (second was Joe Flacco at 10.6).

It would be a far cry from the offense that Minnesota has run so far, and it may even turn out that Josh Freeman isn’t a fit in the Bill Musgrave offense.

But the designs of an offensive coordinator who may not even be around next year shouldn’t hold back signing a talented young quarterback who could take full advantage of Cordarrelle Patterson, Jerome Simpson and Greg Jennings.

[…]

in Pro Football Focus‘ game tracking, Josh Freeman was asked to throw outside the numbers on deep passes nearly twice as often as an average NFL quarterback.

And he does better than the average quarterback on those passes, too. Generally speaking, quarterbacks in the NFL will connect on deep, outside the numbers passes 32.8 percent of the time and average 10.8 yards an attempt.

Josh Freeman has a lower completion rate on those passes (30.8 percent) but better yards per attempt (11.8) along with better touchdown and interception rates.

But being asked to pass those difficult throws without much outlet relief or other options makes him too easy to defend and creates a wholly inconsistent offense. It cannot be overstated how important it is to have intermediate and shorter routes available (especially over the middle of the field) if there are a number of routes that go deep. It is one thing to have a poor deep ball passing completion accuracy, but it is another thing entirely to be forced to throw passes, even when covered, because there are no other options available because of the scheme.

QotD: Progressives and power

Filed under: Government, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:51

Charlie Cooke had a very good column and follow up post this week on progressive disdain for our system of separated powers. What liberals want, according to Charlie, is an “elected king” who can do whatever he wants. I agree with him almost entirely. For instance, he doesn’t say it, but this is exactly what Thomas Friedman wants. It’s what all the pseudo-eggheady-jagoff technocrats always want. The desire to simply impose “optimal policies” heedless of democratic or legal impediments lies behind virtually every technocratic fad of the last couple of centuries. We know what to do, and the problem with democracy is that the rubes won’t let us do it! Stuart Chase, one of the architects of the New Deal (who some say coined the term), openly pleaded for an “economic dictatorship.” After all, he asked, “why should the Russians have all the fun remaking the world?”

But here’s where I disagree a bit with Charlie. The key issue for progressives has never been the form power takes, but power itself. You want my five-second lesson in progressive history? No? Sucks for you, because I’m going to tell you anyway: They always go where the field is open.

That’s it.

When the public was on their side the progressives relied on the public. That’s why we have the direct election of senators. That’s why women got the franchise. Etc. In his early years as an academic Woodrow Wilson wanted Congress to run the country — the way parliament runs England — and relegate the president to a glorified clerk. When the public became unreliable and Congress was no longer a viable vehicle, progressives suddenly fell in love with a Caesarian presidency. Indeed, Wilson himself, the former champion of Congress, became an unapologetic voluptuary of presidential power the moment it suited him — and nary a progressive complained (save poor Randolph Bourne, of course). The progressives rode the presidency like it was a horse they never expected to return to a stable. And when that started to hit the point of diminishing returns, they moved on to the courts (even as they bleated and caterwauled about Nixon’s “abuses” of powers that were created and exploited by Wilson, FDR, and Johnson). After the courts, they relied on the bureaucracy. Like water seeking the shortest path, progressives have always championed the shortest route to social-justice victories.

My point is that I think Charlie is entirely right that progressives want to maximize their power. But the elected king scenario is just one of many they’d be perfectly happy with. If they could have a politburo instead of a unitary executive, they’d probably prefer that. But the point is that the instruments are, uh, instrumental. The core imperative is power. We see this in miniature when liberals don’t control the presidency but do control Congress. Suddenly, it’s vital that the “people’s house” exert its constitutional prerogatives! When the president is a Democrat he needs to rule unimpaired. When he’s a Republican, his dictatorial tendencies must be held in check. When liberals want to reinterpret the Constitution by judicial whim or fiat, it’s proof that the Constitution is living up to its nature as a “living, breathing, document.” When conservatives actually want to amend the Constitution — the only legitimate and constitutional means to change the meaning of the Constitution, I might add — it is a horrible affront to the vision of the Founders!

Once you realize this it helps explain so many of the Left’s hypocrisies and alleged double standards. I say alleged, because they aren’t really double standards. You can only have a double standard when you actually believe something should be a standard. Ultimately, for progressives these procedural debates about how power is used in America are just that: procedural debates. The alleged standards at stake are evanescent and petty — for liberals. The only true standard is whatever advances the progressives’ ball downfield. That is the very heart of “social justice” — doing whatever “good” you can, when you can, however you can. As they say, behind every confessed double standard there is an unconfessed single standard. And for progressives, the single enduring standard is “whatever works for us.”

Jonah Goldberg, “Progressives and Power”, The Goldberg File email newsletter, 2013-10-04

Powered by WordPress