Stuxnet: Inhuman Secret Agent

Public Radio International calls Stuxnet a real threat. They could be right about that. Telegraph.co.uk calls it a virus.

Iran's government says that the nuclear weapons program they don't have - wasn't affected by Stuxnet. That's - unlikely.

Bombs? That's So 20th-Century

I've written about Iran's nuclear program before. While it's remotely possible that one of the world's leading producer of petroleum desperately needs nuclear power plants - which in turn require weapons-grade uranium - I think it's more likely that Iran's ayatollahs wanted nuclear bombs.

I think can see their point, in a way. Quite a few folks outside Iran don't act the way the ayatollahs want them to. Nuclear weapons might seem quite effective - either as an upgrade to their means for converting the unbeliever, or to incinerate folks who wouldn't cooperate.

That's not to say that I approve of the lot that's running Iran. "Understanding" isn't "approval."

I think it's very likely that's what Iran's nuclear program is intended to produce nuclear weapons. I also think that aging religious fanatics with nukes present a very serious threat to anyone within range of their missiles: which includes quite a lot of the Middle East, Russia, and a disturbing fraction of Europe.

If Iran Wanted Nukes, Wouldn't They Have Them By Now?

One of the problems with the notion that Iran wanted nuclear weapons was the way that predictions kept being wrong.

It was like Iran's nuclear program was slowing down.

In some circles, this would 'obviously' mean that the vast right-wing conspiracy, or some other mysterious force, had made up the whole 'Iranian nukes' idea. After all, if Iran wanted nukes, they'd have them by now - and since they don't have them, they didn't want them.

Looks like there was a 'conspiracy' involved. Sort of.

Also, apparently, a very, very sophisticated worm: a sort of Information Age secret agent.

Stuxnet: One Very Smart Worm

Stuxnet is, in a way, scary. I hope that whoever designed it has figured out a way of disabling the thing. I'll get back to that.

According to an article I read today, Stuxnet is a very, very sophisticated set of code: a worm that's designed to damage, but not destroy, particular machinery in Iran's nuclear program. Also not affect other systems it infects - and cover its tracks so effectively that Iranian counter-intelligence apparently assumed that people working on the project were damaging the equipment.

Some of those people were killed - others simply disappeared.

Moralizing While Cities Get Nuked?

I am not comfotable with the idea of (presumably) innocent people being killed by Iranian security, when the culprit is malicious code. Or, rather, whoever made Stuxnet.

On the other hand, I am not comfortable with the idea of people in Tel Aviv, Beirut, Stavropol, or some other city, getting vaporized because folks who could have stopped the Iranian nuclear program - didn't.

I know, by the way: A lot of the folks in the cities I mentioned are Muslims. I've gotten the impression that quite a few Muslims die because some other Muslim decided they're not doing Islam the 'right' way.

Stuxnet: No Skynet

Smart as Stuxnet is, I'm about as certain as I can be about anything that it won't wind up taking over the world, like The Terminator's Skynet.

On the other hand, like I said, I really hope that whoever designed Stuxnet has a way of disabling it - or that one of the many commercial anti-malware firms works out a method.

It looks like it was designed very carefully to perform one function - and only one function. On a particular computer system, in a particular place.

Still, anybody can make a mistake.

As to 'is it moral to use a worm like Stuxnet' to keep religious crazies from having nukes? If someone hadn't developed Stuxnet, the world's best and brightest might be discussion how if they'd just had a chance to talk with the ayatollahs, some city would still be on the map.

I'm inclined to think that "alive" is better than "dead," all other things being equal.

Here's a rather long set of excerpts from that article I mentioned:

"....--The worm also knew that the complex control system that ran the centrifuges was built by Siemans, the German manufacturer, and -- remarkably -- how that system worked as well and how to mask its activities from it.

"--Masking itself from the plant's security and other systems, the worm then ordered the centrifuges to rotate extremely fast, and then to slow down precipitously. This damaged the converter, the centrifuges and the bearings, and it corrupted the uranium in the tubes. It also left Iranian nuclear engineers wondering what was wrong, as computer checks showed no malfunctions in the operating system.

"Estimates are that this went on for more than a year, leaving the Iranian program in chaos. And as it did, the worm grew and adapted throughout the system. As new worms entered the system, they would meet and adapt and become increasingly sophisticated....

"...This went on until June of last year, when a Belarusan company working on the Iranian power plant in Beshehr discovered it in one of its machines. It quickly put out a notice on a Web network monitored by computer security experts around the world. Ordinarily these experts would immediately begin tracing the worm and dissecting it, looking for clues about its origin and other details.

"But that didn’t happen, because within minutes all the alert sites came under attack and were inoperative for 24 hours.

" 'I had to use e-mail to send notices but I couldn't reach everyone. Whoever made the worm had a full day to eliminate all traces of the worm that might lead us them,' Eric Byers, a computer security expert who has examined the Stuxnet. 'No hacker could have done that.'

"Experts, including inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, say that, despite Iran's claims to the contrary, the worm was successful in its goal: causing confusion among Iran’s nuclear engineers and disabling their nuclear program.

"Because of the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program, no one can be certain of the full extent of the damage. But sources inside Iran and elsewhere say that the Iranian centrifuge program has been operating far below its capacity and that the uranium enrichment program had 'stagnated' during the time the worm penetrated the underground facility. Only 4,000 of the 9,000 centrifuges Iran was known to have were put into use. Some suspect that is because of the critical need to replace ones that were damaged.

"And the limited number of those in use dwindled to an estimated 3,700 as problems engulfed their operation. IAEA inspectors say the sabotage better explains the slowness of the program, which they had earlier attributed to poor equipment manufacturing and management problems. As Iranians struggled with the setbacks, they began searching for signs of sabotage. From inside Iran there have been unconfirmed reports that the head of the plant was fired shortly after the worm wended its way into the system and began creating technical problems, and that some scientists who were suspected of espionage disappeared or were executed. And counter intelligence agents began monitoring all communications between scientists at the site, creating a climate of fear and paranoia....

"...Speculation on the worm's origin initially focused on hackers or even companies trying to disrupt competitors. But as engineers tore apart the virus they learned not only the depth of the code, its complex targeting mechanism, (despite infecting more than 100,000 computers it has only done damage at Natanz,) the enormous amount of work that went into it—Microsoft estimated that it consumed 10,000 man days of labor-- and about what the worm knew, the clues narrowed the number of players that have the capabilities to create it to a handful.

" 'This is what nation-states build, if their only other option would be to go to war,' Joseph Wouk, an Israeli security expert wrote.

"Byers is more certain. 'It is a military weapon,' he said.

"And much of what the worm 'knew' could only have come from a consortium of Western intelligence agencies, experts who have examined the code now believe.

"Originally, all eyes turned toward Israel's intelligence agencies. Engineers examining the worm found 'clues' that hinted at Israel's involvement. In one case they found the word 'Myrtus' embedded in the code and argued that it was a reference to Esther, the biblical figure who saved the ancient Jewish state from the Persians. But computer experts say 'Myrtus' is more likely a common reference to 'My RTUS,' or remote terminal units.

"Langer argues that no single Western intelligence agency had the skills to pull this off alone. The most likely answer, he says, is that a consortium of intelligence agencies worked together to build the cyber bomb...."
(FOXNews)

Langer's picks are

• The United States
  • Which has the technical skills needed
• Germany
  • With access to Sieman's product design
• Russia
  • Familar with
    • Iran's nuclear plant
    • Sieman's systems

He could be right about all that.

Then, there's this - I suppose you could call it a literary reference.

"There is one clue that was left in the code that may tell us all we need to know.

"Embedded in different section of the code is another common computer language reference, but this one is misspelled. Instead of saying 'DEADFOOT,' a term stolen from pilots meaning a failed engine, this one reads 'DEADFOO7.'

"Yes, OO7 has returned -- as a computer worm.

"Stuxnet. Shaken, not stirred."
(FOXNews)

Related posts:

• "Jundallah, Iran, Islam, and the U. S. State Department"
  (November 3, 2010)
• "9/11 and the One-Size-Fits-All Explanation: 'It is the Fault of the Jews' - and the Yankees"
  (September 24, 2010)
• "Iran, an Unmanned Bomber, Nuclear Weapons, and No Simple Answers"
  (August 22, 2010)
• "U.A.E. Ambassador and Iran: One Insane Speech Too Many?"
  (July 7, 2010)
• "Iran, Protests, Internet Blackout, and Nuclear Bombs"
  (December 7, 2009)

In the news:

• "Mystery Surrounds Cyber Missile That Crippled Iran's Nuclear Weapons Ambitions"
  Ed Barnes, FOXNews (November 26, 2010)

China, Paper on How to Bring Down USA Power Grid: All a Big Misunderstanding?

It'd be nice if what's happening in China is all just a big misunderstanding. Something that a little chat over tea could straighten out.

That would be nice.

I'm old enough to remember the 'good old days' of the sixties, when idealistic kids kept hearing messages like this oldie:

"...Nothing to kill or die for.
And no religion, too.
Imagine all the people.
Living life in peace..."
"Imagine" (1971)

Groovy.

I'm not terribly nostalgic about the sixties - or the fifties. Or any period I've experienced. My memory's too good. They've all had their pleasant and unpleasant aspects, just like today.

Which brings me to a news item involving China. Bear in mind, this is in today's New York Times: Hardly a rabble-rousing ultra-conservative right wing hate monger like [fill in your choice of the newer crop of Information Age news services].

"Paper in China Sets Off Alarms in U.S."
The New York Times (March 20, 2010)

"It came as a surprise this month to Wang Jianwei, a graduate engineering student in Liaoning, China, that he had been described as a potential cyberwarrior before the United States Congress.

"Larry M. Wortzel, a military strategist and China specialist, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on March 10 that it should be concerned because 'Chinese researchers at the Institute of Systems Engineering of Dalian University of Technology published a paper on how to attack a small U.S. power grid sub-network in a way that would cause a cascading failure of the entire U.S.'

"When reached by telephone, Mr. Wang said he and his professor had indeed published 'Cascade-Based Attack Vulnerability on the U.S. Power Grid' in an international journal called Safety Science last spring. But Mr. Wang said he had simply been trying to find ways to enhance the stability of power grids by exploring potential vulnerabilities.

" 'We usually say "attack" so you can see what would happen,' he said. 'My emphasis is on how you can protect this. My goal is to find a solution to make the network safer and better protected.' And independent American scientists who read his paper said it was true: Mr. Wang's work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.

"The difference between Mr. Wang's explanation and Mr. Wortzel's conclusion is of more than academic interest. It shows that in an atmosphere already charged with hostility between the United States and China over cybersecurity issues, including large-scale attacks on computer networks, even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction...."

"...In an interview last week about the Wang paper and his testimony, Mr. Wortzel said that the intention of these particular researchers almost did not matter.

" 'My point is that now that vulnerability is out there all over China for anybody to take advantage of,' he said.

"But specialists in the field of network science, which explores the stability of networks like power grids and the Internet, said that was not the case.

" 'Neither the authors of this article, nor any other prior article, has had information on the identity of the power grid components represented as nodes of the network,' Reka Albert, a University of Pennsylvania physicist who has conducted similar studies, said in an e-mail interview. 'Thus no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.'

"The issue of Mr. Wang's paper aside, experts in computer security say there are genuine reasons for American officials to be wary of China, and they generally tend to dismiss disclaimers by China that it has neither the expertise nor the intention to carry out the kind of attacks that bombard American government and computer systems by the thousands every week...."

I think The New York Times deserves credit for standing by its convictions. Repeating part of one of those (too?) long excerpts:

"...It shows that in an atmosphere already charged with hostility between the United States and China over cybersecurity issues, including large-scale attacks on computer networks, even a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction...."
(The New York Times) [emphasis mine]

There's nothing in that sentence that's inaccurate. There is "hostility between the United States and China", and it's quite true that "a misunderstanding has the potential to escalate tension and set off an overreaction."

But note the 'it takes two to tussle' point of view. If there is "hostility between the United States and China", there can't be one side causing the hostility - unless it's America. And in this case, I don't think even The New York Times could publish that and be taken seriously.

And then there's that wonderful phrase about "misunderstanding". In context, it's fairly easy to imagine that intolerant, racist, xenophobic America is likely to misunderstand the nice people who benevolently see to the welfare of the masses in China.

Or, not. I can't see into the minds of the NYT news editors, and so can't tell for sure what they 'really' meant.

This may mark me as a hide-bound intolerant 'poor, uneducated and easily led' radical right-wing conservative extremist: but on the whole I'd rather live in America, than in China. This is a country people are trying to break into. ("A Reporter Escapes the Taliban, Monks Escape China" (June 20, 2009))

Other related posts:

• "Google Pulling Out of China? I've Heard Worse News"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (March 14, 2010)
• "China. Hackers. Cyberattack. Again."
  (February 22, 2010)
• "Cyber Attacks Came From China - Again"
  (February 19, 2010)
• "'Everybody Knows' That Americans are Arrogant"
  (February 17, 2010)
• "News Stories You're Not Supposed to Know About"
  (December 31, 2009)
• "Haiyang Zhu Pleads Guilty in Decapitation of Xin Yang: Which Goes to Show Something"
  (December 22, 2009)
• "Empire State Building Goes Red and Gold for People's Republic Anniversary"
  (September 30, 2009)
• "China Shot 12: Don't Worry, They're 'Mobsters' "
  (July 19, 2009)
• "Cyber-Attacks 'No More Harmful than Spam' - So Far"
  (July 11, 2009)
• "Cyber-Attack Started July Fourth: Common Sense, Security, and the War on Terror"
  (July 10, 2009)
• "Uighur Riot? Revolt? Foreign Separatists? Depends on What You Read"
  (July 10, 2009)
• "A Reporter Escapes the Taliban, Monks Escape China"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square Commemoration in Hong Kong: No Tanks"
  (June 5, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square 20th Anniversary: A Losing Battle for Traditional Information Gatekeepers"
  (June 3, 2009)
• "Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile: Cause for Concern"
  (March 31, 2009)
• "Cyberspy Network Hacked 103 Countries' Systems"
  (March 29, 2009)
• "Thai Police, Punctured Protesters, and Exploding Tear Gas from China"
  (October 13, 2008)

And click "China" in this blog's label cloud.

China. Hackers. Cyberattack. Again.

Another variation on a theme, in the news:

"U.S. Pinpoints Coder Behind Google Attack"
Reuters, via Threat Level, Wired (February 22, 2010)

"U.S. government analysts believe a Chinese man with government links wrote the key part of a spyware program used in hacker attacks on Google last year, the Financial Times reported on Monday.

"The man, a security consultant in his 30s, posted sections of the program to a hacking forum where he described it as something he was 'working on,' the paper said, quoting an unidentified researcher working for the U.S. government.

"The spyware creator works as a freelancer and did not launch the attack, but Chinese officials had 'special access' to his programing, the report said.

" 'If he wants to do the research he's good at, he has to toe the line now and again,' the paper quoted the unnamed U.S. government researcher saying...."

"...The allegations over the spyware are the latest episode in a dispute that has pitted Google and the United States against China, with its wall of Internet controls and legions of hackers.

"In January, the giant internet search engine company, Google, threatened to pull back from China and shut its Google.cn Chinese-language portal over complaints of censorship and sophisticated hacking from within China.

"Washington has backed those criticisms and urged Beijing to investigate hacking complaints thoroughly and transparently. Beijing has said it opposes hacking.

"The Financial Times report also quoted unnamed sources backing a New York Times report that analysts had traced the online attacks to two Chinese educational institutions, the prestigious Shanghai Jiaotong University and the Lanxiang vocational school...."

On the 'up' side, it seems to me that China's unwillingness to play well with others is getting into the news a little more often now, than a few years ago. ("White House Computers Hacked, Probably by China: News That's Not Fit to Print? (November 9, 2008))

Other related posts:

• "Cyber Attacks Came From China - Again"
  (February 19, 2010)
• "'Everybody Knows' That Americans are Arrogant"
  (February 17, 2010)
• "News Stories You're Not Supposed to Know About"
  (December 31, 2009)
• "Haiyang Zhu Pleads Guilty in Decapitation of Xin Yang: Which Goes to Show Something"
  (December 22, 2009)
• "Empire State Building Goes Red and Gold for People's Republic Anniversary"
  (September 30, 2009)
• "China Shot 12: Don't Worry, They're 'Mobsters' "
  (July 19, 2009)
• "Cyber-Attacks 'No More Harmful than Spam' - So Far"
  (July 11, 2009)
• "Cyber-Attack Started July Fourth: Common Sense, Security, and the War on Terror"
  (July 10, 2009)
• "Uighur Riot? Revolt? Foreign Separatists? Depends on What You Read"
  (July 10, 2009)
• "A Reporter Escapes the Taliban, Monks Escape China"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square Commemoration in Hong Kong: No Tanks"
  (June 5, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square 20th Anniversary: A Losing Battle for Traditional Information Gatekeepers"
  (June 3, 2009)
• "Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile: Cause for Concern"
  (March 31, 2009)
• "Cyberspy Network Hacked 103 Countries' Systems"
  (March 29, 2009)
• "Thai Police, Punctured Protesters, and Exploding Tear Gas from China"
  (October 13, 2008)

And click "China" in this blog's label cloud.

Cyber Attacks Came From China - Again

I'm not all that nostalgic about "the good old days." My memory's too good. The bad guys didn't always wear black hats in westerns, by the way: that's a campus legend. On the other hand, someone with an eastern European accent in a movie was very likely a spy and/or criminal. And a nasty one.

No, I don't miss "the good old days."

I'd like to embrace the fuzzy feelings of peace and love and brotherhood (oops - siblinghood?) for all: without borders, without animosities, without thinking. My memory's too good for that, too.

Not that I'm a "regular American," who grudgingly admits that some of those foreigners make good cars, but doesn't like any of 'those people over there.' I'm a Catholic, which gives me a particular point of view on tolerance and related topics. (A Catholic Citizen in America, August 3, 2009, , for starters)

"Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out" is good advice, I think. Yellow journalism, headlines screaming "Remember the Maine!" and movies where anybody from eastern Europe was suspect were not good ideas.

Neither is a "tolerance" which involves studiously ignoring or misinterpreting facts.

Cyberattacks, China, and Getting a Grip

I think that The New York Times is a pretty good home-town newspaper for the upper crust of New York City. (October 21, 2008) I also think that the editors - some of them, anyway - try to be professional journalists. And, occasionally succeed.

If this article had been on the front page, or in with international news, I'd have a higher opinion of the Times:

"A series of online attacks on Google and dozens of other American corporations have been traced to computers at two educational institutions in China, including one with close ties to the Chinese military, say people involved in the investigation.

"They also said the attacks, aimed at stealing trade secrets and computer codes and capturing e-mail of Chinese human rights activists, may have begun as early as April, months earlier than previously believed. Google announced on Jan. 12 that it and other companies had been subjected to sophisticated attacks that probably came from China.

"Computer security experts, including investigators from the National Security Agency, have been working since then to pinpoint the source of the attacks. Until recently, the trail had led only to servers in Taiwan.

"If supported by further investigation, the findings raise as many questions as they answer, including the possibility that some of the attacks came from China but not necessarily from the Chinese government, or even from Chinese sources.

"Tracing the attacks further back, to an elite Chinese university and a vocational school, is a breakthrough in a difficult task. Evidence acquired by a United States military contractor that faced the same attacks as Google has even led investigators to suspect a link to a specific computer science class, taught by a Ukrainian professor at the vocational school...."
(The New York Times)

Kudos to the Times, for pointing out that evidence points to specific schools in China. And that this does not necessarily mean that the Chinese government is responsible for the attacks.

But: a security threat like this, in the Technology section? I'm all for suspended judgment and waiting until facts support a conclusion: but I'd also appreciate a bit less of what can be seen as bending-over-backwards polite reticence about acknowledging that China doesn't always play nice.

I don't think that the Chinese government is behind the many cyberattacks that came from computers in China. I certainly don't think that the Chinese government isn't behind the attacks. I don't know.

Sure, it looks like The People's Republic of China has been repeatedly trying to hack into private sector and government computer networks around the world - and in America. But that's suspicion, not knowledge.

Well-founded suspicion, in my opinion: but suspicion nonetheless.

I think I could be less suspicious, though, if traditional American news services didn't seem to be tiptoeing around the idea that the last large worker's paradise on the planet might not be behaving well.

Related posts:

• "'Everybody Knows' That Americans are Arrogant"
  (February 17, 2010)
• "News Stories You're Not Supposed to Know About"
  (December 31, 2009)
• "Haiyang Zhu Pleads Guilty in Decapitation of Xin Yang: Which Goes to Show Something"
  (December 22, 2009)
• "Empire State Building Goes Red and Gold for People's Republic Anniversary"
  (September 30, 2009)
• "China Shot 12: Don't Worry, They're 'Mobsters' "
  (July 19, 2009)
• "Cyber-Attacks 'No More Harmful than Spam' - So Far"
  (July 11, 2009)
• "Cyber-Attack Started July Fourth: Common Sense, Security, and the War on Terror"
  (July 10, 2009)
• "Uighur Riot? Revolt? Foreign Separatists? Depends on What You Read"
  (July 10, 2009)
• "A Reporter Escapes the Taliban, Monks Escape China"
  (June 20, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square Commemoration in Hong Kong: No Tanks"
  (June 5, 2009)
• "Tiananmen Square 20th Anniversary: A Losing Battle for Traditional Information Gatekeepers"
  (June 3, 2009)
• "Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile: Cause for Concern"
  (March 31, 2009)
• "Cyberspy Network Hacked 103 Countries' Systems"
  (March 29, 2009)
• "Thai Police, Punctured Protesters, and Exploding Tear Gas from China"
  (October 13, 2008)

And click "China" in this blog's label cloud. In the news:

• "2 Chinese Schools Said to Be Tied to Online Attacks"
  Technology, The New York Times (February 18, 2010)

World Bank Group Network Hacked; Chinese IPs Used: Just What We Need

Oh, dear. This is not good.

About 4,500 people working for the World Bank Group apparently hadn't changed their passwords when an emailed memo was written to remind a dozen or so key people, back in July of this year. Which is not good, since WBG had been under attack since Summer of 2007.

Last April, spy software dug deep into servers in World Bank Group's treasury unit, that's supposed to be unusually secure. For almost a month's time, in June and July, hackers had full access to the rest of WBG's network.

To World Bank Group's credit, a memo was sent around via email, back in July.¹

On the other hand, nobody, except the hackers, seems to know just what data accessed and (presumably) copied. Considering the sort of data that the World Bank Group has, letting somebody from the outside read it is very bad news.

It gets more interesting.

Of the six major attacks so far, two are from the same set of IP addresses. In China. Could be a coincidence, but China's been overly-inquisitive about other people's data before.

I'm not happy to hear this. I'd say that one thing the world doesn't need right now is an unknown amount of very sensitive data, in all likelihood concerning almost 200 countries. The possibility that the Chinese government is involved doesn't make me any calmer. China doesn't exactly have a stellar record on human rights, and - melodramatic as this sounds - I'm concerned about why China needs a secret submarine base.

World Bank Group: A Little Background

Basically, it's an anti-poverty agency with a multi-billion-dollar budget, with representatives from 185 countries on its The World Bank, which "is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world...," has a fairly rich About Us section. One of the resource links there is to a 12-page brochure, World Bank Group / Working for a World Free of Poverty, that describes the organization and its five units:

• International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
• International Development Association
• International Finance Corporation
• Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
• International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes

Previous post, discussing China and cybersecurity:

• "The War on Terror? This May be The War For Freedom"
  (March 18, 2008)

In the news:

• "World Bank Hacked, Sensitive Data Exposed"
  Dark Reading (October 10, 2008)
• "World Bank Under Cyber Siege in 'Unprecedented Crisis' "
  FOXNews (October 10, 2008)

(I'd never heard of darkreading.com before: it seems that the domain is registered by Tucows Inc.: which of course I'm quite familiar with.)

---

¹ The email reads, in part, "We have new evidence that the Passwords that have been compromised may have accessed data. ... Please bear with us during this unprecedented crisis."

Quran, Eucharist, Atheist Book Nailed by Equal-Opportunity Desecrator

Not a whole Quran, actually: just a few pages.

A University of Minnesota, Morris, associate professor, Paul Myers, put a rusty nail through the some pages of the Quran and a book by atheist Richard Dawkins. Professor Myers did the same to a consecrated Host, and chucked the whole mess in a trash can.

Myers had a reason for desecrating the Quran pages and the Host, and mistreating a book written by an atheist. Earlier this month, a University of Central Florida student took a consecrated Host from a Catholic church, and later returned it. Then, the student said, he got death threats.

So, the University of Minnesota, Morris, associate professor posted this response:

"There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion...."

My guess is that associate professor Paul Myers believes that sticking a rusty nail through some pages of the Quran and a book by atheist Richard Dawkins, doing the same to a consecrated Host, and throwing them away is a very reasonable response to what happened in Florida.

Religious Beliefs Matter

If professor Myers' system of belief is similar to what I encountered in my college days, he believes that the "cracker," as he puts it, and those sheets of paper with ink on them, are equivalent. And disposable.

I'm not sure what a follower of Islam would think of professor Myers' treatment of the Quran. As a Catholic, I do know that his treatment of the Eucharist is appalling.

That "cracker," since it has been consecrated, is the Body of Christ. You don't have to believe that. I'm not trying to force you to accept that. But that is what informed Catholics believe. (The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" has a somewhat technical discussion of the Eucharist: "Article 3 The Sacrament of the Eucharist" (1322-1419).)

Catholics see those "crackers," after they're consecrated, as the Body of Christ. That may help you understand why Catholics are not happy about associate professor Myers' treatment of the Eucharist.

About what he did to a Quran: I'd appreciate it, if a Muslim would leave a comment, saying whether removing a page from the Quran, piercing it with a rusty nail, and tossing it in the trash, is acceptable or not. And, why.

Tolerance and Academic Freedom

I used to know what "academic freedom" meant. Now, I'm not so sure.

On July 25, 2008, Jacqueline Johnson, chancellor at Morris, made this statement (excerpt from Catholic Explorer (July 31, 2008):

• "I believe that behaviors that discriminate against or harass individuals or groups on the basis of their religious beliefs are reprehensible," Johnson wrote, adding that the University of Minnesota board of regents' "Code of Conduct" prohibits such behavior in the workplace.
• At the same time, she added, the university's policy on academic freedom and responsibility "affirms the freedom of a faculty member to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint, and the responsibility to make clear that he or she is not speaking for the institution in matters of public interest."

To the University of Minnesota, Morris' credit, they've removed a link to Myers' blog. That would seem to take care of the "reprehensible" part of the chancellor's statement. The associate professor has received no disciplinary action. Apparently, that's the affirmation of academic freedom.

My Take on the Morris Mess

Some people, faced with ideas and behavior they don't like, call for prayer. Others, like Jim Adkisson, shoot up a church. Still others, like associate professor Myers, go out of their way to stir up emotional reactions.

A point that I think quite a few news articles and blogs miss is that Myers' actions were not anti-Catholic. They were anti-religion. By including pages from the Quran in his demonstration, associate professor Myers made it clear that he disdains Catholicism and Islam: and, since he describes himself as an atheist, probably all religions.

The Morris mess is another case where I've got more in common with faithful Muslims than with secular academics. (More at "I'm With the Devout Muslims on This One" (September 19, 2007). My reactions as a Catholic are at "Sacrilege Down the Road: A Very Serious Post" Through One Dad's Eye (August 4, 2008).)

I find his treatment of what people hold sacred despicable. Although I'm personally involved in this one, I hope I'd say the same, if Myers had limited his desecration to a Quran.

America, and the world, is in a very stressful period. It's time for all of us to act like grownups.

In the blogs:

• "READER ALERT: Update on Professor Paul Myers' hate attack"
  InsomiMom (July 24, 2008)
  • "Paul Zachary Myers, benighted professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, looks to be having a great big giant fatwa opened up on his head with his latest hysterical rant that he will desercrate both the Eucharist and a copy of the Koran in a childish display of equal opportunity bigotry...."
• "University biology professor desecrates the Eucharist"
  St. Michael's Cyber Parish (July 29, 2008)
  • "For all the talk of tolerance and freedom in our society, I find the following story nothing less than unbelievable, from CNA:"
  • "Saying 'Catholicism has been actively poisoning the minds of its practitioners' and characterizing religious instruction as 'a devastating crime against the whole of the human race,' University of Minnesota at Morris biology professor Dr. Paul Zachary Myers claims to have carried out his threat to desecrate the Eucharist.
  • "Prof. Myers says that he pierced a Host with a rusty nail and then threw it in the trash alongside coffee grounds, banana peels, and pages torn respectively from the Koran and a book by the atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins...."
• "IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER!"
  Pharyngula (July 8, 2008)
  • "There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion...."
  • "...That's right. Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented f***wits. And Cook is not out of the fire yet — that Fox News story ends with an open incitement to cause him further misery...."
  • "...So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address...."
  • (I've Bowdlerized one word in the Pharyngula excerpt. Associate professor Myers was quite frank and candid in presenting his position.)

In the news:

• "Clergy confraternity calls for prayer and fasting in reparation for Eucharistic desecration"
  Catholic News Agency (July 29, 2008)
  • "Baltimore, ... (CNA).- The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a national association of over 600 priests and deacons, has responded to the reported desecration of the Eucharist at the hands of a Minnesota biology professor and science blogger by asking for the Catholics of Minnesota and the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting.
  • " 'We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional,' the group said in a statement. 'His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.'
  • "The confraternity argued that Myers' claim to have acquired and desecrated a consecrated Host is a violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
  • " 'Lies and hate speech which incite contempt or violence are not protected under the law,' they further asserted, arguing that freedom of religion means 'no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership [in] or ascribe allegiance.'..."
• "Minnesota professor claims to have desecrated Eucharist"
  Catholic News Agency (July 26, 2008)
  • "Morris, MN, ... (CNA).- Saying 'Catholicism has been actively poisoning the minds of its practitioners' and characterizing religious instruction as 'a devastating crime against the whole of the human race,' University of Minnesota at Morris biology professor Dr. Paul Zachary Myers claims to have carried out his threat to desecrate the Eucharist.
  • "Prof. Myers says that he pierced a Host with a rusty nail and then threw it in the trash alongside coffee grounds, banana peels, and pages torn respectively from the Koran and a book by the atheist polemicist Richard Dawkins.
  • "In a rambling prelude to his announcement of the desecration, Myers tried to explain his actions in a Thursday post on his blog 'Pharyngula.' Referencing the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, which he said codified Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist and established legal punishment for Jews, he said that accusations of Eucharistic desecration had been harmful to Jews in medieval Europe.
  • " 'That is the true power of the cracker, this silly symbol of superstition. Fortunately, Catholicism has mellowed with age — the last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago, after all — but the sentiment still lingers,' he said, apparently making a reference to the Spanish Civil War...."
• "Communion wafer held 'hostage' raises holy heck"
  Minneapolis Star Tribune (July 11, 2008)
  • "A Minnesota university instructor and avowed atheist is jousting with a national Catholic watch dog group over a smuggled communion wafer, which the associate professor dismisses as a 'frackin' cracker.'
  • "Paul Z. Myers, who teaches biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, on his blog this week expressed amazement that a Florida college student who briefly took a wafer 'hostage' from a church ceremony has been receiving death threats for an action that was characterized 'a hate crime' by the Catholic League.
  • "Under the headline, 'It's a frackin' cracker!' Myers wrote in an at-times profane blog entry: 'Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane.'..."
  • (Note: news reports have carefully stated that the University of Florida student has claimed to receive death threats. That's not quite the same as "Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker.")
• "Minnesota professor encourages theft and desecration of Eucharist"
  Catholic News Agency (July 11, 2008)
  • "Morris, MN, Jul 11, 2008 / 07:09 pm (CNA).- A Minnesota professor and science blogger has said he will personally desecrate the Eucharist and publish photos of the desecration on the internet if any of his readers acquire a consecrated Host and mail it to him. 'I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare,' he has written.
  • "Paul Zachary Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris, made the threat while commenting on a University of Central Florida incident in which a student senator stole and held hostage a consecrated Host from a June 29 Mass.
  • "In the Florida incident, student senator Webster Cook presented himself at Sunday Mass to receive the Eucharist. According to wftv.com, Cook said he intended to take the consecrated Host back to his seat to show a curious friend. After being stopped on his return to his seat, he put the Host in his mouth but removed it upon sitting down.
  • "He said a church leader grabbed his hands and tried to retrieve the Eucharist, after which he left with the Host. Cook filed an official abuse complaint with the UCF student court, while Catholic students filed other complaints alleging Cook engaged in disruptive conduct.
  • "Cook stored the Eucharist in a Ziploc bag for a week and then returned it last Sunday.
  • " 'I want to thank the individuals who explained the emotional and spiritual pain my possession of the Eucharist caused them to experience,' Cook wrote in a letter to the church, according to wftv.com. 'They have demonstrated that the use [of] reason is more effective than the use of force.'
  • "He said some people had threatened to break into his room to retrieve the Eucharist. A spokesperson for the Diocese of Orlando said the diocese does not condone the threats but is happy Cook returned the Host.
  • "Professor Myers criticized the incident in a derisive July 8 post on his science blog Pharyngula, hosted at scienceblogs.com. He also solicited his readers to acquire consecrated Hosts...."
• "Student Who Took Religious Icon Getting Death Threats"
  MyFox Orlando (July 7, 2008)
  • " ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35, Orlando) --A University of Central Florida student claims that he is getting death threats for messing with something sacred.
  • "Webster Cook says that, instead of eating a Eucharist wafer as he was expected to do during the Sacrament of Holy Communion, he smuggled the blessed piece of bread out of mass. Once blessed, the piece of bread is viewed by Catholics as the true Body of Christ...."

---

Reading associate professor Myers' blog brought back memories of the years I spent in college classrooms. The University of Minnesota, Morris, has removed their link to Myers' blog, but the biology professor is still posting:

Pharyngula
("Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal")

The name of the blog, Pharyngula, is a technical term: "pharyngula: a developmental stage in vertebrate embryos, after fertilization, cleavage and gastrulation, in which the embryos are characterized by a notochord, a post-anal tail, and a series of paired folds in the neck region."
(From Explore Evolution.)

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Cyber Vigilantes Strike Blow for Freedom! Hackers Attack Terrorist Websites!

'Cyber vigilantes,' or 'Web vigilantes,' are nothing new. " Cyber-spies tracking terror on Web" CNN (May 29, 2007), telling about "an unconventional war being waged on the Internet. The battles here know no boundaries; and are fought from homes and offices from small Midwestern towns to Europe and the Middle East."

Vigilantes: Equal-Opportunity Enforcers

Vigilantes don't just target terrorists. Scientology was in the cross hairs earlier this year: "Web vigilantes attack Scientology website" (about a "shadowy internet group" called Anonymous), "Hackers have mounted a wave of attacks against the Church after it tried to take down a leaked video of Tom Cruise," "Web vigilantes attack Scientology website" (this one has more information than many).

Vigilantes vs Al Qaeda: Resistance Fighters in Cyberspace?

Anti-terror vigilantes are back in the news now. "Fox News: The Help Hurts?" Culture Popped (March 22, 2008) is a detailed discussion of an article posted today, "Cyber Vigilantes Track Extremist Web Sites, Intelligence Experts Balk at Effort" FOXNews (March 22, 2008).

Emotional Response

'Yes! Take that, you terrorists!' was my gut-level reaction, together with a sort of warm glow of patriotic satisfaction. That feeling is still there.

'What intellectualoid nitwit thinks this is a bad idea?!' The second wave of emotion came about a second later. It passed as soon as I read the article.

Reasoned Response

Here's the deal. Real intelligence techs are monitoring thousands of websites that might, or might not, have a practical connection to terrorists. They're trying to figure out

• Which websites are relatively harmless, and which are controlled by al Qaeda, the Taliban, or related organizations
• What parts of the terrorist-run websites are covert messages
  • What they say
  • Who they're for
• Who
  • Runs the website
  • Pays for the website
  • Decides what goes on the website
• Get all that done before whoever controls the website realizes that they've been spotted

It doesn't look like an easy job.

"Michael Radu a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an expert on terror-related Web sites," says that vigilantes don't help. That's putting it mildly.

Vigilantes: Another Obstacle for Coalition Intelligence

These well-intentioned hackers jump in, subject the site to a denial-of-service attack, or otherwise tip the terrorists off that infidels have spotted them. Then, if the terrorists have higher-than-room-temperature IQs, they'll fold their tents and set up camp elsewhere in cyberspace.

And, whatever I think of their motives and methods, I don't think that terrorist leaders are stupid.

Meanwhile, coalition intelligence people, who may have been watching the site, lose their chance to collect more intelligence. That's wasted time, money, and opportunity.

Generally, I'm all for private-sector efforts.

Not this time.

By operating independently of American and coalition intelligence, these vigilantes are annoying terrorists, without causing more than inconveniences for the organizations running the websites.

As a private intelligence contractor said about shutting down sites: "Great. Somebody shut down a bunch of websites. What we're trying to do is find out where the terrorists are."

The War on Terror? This May be The War For Freedom

The War on Terror is a fairly common name for the efforts of America and other nations to keep Islamic enthusiasts from killing their citizens. A few things I read over the weekend made me consider using a new name for the 21st century's first major conflict.

Another Front in the War on Terror?

China has been exporting pre-infected consumer electronics to America. Last week's news included "Electronic gadgets latest sources of computer viruses" CNN (March 13, 2008), about an interesting new wrinkle in cybersercurity: electronic gizmos with viruses already loaded at the factory. All you have to do is plug them into your computer, and you've got a potpourri of malware. Gadgets affected include iPods, digital picture frames, and navigation systems: "some of today's hottest gadgets are landing on store shelves with some unwanted extras from the factory: pre-installed viruses that steal passwords, open doors for hackers and make computers spew spam."

The little v-bombs, for the most part, come from Chinese factories. Since the malware seems to be loaded at the end of the production process - ironically, in a quality-control check - this may not be intentional hacking: just the sort of sloppy work that brought us lead-tainted toys, and sent poison dumplings to Japan. ("'Just When You Thought it was Safe to Plug in Your iPod...' " Apathetic Lemming on the North (March 17, 2008), "China: Toxic Toys and Dubious Dumplings Aren't Signs of Terrorism" (January 30, 2008))

Factory-infected consumer electronics isn't the only concern that Americans should have when it comes to the Middle Kingdom. China's government says that the United States should stop thinking that they're trying to hack into American military computers. ("China denies U.S. computer hacking agenda" CNN (March 4, 2008))

I can understand why China's leaders want America to look the other way. They seem to be paying hackers to get information out of American military networks. ("Cyber Tensions Flare Amongst U.S., Chinese Military" (March 12, 2008))

For most of the Cold War, cameras, spy planes and wiretaps were the high tech intelligence tools. These days, it's hacking on the Internet. Attacks on American territory in cyberspace aren't anything new:

• 2007:
  • Homeland Security networks shut down, sensitive data compromised
    Attack traced to the Chinese People's Liberation Army
  • Unclassified Pentagon email system used by the offices of Defense Secretary Robert Gates accessed,
    taken offline and fixed
• 2006: Naval War College computer network attacked and temporarily crippled

Quite a few cyberattacks have Chinese fingerprints on them, and Chinese computer enthusiasts say that they're occasionally subsidized by the Chinese government to hack into American networks.

China's motives are clear enough. These days, it's easier to have someone in Beijing break through firewalls and encryption to get weapons blueprints and battle plans, than it is to arrange for an agent to go snooping around with a flashlight and lock picks.

All of which has nothing to do with Islamic extremists blowing up markets and beheading people they don't approve of. Apparently.

The War for Freedom?

My educated guess is that China and Russia are already involved in the global conflict that's been called the War on Terror.

Last year, I wrote about WWII's odd couple, Germany and Japan. ("Iran and Russia and Germany and Japan" (October 19, 2007) ) Germany's leadership was dedicated to the premise that the "Aryan Race" was superior to all others. Japan's very non-Aryan leadership undoubtedly did not share this view.

That didn't keep them from cooperating, a lesson that seems to be lost on people who insist that Iran couldn't possibly be supporting Al Qaeda because Iran is Shiite, and Al Qaeda's Sunni. Differences in philosophy don't make alliances impossible.

Last year, I suggested that Russia could be repeating the same mistake that it made in WWII, forming an alliance with Germany. Russia and its empire were called the Soviet Union then, and this time Russia seems to be leaning toward Iran: but the principle of forming an alliance with an up-and-coming tyranny is the same.

Now, I think that China may have gotten involved.

I don't suppose it's politically correct to say this, but it's not hard to see Russia and China as nations interested in gaining (or re-gaining) an empire. With a goal like that, either of them might make strange alliances, or at least take advantage of America's, and others', trouble with terrorists.

If Russia and China become more, and openly, involved in this global conflict, it won't be quite "the War on Terror" any more. I suggest calling it the War for Freedom. Whatever their ideological differences Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Russia, and China have, they are united in this: None can tolerate the free expression of ideas, open communication of facts, or people deciding how to spend their own money and live their own lives.

That's "freedom." This is a war with terrorists and tyrants on one side, trying to limit freedom, America and some other nations are defending freedom.

Under the circumstances, "War for Freedom" isn't such a far-fetched name for it.

A related post: "Deterrence in Cyberspace: This Just Might Work" (March 18, 2008)