Foreign Spies in the NGO's

[Randy W]

NGO stands for non-government organization - a non-profit, non-governmental organization, often with overseas sponsorship

 

Foreign-funded NGOs probed amid Trojan Horse worries

Accusations of infiltration

Maoist website Utopia recently released a special feature titled "NGOs infiltrating China." The collection of 27 reports called for China to "guard against malicious Westerners who seek to split China with the help of local funding recipients."

"In today's China, US proxy forces nurtured by NGOs are already powerful, spread out among government organs, academies and higher learning institutes," the website said in the editor's note. "The forces have already misled Chinese economic policy-making, causing huge losses and posing substantial political risks," the note added.

. . .

 

Politics and NGOs

There are 4,000 to 6,000 overseas NGOs that have programs on the mainland, including around 1,000 which have long-term programs, according to Chinese Social Sciences Today, a newspaper sponsored by CASS.

Most foreign NGOs are well-intentioned and have brought in funds, technology and management experience beneficial for the country's advancement in many fields.

"But hundreds of them have a background of political penetration," Wang Cunkui, professor with People's Public Security University of China, said in an interview with the newspaper in May.

"The existing investigations show that a few are conducting illegal activities in China. For example, some NGOs, which played key role in drastic changes in Eastern Europe, have entered in China to make ideological infiltration through means like cultural exchanges, education donations and training," Wang noted.

They collect intelligence, make noises, provoke chaos and hostility under the name of assisting the disadvantaged such as unemployed workers, displaced farmers and retired soldiers, as well as supporting street demonstrations and separatist activities, he added.

The anonymous HIV/AIDS NGO coordinator said he felt that the young radicals, backed by foreign sponsors, sometimes went to extremes in the name of pursuing justice.

"Some crackdowns are necessary as we can't treat the issue lightly under the present political situation," he told the Global Times, citing political turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

 

[Randy W]

. . . and an OpEd piece on the view from the West

 

Spy paranoia threatens across Pacific

By Rong Xiaoqing Source:Global Times Published: 2014-7-24 18:33:01

 

Beckel's delusion is clearly related to the escalating conflict between China and the US in cyberspace. The conflict exploded when, in May, the US charged five Chinese military officers with cyber spying. China responded by banning State-owned enterprises from hiring US consultant companies who, the government warned, might be spies.

For those who want to be a judge on this issue, the New Yorker's James Surowiecki's recent commentary piece might be able to provide some reference. The title of the article is "Spy vs. Spy."

Espionage remains an unspoken common practice in today's global village. Witness the recent spats over spying between Germany and the US. And diplomatic wrestling like this will always happen.

It does hurt the relationships between the countries involved. As it stays on the diplomatic level, the damage can be controlled. But once media personalities start to throw darts at a broad target like Beckel did, it can easily stir up a wider racist ugliness.

 

[Greg.D.]

. . . and an OpEd piece on the view from the West

 

 

 

Spy paranoia threatens across Pacific

 

By Rong Xiaoqing Source:Global Times Published: 2014-7-24 18:33:01

 

 

.Beckel's delusion is clearly related to the escalating conflict between China and the US in cyberspace. The conflict exploded when, in May, the US charged five Chinese military officers with cyber spying. China responded by banning State-owned enterprises from hiring US consultant companies who, the government warned, might be spies.

 

This is BS. The U.S. wasn't charging them with "spying" so much as STEALING proprietary, technical trade secrets. Since the tone of the piece was "hey, everybody spies", it confounds spying with stealing. Because the stealing was world-class robbery and probably the subject of discussion between our diplomatic corps - and unrelenting - it finally was made public. I believe Xi is the head of a department (can't think of the name, he heads several) that has final authority on these matters, the U.S. president personally talked to him about it.

 

So, yes, a disingenuous thesis in the global times piece.

Greg

[credzba]

Greg,

 

Corporate spying has existed since BEFORE the internet.

Both domestic, and foreign companies and governments have attempted to steal anything that would benefit themselves.

 

Of all the corporate espionage, internet attacks are the simplest to stop. If companies want to protect themselves, they can, even easier than the traditional attacks.

 

I have no sympathy at all for a company (or government agency) who looses secrets or confidential data via internet attack.

Worst case of all you totally separate your corporate network and the outside network .. cut the wire, its that simple !

 

Obviously, there are reasons companies want to keep the networks bridged, but I don't listen to the poor me, I was infiltrated by those mean internet hackers.

There are plenty of solutions, and if companies are not willing to protect their secrets, well then its public information in my mind.

[Greg.D.]

Blame the victim. Good job. Nobody has done it on a scale that the PLA has in the last 10 years. Are you defending them?

Greg

[Randy W]

Blame the victim. Good job. Nobody has done it on a scale that the PLA has in the last 10 years. Are you defending them?

 

Greg

 

 

It's one thing to figure out who to "blame" AFTER the fact - it's another thing altogether to PROTECT yourself from these incursions.

 

Why would you want to BOTHER with blaming ANYONE, when it's easy enough to lock your front door, your back door, AND all the windows, especially when you're EXPECTING surreptitious visitors?

 

 

Of all the corporate espionage, internet attacks are the simplest to stop. If companies want to protect themselves, they can, even easier than the traditional attacks.

 

 

No need to "victimize" anyone.

[credzba]

Blame the victim. Good job. Nobody has done it on a scale that the PLA has in the last 10 years. Are you defending them?

 

Greg

 

Yeah, I don't understand what your saying Greg.

I was not meaning to blame anyone, just saying that corporate theft has been going on forever, and that internet form of corporate theft can be protected against.

 

Certainly, if you leave the keys in your car while you run into the store, you don't expect it to be stolen.

By that same token, if it IS stolen, your not going to find people as sympathetic to your cry of theft.

 

Really, it just makes me tired the way companies act about this.

There is no shortage of ways to protect themselves.

Certainly there will always be thieves smart enough to find a way around todays defense measures, but if your secrets are very important, keep them off the network that has internet access. Doing that will provide 100% defense against network attacks.

[Greg.D.]

I re-read everything - esp since two of you guys had the same reaction to what I wrote. I still argue that the op-ed writer (the NY based writer wrote "...the US charged five Chinese military officers with cyber spying.") - or his editors (GlobalTimes) chose to portray the US legal charges and arrest warrants against the 5 PLA guys as about "spying" and not "theft". In the end, it was not the central thesis of his piece - just that, whether it is one thing or another - something could case further stereotyped aspersions against ethnic Chinese in the United States.

 

Back to protecting yourself against hackers: I believe they thought they had - I, too, always imagine that a company should totally sandbox their most valuable proprietary information. So, why does this happen? I mean, they do put up many kinds of security defenses - and the people in question went to extraordinary and illegal means to circumvent them. So, on the one hand, it must be very difficult if not impossible. I know: pull the ethernet cable out of machine; remove the CD-writer, disable the USB ports ....

 

I will still argue (in agreement with many others) that China is #1 in the world (accounting for 41% of all cyber attacks) and, of course, tries to hide what they do (U.S. is #2 for origin of attacks accounting for 10%). I see today that China has even lifted important Israeli tech (Chinese hackers steal Israel’s Iron Dome missile data). So, I will agree with you two that all companies should do much more to protect their IP and secrets, and there is also a problem of how to live and do business with a government that, in addition to the usual political spying, will use any means to compete with you in business.

 

Greg

 

From the above link:

 

"Although the Chinese government vehemently denies any involvement in international hacking, this massive increase in hack attacks must have government backing. A sophisticated hacker network has been uncovered in China, some of whose members are associated with the Chinese military and intelligence agencies.

In the last 5 years China has made industrial scale hacking an integral part of its economic policy. They are trying to hack their way into every major corporation in the U.S.A., Europe and Asia. Their goal is to become the world’s largest economy, and if stealing data by the terabyte will get them there, then that stealing is he way they will go."

[lhp]

It makes sense that the Party wouldn't like NGOs since they've previously rejected the concept of 'civil society'; the Party should be able to do it all, they think.

 

With regards to hacking, I think the difference is that the PLA is willing to do bespoke hacking jobs for Chinese companies. The NSA hasn't shown a willingness to do this; if they had, I think it would have come out in the Snowden leaks.

 

I think there's spycraft, which every country does to one another, and then there's corporate espionage. While both may be illegal, governments have the (scary?) power to put themselves above the law when doing things "in the national interest", while companies do not have the same power when breaking laws for their own interests. China's model of direct government support (or ownership) of companies apparently includes using intelligence and military assets to conduct spycraft on behalf on Chinese business interests. This is different to what the US does, and is different from 'regular' spying.