Do UK govt surveillance laws go far enough?

Last week the UK government announced it was to bring in emergency legislation in order to force Internet and telecommunications companies to keep records related to its customers' use of the Internet and phone.

There were  many sensationalist headlines accusing the government of extending laws on snooping, eroding further people's perceived right to privacy and increasing surveillance powers such that Britain would become a police state.

But with terror threats growing and fanatical Islamist groups taking hold in Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa, the government's measures may not only be necessary, they may not even go far enough.

Terror threat

Even before 9/11 Britain and other countries faced a growing threat of terrorism. And that threat has grown, not least because of the growth in technology. Internet communications and mobile phones have made many people's lives better. But the same technology allows terrorists to disseminate their message in a way they were never able to before. Information about bomb construction can be sent around the world in seconds to would-be terrorists. Messages may be encrypted to avoid detection. VPNs may be used to further evade surveillance, whilst individual extremists may also create temporary email accounts and use mobile phones on an untraceable Pay As You Go 'contract'.

Collecting data

Recent judicial reviews by the EU concerning the data collected by ISPs and telecommunications created a dilemma for UK companies with many unsure as to whether they were still obliged to retain customer data.

The emergency legislation the British Prime Minister announced was, he said, to clarify the law and to prevent any loss of information that could prove useful in fighting the war on terror.

Speaking before a room packed with journalists, PM David Cameron said that the emergency legislation would be brought in to force phone & ISPs to retain and continue to log records of customer calls, texts and Internet use.

He pointed particularly to the growing fears over radicalised Brits returning from Syria and other regions around the world as well as the increasing threat from ISIS in Iraq which threatens to destabilise and radicalise the whole region.

Keeping Britain safe

"Unless we act now ... we will not be able to keep our country safe," the Prime Minister insisted, pointing out that data, currently stored by companies could be deleted before security and intelligence services had managed to analyse it.

However, Cameron said that the surveillance would not be all encompassing. Concerning Internet usage the web addresses would be logged, essentially creating a list of IP addresses visited. As regards phone records only the numbers called or texted would be logged, the content would not.

Further to this a warrant will be required to access that information, Cameron insisted, adding that an annual transparency report would be published related to Britain's surveillance and access to data.

In addition there would be an "oversight board" established to keep privacy in check, the Deputy PM Nick Clegg added, attempting to put aside fears of a growing surveillance state.

Piecemeal approach

But while there were certainly many questions related to an erosion of privacy and a so-called snoopers charter, there were a few journalists who questioned whether the measures went far enough. No one raised the question concerning how the use of VPNs to evade data logging by ISPs might be countered.

A journalist from the Sun newspaper asked the Prime Minister if the powers should go further. Without monitoring content of emails, texts and phone calls was the government at the risk of having "blood on their hands" as they miss a vital opportunity to prevent an attack.

Cameron said further powers were "a matter for future debate". This response was perhaps unsurprising in the wake of the Snowden revelations [BBC / BBC / Telegraph / Guardian / Daily Mail / ITV News / Reuters / Reuters / FT]

Government snooping vs protection

Many people in Europe and the US have become suspicious of their government's snooping and surveillance activities.

However, legal or not, much of what the intelligence agencies, be it the NSA or Britain's GCHQ, have been doing is necessary to maintain the status quo, protect government, its people and business interests.

The US and Europe have been tackling Islamic extremists for more than 15 years. And whilst some attacks have slipped past the radar, authorities have managed to break up terror cells and foil terrorist attacks.

Constant Internet surveillance has helped in finding and preventing hacking attacks, perpetrated by individuals, terror groups and nation states. Indeed, while the threat from terrorist groups is substantial, economic threats from other countries can be just as destabilising [Forbes].

The China syndrome

Whilst not the only country engaged in industrial espionage, China poses a serious threat to both western governments and manufacturing companies.

As the British government announced new measures to combat terrorism, it also pledged a £1.1 billion increase in military spending focused particularly on the ongoing cyber threat [Sky News / Telegraph]. Most media reports talked of the threat of cyberterrorism, but it is clear that nation states are also in the frame.

Days before the UK government's spending pledge, the US talked of a concerted hacking attack by the Chinese who broke into a US government network in an attempt to gain personal information on thousands of employees [BBC / ABC].

This came a few months after the FBI indicted five Chinese army officers with hacking into private-sector American companies in a bid for competitive advantage. Both countries have long accused each other of cyberespionage. However, whilst the US acknowledges that it conducts espionage it says it does not pass on what it finds to its own companies.

China is accused of deliberately stealing industrial secrets in order to gain competitive advantage. In fact there are even some clear example where such activity has even brought down companies.

Many people will likely not have heard of Nortel, a Canadian firm that was once a market leader in the telecommunications industry [WSJ / The Register / CBC /

Nortel went bust by 2009 after years of hacking which was traced to China. And since then GCHQ officials have revealed that they know who is doing the hacking, but have refused to reveal the details publicly [CNET / Sophos / Financial Post / Washington Post / CBC].

Cyberthreats

In a series of programmes broadcast by the BBC in 2013 Gordon Corera investigated the ongoing and perhaps the greatest threats to national security. The programmes showed that hostile nation states were conducting a war over the Internet, while Western companies face the wholesale plundering of their economic life-blood [Under Attack : The Threat From Cyberspace].

While North Korea and Iran are both thought to have launched attacks, the US too has also been accused of releasing the Stuxnet virus into the wild in an attempt to bring down Iran's nuclear facilities.

But the biggest player is strongly believed to be China. "Britain is under attack," Britain's then Foreign Secretary William Hague said. "Most countries are under attack and certainly many industries and businesses are under attack." Of course he and others in Britain's intelligence community refuse to point the finger, tough many quietly say they 'know' who is responsible.

The US are more vocal and this year's Annual Report to Congress concerning the Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China did not pull any punches regards the threat from China.

David Cameron's talk of a need to tackle organised crime, child abuse and terrorism is laudable. But the threat from nation states could be much greater. The measures announced by the government are necessary, but to tackle such threats Britain arguably needs to go much further. The price is that our 'right to privacy' - if ever there was truly such a right - is dispensed along with it.

The Deputy PM Nick Clegg said the government valued people's concerns about freedom. "Liberty and security must go hand in hand," he said. But he said there was "an urgent challenge" to deal with an ever growing threat. That assessment, at least is not wrong.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Mining safety expert Dave Feickert dies aged 67

Mine safety specialist Dave Feickert has died after a long battle with liver cancer at the age 67.

Born in 1947 in the Whanganui region of New Zealand, Feickert was best known for helping to improve coal mining safety standards in China.

In 2009, Feickert won the China Friendship Prize for Foreign Experts, for helping to lower the accident rate in Chinese coal mines. His efforts are said to have resulted in a 70% decrease in the number of accidents in Chinese coal mines over a five year period.

Feickert had worked in mine safety in the United Kingdom and New Zealand and had authored newspaper commentaries critical of government mining and safety policies in both countries.

In 2011 he helped publicise pioneering treatment for miners who had contracted 'black lung' also known as pneumoconiosis. He organised a fact finding operation to Hebei province where several hospitals treat sufferers with 'lung washing' or 'lung lavage'.

He was the Whanganui branch president of the New Zealand China Friendship Society and an advocate of traditional Chinese medicine, which he had taken to treat his liver cancer after doctors in New Zealand told him his condition was terminal.

Feickert passed away in the Hospice Wanganui on Wednesday 2nd July at 03:30 local time, leaving behind his second wife Jiang Bingjing. He also leaves behind his first wife and mother of his daughter Sonia Lewycka, the British author Marina Lewycka, as well as two grand children.

***

Goodbye to a dear friend and colleague.


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Google kills Orkut, EU slashes roaming charges & landlines die

There have been several changes to the way we communicate this last week, though many may notice little change.

Goodbye Orkut

Google announced that it was to shut down its long running social network Orkut. Whilst still popular in Brazil and India, for most of the world Orkut is little known. Launched in 2004 Orkut was Google's first foray into social networking but take up was slow and scuppered by Facebook's launch only months later.

Orkut became popular in Brazil where its user base even soared above that of Facebook though by late 2011 Facebook took first position [Mashable].

With the growth of YouTube, Blogger and of course Google+, the search giant said in a blogpost that it will shut down Orkut on 30th September 2014 as it concentrates on its other projects [Reuters / Mashable].

Orkut joins dozens of other retired products that Google has killed off. Indeed this list grew even further as Google also announced it was pulling the plug on QuickOffice [Mashable]. In a statement Google said, "With the integration of Quickoffice into Google Docs, Sheets and Slides apps, the Quickoffice app will be unpublished from Google Play and the App Store in the coming weeks." Of course the decision is not unexpected. Google announced at the I/O Developers Conference that Google Docs users can now edit and convert Microsoft Office files through the cloud-based service. The company also announced that Microsoft Office documents can be accessed and edited offline and on mobile, essentially making the Quickoffice services redundant.

Cheaper roaming

In other tech news there was much talk about roaming charges. People can often be caught out and pay exorbitant fees whilst using their phone abroad. In recent weeks reports have highlighted cases in which individuals have received bills of several thousand pounds [Daily Mail].

However there was some good news for customers this week after the EU brought in changes forcing mobile companies to drop the amount they charge for roaming by half [BBC / ITPro]. And it could get even better as regulators plan to scrap roaming charges within Europe altogether by next year [PCWorld].

Despite the ruling customers are still advised to exercise caution when using their phone abroad and keep track of their data usage.

Slow death of the landline

For many people the mobile phone is an extension of themselves and something which is now replacing the fixed landline. Indeed the Daily Telegraph has suggested that the landline is now obsolete.

In the 1950s, the telephone was proof that you were a household for the modern age, with decanters full of gin on your G Plan sideboard, writes Harry Wallop. It was not until 1974 that the majority of homes in Britain had a fixed telephone. Before then, many people had to go to the end of the road and use a phone box. They themselves are in decline, but so too is the fixed line telephone in people's homes.

Many people may have them, but they are also becoming redundant. Some admit to the fact they never actually answer calls coming in on a landline let alone making calls [FT]. Telecoms providers want to kill them off too. In the US there is a desire to rewrite legislation that obliges telecoms companies make it possible for every citizen to have access to a landline [WSJ]. Such legislation could be detrimental however. There is no legal obligation to provide Internet access and by cutting off small communities by removing exchanges could in theory remove their ability to communicate by landline or through dial-up Internet. This could prove even more disastrous if mobile coverage was also poor.

Even in a small country such as the UK broadband coverage is primarily confined to large conurbations. Meanwhile fast data connections via cellphone infrastructure is patchy with many regions left in black spots.

According to EU statistics, 81% of British households now have access to a fixed-line phone, while 92% have access to a mobile. And while the landline may not disappear in the immediate future, it is fast becoming as obsolete as the record deck, tape cassette player and VHS recorder which were once considered state of the art technology.

On 30th September there will be few outside India and Brazil lamenting the demise of Orkut. When landlines disappear altogether there might be some that will miss the familiar dial-tone. Though as technology gets better, and as cell coverage improves and becomes cheaper there will be a great many others that will happily live without being tied to a fixed line.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Beijing in lockdown on 25th Tiananmen anniversary

In a country that buries uncomfortable parts of its history it was hardly surprising that China stamped down hard to prevent any mention of the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen protests and the massacre that followed.

Across the capital Beijing there was high security. Armed police, SWAT teams, army patrols and checkpoints could be seen all across the city and media were prevented from reporting anywhere near Tiananmen Square itself.

Speaking in Poland on the 25th anniversary of the country's move to democracy and the fall of communism, US President Obama spoke of the need to stand together with those who seek freedom. Indeed he specifically mentioned those who were "crushed by tanks" half way round the world in China as they sought to bring about greater reform.

25 years on

Quarter of a century on, China has certainly come a long way. There is much greater economic freedom and for many people life is much better than it was 25 years ago.

Few people would have dreamed of owning cars, let alone houses. In 1989 no ordinary Chinese citizen would have had a mobile phone or access to the Internet. Today, there is hardly a citizen without a cellphone and technology saturates people's homes from smart TVs to Internet connections.

There are still problems of course. There is widespread corruption in both central and local government. The rich poor divide increases daily. And pollution and food safety has become an almost daily topic of discussion.

Irrelevant

While the events in and around Tiananmen 25 years ago are an important part of history, for most people in China they are irrelevant to their current lives.

There is much debate as to how much people really know about the Tiananmen protests. On the surface there appears to be a "collective amnesia", though in private many do admit they have some understanding as to what happened.

In fact it is a kind of "enforced amnesia" with all references blocked on the Internet and official accounts referring to reactionaries and foreign interference. The government does acknowledge that the People's Liberation Army intervened after seven weeks of demonstrations and that people were killed. But the official line is that, rather than crushing a peaceful protest, the military simply defended itself, and the country, against violent counter revolutionary elements.

Not willing to allow open debate Wikipedia pages about the events are blocked, news websites are inaccessible and any discussion could result in arrest.

Beijing today

Expats in Beijing can't fail to notice the increased crackdown. One man who spoke only on the condition of anonymity told tvnewswatch that there was definitely a tense atmosphere across the capital. "There are armed police and military everywhere, helicopters in the sky and military vehicles patrolling the streets," he said.

He said it was difficult to gauge how much people really knew about the events of 25 years ago, but the authorities had done a "good job" in keeping the truth from people. "It's not good here right now. There's a rise in nationalism. There's the Uyghur separatist issues, the economy is slowing and of course the pollution and food safety issues."

With such problems, it is perhaps understandable that the Chinese government would want to hide the truth about pro-democracy and reformist movements.

Media reporting

Every year discussions and reporting in western media is significant. But this year there was a great deal more than usual. CNN's David Mckenzie filed several reports in which he spoke to university students, many of which claimed to have no knowledge of the massacre.

Of the few that did know, they said most people would rather "focus on the future" rather than dwelling in the past. Indeed digging up old wounds is seen by some as something which serves no purpose.

But there's nothing western news organisations love better than an anniversary. And an anniversary like Tiananmen is a made for TV event. Sky's Mark Stone's bizarre reporting from a car as it drove continuously around Tiananmen Square or his being moved on as he stood on Chang'an Avenue where the Tank Man once stood, was compelling viewing.

Blocking the news

Inside China such reports are blocked. Even where people can get CNN or other foreign news channels, screens go black upon any mention of Tiananmen or other sensitive news.

Internet sites are also censored. LinkedIn say they have been forced to censor pages and all of Google's services have been blocked.

Indeed the only Chinese territory where discussions and protests are allowed is Hong Kong. Thousands have marked the events with protests calling for an end to one party rule and greater reform.

This year was also marked by the opening of a museum on a Hong Kong back street. While mostly visited by Hong Kong citizens the museum has already attracted some mainlanders who have come to discover the truth about an event almost deleted from Chinese history.

In the light of recent news that Google and other search engines have been forced by the EU to act should individuals or organisations want links removed, we should perhaps all take a moment of reflection about how history is recorded and the freedom associated with being able to discuss things freely. 

Links and stories:

Wikipedia: Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 / BBC special twitter feed / CNN status on Twitter  / CNN gallery / CNN / Slate / Channel Four News / WSJ / QZ / Straits Times / NYT / FT / Telegraph / NYBooks / Fang Lizhi /

Video: Assignment: China - Tiananmen Square 25 years ago as told through the eyes of the media / Tiananmen [Chinese with subtitles] / Tiananmen Massacre [Chinese]

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Security increases in Beijing after terror attacks

Beijing has become a city in lock-down with increased security checks, and armed police and army patrols posted at stations and key locations. The heightened security comes in the wake of several terror attacks in the restive Xinjiang as well as the south-western Yunnan province and the capital itself. It also comes in the lead up to the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen pro-democracy protests.

Security checks

Travelling on Beijing's subway has always been fraught with problems of overcrowding, but this week's security checks have done little to alleviate the pain for millions of commuters who travel on the Beijing metro every day.

In a country long concerned about domestic insurrection and political protests, as well as local disputes, travellers on public transport have long been used to using airport style X-ray machines.

However, such checks could be avoided if travelling light. Indeed if guns, knives or other dangerous items were carried in pockets of a coat, a commuter could easily pass officers directing those with bags to the X-ray machine.

This week no-one can avoid the checks, bag or no bag. At stations all over the capital passengers now find themselves penned in, herded along narrow corridors towards security gates.

Commuters reaching the end of the line then subjected to body checks as well as the usual bag screenings. At stations in the city's north, subway staff said passengers had to wait between 20-30 minutes to get through the security line, up from about 10-15 minutes prior to the new screening requirements.

Whilst some commuters saw the need for the increased security, others were dismissive and said the checks were merely for show since not all stations were implementing the same stringent measures. According to the South China Morning Post only nine stations were affected by the new security [WSJ / SCMP / RT / Time / Shanghaiist / Sky News].

Terror response

The heightened security is a clear sign the authorities are not going to slacken their response to the recent attacks. In fact there are reports that orders have been issued allowing SWAT teams to shoot terrorists on sight, though it is unclear what constitutes a terrorist.

Such orders could result in serious mistakes as was seen in London in 2005 when a man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was mistakenly shot by armed police [tvnewswatch: Catalogue of errors in de Menezes shooting Aug 2005].

Following that incident the IPPC blasted the Metropolitan police commissioner [tvnewswatch: IPPC report blasts Asst commissioner Aug 2007] and there were long running inquiries. However an inquest brought only an open verdict [tvnewswatch: Open verdict in de Menezes inquest Dec 2008]. Meanwhile a corporate criminal prosecution of the Metropolitan Police, brought under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, alleging that the police service had failed in its duty of care to Menezes, resulted in a guilty verdict and fine [Wikipedia].

Tiananmen anniversary

The likelihood of similar inquiries and prosecutions in a country such as China is remote. Indeed as the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre approaches, there is still no official acknowledgement of the death toll, estimated as high as 3,000 civilians.

In the run up to the anniversary activists have been locked up. "The response by the Chinese authorities to the 25th anniversary has been harsher than in previous years, as they persist with trying to wipe the events of 4 June from memory," said Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Some individuals are still serving long prison sentences whilst others remain in hiding [Telegraph].

Those attempting to rekindle the past find the strong arm of the law on their shoulder. Even seemingly harmless gestures, like posting a selfie in Tiananmen Square while flashing a V for victory, have led to detentions according to the New York Times. Meanwhile the police have been warning Western journalists to stay away from the square in the coming days or "face grave consequences".

Voices cannot be silenced beyond China's borders, nor even in Hong Kong which is run under different rules. On the 4th of June many dissidents and some of those who escaped China at the time of the Tiananmen protests will gather at events in the US, Taiwan and Hong Kong [Bloomberg].

Mothers who lost sons and daughters in the protests also try to keep the memory of the massacre alive [NDTV]. But they, like anyone challenging Beijing's grip on power, face a formidable enemy.

Beijing too faces difficult challenges. In an attempt to keep the peace, prevent dissent and further terror attacks, China's authorities run the risk of stirring up the hornet's nest even more.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Voter apathy helps UKIP success

With UKIP [United Kingdom Independence Party] having secured the most number of the seats for Britain in the European election the other main parties are reeling and re-examining their strategy with only a year to go before the general election.

But while UKIP's leader revelled in his party's achievement, the result was not as much a success as many are claiming.

Voter apathy

Both in Britain and across Europe voter turnout was low. In some European countries the percentage was as low as 13%. Britain saw a slight increase on the 2009 European election, but turnout was considerably smaller than seen at general elections.

In fact with only 36% of the electorate turning out to polling stations across the country, UKIP's 29% share amounts to only 11% of the entire country's electorate. Indeed while Nigel Farage insists that the majority of Britain is fed up with Europe, immigration and the other three major parties, his party's real share of votes was hardly a mandate from the British people.

Scare tactics

There has been much criticism from both the three major parties, and those opposed to UKIP, that there has been far too much media coverage for a party that does not have one MP in the British parliament. There has also been some controversy over the negative stories surrounding some of UKIP's candidates was counterproductive.

The party has been labelled racist and Farage himself has been likened to Hitler. Meanwhile the popular press have fallen into UKIP's hands, printing sensationalist and overblown stories concerning immigration, non-English speaking migrants and benefit claims.

These issues are certainly something that should be tackled. Even with open borders there has to be a measure of how benefits are paid out, how foreign criminals are dealt with and how Britain is affected by EU laws.

Counter arguments

One party which lost out considerably was the Liberal Democrats. The party was in disarray after it only managed to hold on to only one of its 12 MEPs.

The party had maintained that the only way to tackle the issues Britain was facing, whilst being a part of the European Union, was to hold a strong voice in Europe and to fight Britain's corner. The most pro-European party of the main three lost out however, either through apathy of voters or a failure to convince the electorate of the importance of maintaining a strong presence in the European parliament.

Speaking the day after the results were announced, party leader Nick Clegg said the Liberal Democrats should not backtrack on what the party stands for. "We should not lose our nerve," Clegg told the BBC. "We need to explain our case more forcefully," he insisted.

In answer to a question as to whether he might step down as the leader he said the idea had not crossed his mind. In fact he was resolute, saying instead that the party needed to be "resilient and united." [BBC]

Other losers

The Labour party finished in second place, in terms of total votes, but its vote share was up by nearly 10% on 2009. The result was hailed by Ed Miliband as a success  and showed the party was "making progress".

However he conceded Labour has "further to go" in order to achieve a win at next year's general election. There was "deep discontent" in the UK and Labour must show it can "answer the call for change" Miliband said.

However as regards a referendum on Europe, Miliband said the party would not be changing its position. Labour has said it will only hold a public vote if there are any plans for further powers to be transferred from the UK to the EU and opposes the Conservatives' pledge to hold an in-out referendum in 2017 [BBC].

The Conservatives lost out mainly to UKIP with areas once Tory strongholds turning from blue to purple. UKIP gained 23 MEPs, with the Tories having 19, behind Labour which has 20. The Conservative share of the vote was 23.9%, behind Labour on 25.4% and UKIP on 27.5%.

Nonetheless, David Cameron insisted that his party could still win the next election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27570508 .  

Forward to 2015

While UKIP are no doubt looking to repeat their success in next years general election they will have an uphill battle. After many years and a concentrated effort on only a few seats the Green Party have still only managed to secure one seat in parliament.

The first-past-the-post system will play more into the hands of Labour and the Conservatives than it will Farage's party.

Voter turnout is much higher in general elections than both European and council elections. Furthermore, as many political commentators have said, the electorate often use local and European elections to vent anger, returning to their fold for the national vote.

Disillusionment

UKIP's success certainly shows disillusionment with Europe, but so too does the low turnout. And while the political barrel needed a shake, UKIP's taking of so many seats in the parliament will actually do nothing to the status quo. The European project will carry on regardless given most of the MEPs remain pro-European.

Indeed, UKIP's positions may damage Britain's standing in Europe especially if they don't fight for Britain's corner within Europe. The danger is that UKIP MEPs may merely squander their time in the European Parliament offering up anti-European speeches rather than taking part in proper debate and  ensuring policies are made that are in the best interests of Britain as well as Europe as a whole.

There is also an irony that UKIPs 23 MEPs will now join the gravy train they so much despise, lining their pockets with taxpayers money whilst criticising the driver, crew and the fact there is even a train upon which they are riding.

Meanwhile, those parties which once fought for Britain's position will be less effective, given they are now much fewer in number.

As regards voter apathy there is the suggestion that compulsory voting be implemented. Of course this would not necessarily improve things. Even in countries where such policies exist there are still those who abstain. By itself such laws are meaningless if people are ill informed.

There needs to be a greater understanding about Europe and its workings, how it benefits its member states and how things might be improved. The debate needs to be more reasoned rather than the sensationalist tabloid headlines seen in recent months.

The same is true of council elections. There needs to be more transparency, even perhaps to the degree of all council meetings being televised perhaps through the Internet. Only when people are properly informed can they make informed decisions.

Winston Churchill once said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried from time to time.." In order to preserve that democracy the people need to participate. By not becoming educated in the issues there is the danger of the electorate become disillusioned and apathetic.

Churchill is also supposed to have said that "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." After the recent local and European elections such thoughts might be conjured up in the minds of many.

Results: UK / EU wide 

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Terror attack leaves 31 dead in Xinjiang, China

At least 31 have been killed and more than 90 injured in a terrorist attack in Urumqi, the provincial capital of Xinjiang province in China. The attack is the latest in a string of attacks believed to have been perpetrated by Uighur separatists, a mainly Muslim group many of whom seek independence.

News downplayed

The attackers reportedly crashed two cars into shoppers at a market in the centre of the city and threw explosives from their vehicles. Photographs posted to Chinese social networks showed bodies strewn in the streets and flames leaping into the sky from the area near to the incident.

The Ministry of Public Security called it a "violent terrorist incident", though information about incidents in the region, where ethnic tensions between Uighurs and Han Chinese continue, is tightly controlled. The news was largely downplayed in Chinese media and eyewitness accounts and pictures posted on Sina Weibo, China's version of Twitter, were deleted by censors.

Reports were also scant on Western media too. Whilst Sky News, the BBC and CNN all carried reports, most were brief. Foreign reporters are mostly banned from the region making it difficult to gather information about incidents except through official sources and social media.

Response

According to Xinhua the attackers struck at 07:50 local time, Thursday, at an open air market at Park North Street near Renmin Park. In response to the attack, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to severely punish terrorists and spare no efforts in maintaining stability, the news agency said.
However as reported earlier this month, China will have a difficult time in stemming what appears to be a growing terrorist insurgency. Whilst security controls are tight, in what is essentially a police state, the country is vast, making it easy for terrorists to hide amongst the general population. Speaking on Al Jazeera, Roderic Wye, an Associate Fellow with the Asia Programme at Chatham House, said the attacks were likely to have been perpetrated by Uighur separatists but that there was likely to be some outside influences from the wider radical Muslim population beyond China's borders.

Xinjiang, which is home to the Muslim Uighur minority, has seen a spate of attacks in the past year. In October a four wheel drive vehicle was driven into a crowd in Tiananmen Square before exploding in flames injuring 38 and killing 5 including three attackers [Wikipedia]. In March this year 29 people died and some 143 were injured after four people attacked civilians at Kunming railway station in Yunnan province [Wikipedia]. And in April this year at least three died and 79 were wounded after a knife attack and suicide bomb blast at Urumqi station which coincided with a visit by Chinese president Xi Jinping to the city.

Reports: BBC / Sky News / Guardian / CNN / Al Jazeera / RT / France 24 / Press TV /


See also: tvnewswatch: Kunming hit by terror attack July 2008 / tvnewswatch: Internet access blocked after Kunming blast July 2008 / tvnewswatch: More attacks in Cinjiang leave 2 cops dead Aug 2008 / tvnewswatch: China names wanted Islamic terrorists Oct 2008 / tvnewswatch: New al-Qaeda threat to China Oct 2009 / tvnewswatch: Kunming terror attack leaves dozens dead Mch 2014 / tvnewswatch: China on verge of War on Terror May 2014

tvnewswatch, London, UK

US swipes at China over cyberespionage

China has acted angrily to the US issuing several indictments naming 5 members of the People's Liberation Army and their involvement in a number of cyberattacks on American companies.

The unprecedented move comes a few months after the security firm Mandiant released a detailed dossier pointing to a nondescript building in Shanghai where it said China was launching a series of cyberattacks and conducting cyberespionage operations on a massive scale. [See also: tvnewswatch: Chinas growing hacking army Feb 2013 / tvnewswatch: China angry over US accusations of hacking May 2013]

Scare tactics

The release of the indictments may be intended to scare Chinese hackers into submission. By naming the individuals it would be clear to China that the US now has the capability to trace the origins of the attacks, not only to the country, town or city but to an actual individual. While the indictments are unlikely to result in any extraditions, the people named may well feel a little more uncomfortable than they did prior to the FBI posting their details.

Indeed, these individuals will certainly not be able to freely travel outside of China now that they run the risk of ending up behind bars in a US prison on charges which could result in sentences of up to 240 years.

In the highly unusual move, the men were named in the indictment document complete with photographs. Huang Zhenyu (黄振宇), Wen Xinyu (文新宇), Sun Kailiang (孙凯良), Gu Chunhui (顾春晖) and Wang Dong (王东) were named in the charges for what the US says is a widespread problem [Indictment / Indictment PDF].

Earlier Monday, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the men, all members of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), "maintained unauthorized access to victim computers to steal information from these entities that would be useful" to the victims' competitors in China.

Holder said some of the "victims" included U.S. Steel Corp., Westinghouse, Alcoa, Allegheny Technologies, the United Steel Workers Union and SolarWorld [BBC / Guardian / Daily Mail].

Denials

However, China has accused the United States of "hypocrisy" and "double standards" following its decision to charge the five Chinese army officers with cybertheft against major American businesses.

The Foreign Ministry in Beijing even took the step of summoning US Ambassador Max Baucus late Monday, the state-run Xinhua news agency reported, as tensions between the two countries threatened to escalate into a full-scale diplomatic incident [Washington Post].

Meanwhile China's defence ministry put out a strongly-worded statement on its website on Tuesday saying that China's government and its military "had never engaged in any cyberespionage activities" [News.mod.gov.cn].

It also took aim at the US, saying, "For a long time, the US has possessed the technology and essential infrastructure needed to conduct large-scale systematic cyberthefts and surveillance on foreign government leaders, businesses and individuals. This is a fact which the whole world knows."

"The US' deceitful nature and its practice of double standards when it comes to cybersecurity have long been exposed, from the Wikileaks incident to the Edward Snowden affair."

Snowden became the main pivot to China's criticism from several quarters. A day after the United States announced indictments against five members of the Chinese military, China's ambassador to the US also accused America of hypocrisy and cited the whistleblower during an exclusive interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour [Full transcript].

"It's really amazing to see that some people still believe they have moral high ground and credibility to accuse others, if we consider the Snowden revelations and so on and so forth," Cui Tiankai said [BBC / CNN / Guardian / Telegraph].

Indeed the revelations concerning the NSA and Prism make the US's position all the more difficult. There is also the accusation that the United States also practices cyberespionage, both on friendly and less friendly countries.

Nonetheless, even if true the advantages taken by the US are somewhat different to its counterparts, at least in respect to the United States stated aim. Much of the US surveillance program is concerned with security, both domestic and international.

However China's cyberespionage is on a very different scale and its motives are varied. As well as defensive cyberespionage, China is engaged in IP theft on a grand scale, be it industrial or military. In addition there is also a growing number of actual cyberattacks emanating from China which are crippling foreign competitors computer systems and costing companies millions of dollars.

Hitting back

Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, is focused on making China pay a price. "Right now there is no incentive for the Chinese to stop doing this," The New York Times quoted Rogers as saying in February 2013. "If we don't create a high price, it's only going to keep accelerating."

It was "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the Chinese government and military was behind growing cyberattacks against the United States, Rogers said, adding that the US was losing the war to prevent such attacks.

"They use their military and intelligence structure to steal intellectual property from American businesses, and European businesses, and Asian businesses, re-purpose it and then compete in the international market against the United States," Rogers told ABC's This Week.

Eliot Engel, a New York Democratic party representative and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said that there had to be greater consequences for Chinese cyberhacking and cyberespionage, and called for sanctions and indictments against those responsible, as well as limiting access to visas.

"I think we have to make it very clear to them that they – this cannot be business as usual," Engel said. "If they're going to continue to do this to the extent that they're doing it, there's a price to pay."

This week Rogers' call for greater action took a step forward as the FBI posted the indictments on its website. Certainly the individuals concerned are unlikely to get a US visa, unless they really want to stand trial for cyberespionage. But whilst China may have received a small punch on the nose, it was hardly a forceful blow. Indeed, despite the flow of rhetoric coming from the state media, China was not even bloodied from this latest swipe by the United States.

The indictments were unprecedented, but the US needs to be a lot more forceful in order to effect any behavioural change by China or others engaged in cyberattacks. It perhaps also needs to level with its own people and allies over the revelations concerning Snowden and attempt to reclaim the moral high-ground.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Radical cleric Abu Hamza guilty of terror offences

Radical cleric Abu Hamza faces life inside a US prison after being found guilty of several terror related charges.

Hamza had tried to portray himself as "a preacher of faith" but a jury was unanimous in its decision that the cleric had been involved in supporting terrorism.

Known as Abu Hamza al-Masri, he was tried under the name Mustafa Kamel Mustafa having been extradited to the United States in 2012 after a long running legal battle by US authorities.

Reacting to the verdict Britain's Home Secretary Theresa May said, "I am pleased that Abu Hamza has finally faced justice. He used every opportunity, over many years, to frustrate and delay the extradition process." The verdict was also welcomed by Prime Minister David Cameron who said he plans to reform Britain's relationship with the European court of human rights to prevent future extradition delays.

Hamza came to prominence following the 2001 terror attacks in the US and was often seen at the Finsbury Park mosque in London where his radical preachings drew significant press attention. Due to his having lost his arms and been blinded in one eye, whilst supposedly tackling a landmine in Afghanistan, much of the UK tabloid press nicknamed him "Hook" in allusion to the fictional pirate Captain Hook.

The truth behind his loss of limbs is open to debate with Hamza himself having changed his story several times. He has claimed he was maimed whilst fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. However, during his trial in the United States, Hamza stated that his injuries occurred whilst working with explosives with the Pakistani military in Lahore.

Abu Hamza was arrested in May 2004 on a US arrest warrant and eventually flown from RAF Mildenhall to the US in October 2012.

The 11 charges against him included allegations that he arranged satellite communications for a group of kidnappers in Yemen who carried out a deadly attack in which four hostages were killed [Justice.gov].

He was eventually also found guilty of conspiring in 1999-2000 to establish an al-Qaeda training camp in Bly, Oregon, among other acts. In addition he was convicted of various crimes including hostage taking, conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, and abetting religious war in Afghanistan.

Hamza, who has already served a UK prison sentence for using his sermons at the Finsbury Park Mosque in London to incite murder and racial hatred, is due to be sentenced on the 9th September and could face a life term in a federal prison.

While many people have expressed relief and cheered the successful conviction, there has also been anger that the extradition and trial took so long. Survivors of the Yemen hostage situation were particularly scathing in their criticism. Laurence Whitehouse and his wife Margaret were part of a group of 16 Western tourists ambushed by armed men in December 1998. Margaret and three others, including two more Britons, were shot dead after being held for 26 hours as the Yemeni Army mounted a heavy-handed operation to free them. Whilst pleased at the verdict, Mr Whitehouse told The Telegraph, "This has taken a long time, even though there was evidence of his involvement early on."

Another hostage, Eric Firkins, 70, also expressed concern that the Islamist preacher had been allowed to breed hate on the streets for so long. "I was angry the Government was that sensitive to racial issues that they didn't want to antagonise Muslims by arresting the preacher."

Meanwhile there have been allegations that British security services failed to act on information received about Hamza and his terror activities [Telegraph]. However Anjem Choudary, claimed Abu Hamza was a "victim of the war on terror" and insisted the preacher had a "divine permit" to lie about his role as an alleged MI5 informant. Choudary, a British Muslim social and political activist, often labelled an extremist by the UK press, insisted that much of what had been said about Hamza was propaganda. "Sheikh Abu Hamza is the latest in a long line of Islamic activists and intellectuals who have been targeted by the American and British regimes in the war on Muslims. I believe he will gain paradise," he told the Telegraph.

Sky News / BBC / Guardian / Telegraph / Daily Mail / Mirror / Express / Wikipedia

[Pictured: Abu Hamza al-Masri, also known as Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, and his eldest son Mohammed Mustafa Kamel, at a rally in London in 2002. In 1999 Mohammed Mustafa Kamel (at the time 17 years old), and his stepson, Mohsin Ghalain, were arrested in Yemen. They were convicted of being part of a bomb plot involving eight Britons and two Algerians, and were imprisoned for three years and seven years respectively. The prosecution alleged that Abu Hamza had sent them to Yemen to carry out terrorist attacks. The defence argued that the men had been tortured and called the trial a "travesty of justice" / Read more: BBC / Metro / Telegraph]

tvnewswatch, London, UK

EU ruling that may change history

The EU has ruled that Google and other search engines must delete references and links to data connected to an individual in what has been hailed as a victory for people wanting to be forgotten on the Internet.

However the ruling made by a Spanish court could potentially have far reaching consequences which could ultimately lead to history being rewritten or deleted.

Information in the pre-Internet age

Before the advent of the Internet finding information was down to one's skills in seeking out books at local libraries or articles buried in newspapers stored in underground vaults. Even then one might need an understanding of the Dewey Decimal System and other indexing systems. While sometimes difficult to find, most back editions of a newspapers were readily available and books and encyclopaedias could be thumbed through. Most libraries would stock telephone directories of a given area and by cross referencing the information with that of the electoral register, a journalist or anyone else could dig up all sorts of data about any given individual. With a few pounds in pocket one could even get copies of birth, marriage or death certificates from registry offices, thus creating a detailed dossier on the background of a person one was interested in.

But nowadays digging up such information is less easy and may become all the more difficult. Libraries have streamlined their reference sections. Some no longer stock the electoral register, telephone directories have been discarded long ago, and the encyclopaedias have almost been consigned to history. Indeed the Encyclopaedia Britannica has itself decided to stop printing books in favour of online or digital editions in 2012 [Telegraph].

Disadvantages of online data

There is an advantage of online data. It can be sought out quickly with the aid of computers or search tools. Information in stories or on databases can be updated and mistakes corrected, whilst a printed version without the advantage of foresight cannot. But there are disadvantages too. Pages on the Internet can disappear, be deleted or simply be buried so deeply in the mountain of available information as to become impossible to find.

Whilst some organisations such as the Internet Archive have attempted to preserve some webpages from the past, there are vast amounts of information disappearing everyday that were once easily accessible and in the public domain.

Deletion of online resources

Of course much of this information could be considered junk. When Yahoo shut down Geocities, a popular blogging and webhosting platform many were outraged, especially those who had created pages on the online space. While many pages were undoubtedly the personal ramblings of individuals other pages were in depth explorations into cultural history, conspiracy theories and other musings.

Newspapers and media organisations have also deleted online content. For newspapers the information may still exist in hard copy, buried in the dark recesses of a national library, but for some organisations they have only ever been online. For example many articles published by Fox News at the time of 9/11 are now longer available. Indeed many links older than a few years may be deleted.

This situation is bad in that vast swathes of history, and how it was reported at the time, have been consigned to the digital dustbin.

Repercussions of EU ruling

However the problem could become much worse after one Mario Costeja González sought to have information about him removed from the Internet. The Spanish lawyer complained that entering his name in a Google Search led to the display of legal notices dating back to 1998 and published in the online version of La Vanguardia that detailed his debts and the forced sale of his property [Europa.eu].

The court ruled in his favour and Google must now remove links which lead to the references about González' financial past.

While some have hailed the decision a victory, there are others who believe it could create further problems. The information González sought to have removed was not libellous or defamatory, it was merely historical, even if somewhat uncomfortable for the man in question.

Shooting the messenger

Indeed the ruling does not require the paper to destroy such records or articles, only that Google should not index and deliver search results. But herein lies the problem. Whilst Google, Bing and Yahoo might be obliged to comply, other search engines not doing business in Europe may simply ignore the ruling. Duck Duck Go, Russia's Yandex and China's Baidu could in theory still throw up links to the Spanish lawyer's financial past.

Even where search engines comply it has been likened to the removal of the name of a book within a library's database while the book itself remains on the shelf. Furthermore others have pointed out that Google is only doing what it and other search engines do, that of indexing the Internet and making it searchable. Meanwhile the party that was 'guilty' of producing the offending item is left alone.

Google is nonetheless reeling with at least 1,000 take-down requests having been made according to the Telegraph.

Setting precedents

There is another worrying aspect to the EU ruling. In essence a precedent has been set allowing someone to have data removed from the Internet they don't like, albeit by the fact it becomes unsearchable. While González is one individual whom few may have any real interest [until now], there may be many individuals and organisations who would like to have their data removed, feeling it too is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant".

Moving down this road could further lead the world into a dystopia envisaged by George Orwell. In his book 1984 he wrote of Memory Holes, a mechanism which allowed the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records, such as from a web site or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened. Of course Orwell did not foresee the creation of the Internet, but its existence allows the removal of unwanted information much easier.

The scenario also conjures up Ray Bradbury's dark vision of the future from Fahrenheit 451 where all books are illegal and burned. With libraries disappearing and all information shifting to the ephemeral virtual space that is the Internet, there'll be no need to actually ban the books. Nonetheless the Index on Censorship claimed the ruling was a violation of "the fundamental principles of freedom of expression" and "akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books." [IBTimes / Reason] Others have suggested it would be like destroying other indexing systems like Palmers Index which sought to catalogue and cross reference the back editions of The Times from 1790 to 1905 [CBC].

Censorship and Intranets

Another of those opposing the deletion of data is Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales who believes it is a slippery slope that could erode the Internet and lead to greater censorship. Describing the move as "astonishing" Wales said it was "one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I've ever seen" [BBC / IBTimes].

Meanwhile in the Guardian, journalist James Ball described the ruling as "either an eerie parallel with China's domestic censorship of search results, or a huge incentive for tech investment to get the hell out of Europe". Indeed China regularly deletes information deemed unfitting for its 'harmonious society'. Blog posts, tweets, and even news articles disappear into a memory hole. Indeed some information is never published in the first place, thus many in China are ignorant of the Tiananmen Massacre, the great famine in which millions died during the Great Leap Forward, or the destruction of history during the Cultural Revolution.

In addition China also blocks and censors any foreign website that doesn't toe the line. Thus YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times and Bloomberg are just some of many platforms which cannot be accessed in the Middle Kingdom.

But what of this ruling. Would companies decide to shift out of Europe in order to avoid having to comply with a mountain of similar complaints. And if they did would such sites be blocked in a China like censorship sweep. Following the revelations over NSA snooping Germany's Angela Merkel has herself talked of a separate European Internet [FT].

Whatever happens as the issue unfurls, it will be painful and confusing for all concerned [NYT / Business Week]

Irony

There is an irony in all this for Mario González. His attempt to delete history and wipe away the past has instead rekindled it. More has now been written about González' past financial history than was ever mentioned previously. Le Vangaudia, can still display the webpage concerned, and while Google may not index it , the link will doubtlessly be posted in many places on the Internet. Indeed the Guardian reprinted the offending article itself on its own webpage.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

China on verge of a War on Terror

At least 6 people have been injured following a knife attack at a railway station in Guangzhou, China. The attack has raised concerns that China is experiencing its own War on Terror.

It was not immediately clear how many people were involved in the attack, but one person was shot and then detained by police. One shopkeeper who witnessed the attack said the perpetrators had sat on steps outside the station for two hours before, at 11am, letting out a shout and launching their attack on passengers with half metre long knives.

Chinese state run media reported that police gunned down one of the attackers, captured a second and said two attackers were still at large. Some reports say the men were wearing "white hats", though it is not clear whether these were taqiyah or kufi often worn by Muslims.

Spate of attacks

And while there was no information on the motivation for the attack, it comes a week after an attack at a station in Urumqi, in the western region in Xinjiang [BBC / Reuters]. At least 3 people were killed and 79 injured after a believed suicide bomber detonated a device [CNN / Daily Mail].

It also follows an attack at Kunming station in March that killed 29 people [Wikipedia / tvnewswatch: Kunming terror attacks leave dozens dead many injured] and a terror attack in October 2013 when a four wheel drive vehicle was deliberately driven into a crowd in Tiananmen Square before bursting into flames [Wikipedia].

Chinese authorities have blamed both these attacks on separatists from the Uighur minority group, which lives in Xinjiang [BBC / VoA / Daily Mail]. China's leaders have vowed to tackle the terrorists head on with president Xi Jinping promising "decisive action" [Xinhua].

However, China may be facing only the beginning of what could become its War on Terror [Wikipedia]. It is a war that may be difficult to win [FT]. The roots of separatist violence goes back many years and there is deeply ingrained suspicions and hostility on both sides [CFR / Foreign Affairs].

Growing backlash

Many Uighurs complain that their language and religion are routinely suppressed. As in Tibet, another restive autonomous region, Beijing has practised a policy of assimilation, flooding Xinjiang with Han Chinese who now comprise 40% of the population.

And while the attacks have been perpetrated by a minority there is a danger that resentment and suspicions will increase tensions. The People's Daily has sensibly called for people to remain calm and not to retaliate. "Don't turn your anger for the terrorists into hostility toward an ethnic group," the paper said.

But there are signs that the situation on the ground is very different. tvnewswatch has learned that students in the middle of their studies were ordered to return to Xinjiang from Yunnan after the Kunming attack.  Uighurs say they are being refused reservations in hotels when they travel outside Xinjiang and recently the district police in Guangxi province, which borders Yunnan, warned, "If anyone discovers people from Xinjiang living, doing business or travelling here, please immediately report them." [NYT Sinosphere].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Max Clifford jailed for 8 years for sex assaults

Defiant to the end the so-called 'King of Spin' Max Clifford was last night spending his first night in prison after being sentenced to 8 years for indecently assaulting a number of girls and women in what some say would be considered rape should the offences have taken place today [BBC].

No apology

After being found guilty the shamed publicist admitted it was "not the best day" of his life but refused to offer any form of apology to the victims.

Before entering court he merely said that he stood by his previous statements that his accusers were "fantasists" and "liars". Talking to Sky's Tom Parmenter the former PR guru said, "I stand by everything I've said in the past - everything."

Lost everything

For the 71 year old who had everything he will likely lose it all. His high-profile PR business is set to close and he may also find himself without his wife of four years. Last night there was speculation that wife Jo Clifford, formerly Jo Westwood, may file for divorce.

According to the Daily Mail his wife had not been seen sporting her wedding ring and was 'very, very angry" over the whole affair. One friend told the paper she was "just waiting for guilty verdicts and then she's going to divorce him for everything he's got."

Max Clifford's wife had spent the trial well away from the courtroom rather than playing the dutiful wife and standing by her man. However she has declined to comment on the rumours or suggestions she has spoken to top London divorce lawyer Raymond Tooth.

A former PA for the publicist they married in April 2010, seven years after the death of Clifford's first wife, Liz.

Cheers

Clifford's sentencing was cheered not only by his victims in court but by many outside the courtroom who had faced humiliation and embarrassment by the 'King of Spin'.

Former Conservative minister David Mellor said he "exults" in Max Clifford's jailing saying the disgraced PR guru "delighted in humiliating his victims".

Mellor had been one of those victims after Clifford brokered deals with tabloids for kiss-and-tell stories with Antonia de Sancha who reveal details about an affair with the minister. Speaking of the jailing Mellor told the Daily Telegraph it showed "there is a God".

Even those who bought his stories had few good words for the man. Former editor of the Sun newspaper Kelvin MacKenzie described Clifford as a "vile individual" when speaking on the BBC's Any Questions. Despite having bought stories from him and having known him some 30 years added that one "couldn't find anybody who has a good word to say about Max Clifford."

Long fall

Life will now be very different for the man who arguably ruined hundreds of people's lives in order to feather his lavish lifestyle. He will leave behind his large house in  a private road in Hersham for a small prison cell. He will say goodbye to his outdoor heated swimming pool where he used to swim daily, though he may have access to a gym. And of course he'll have no housekeeper as such, indeed he might find himself to be someone else's bitch if prison life is all it's rumoured to be.

For someone who played with and controlled so many people's lives, Clifford has fallen off a very tall cliff indeed. And he's certainly come down with a bump [Guardian / Independent].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Fire Sale threat from XP, Heartbleed & IE bugs

Only weeks after the Heartbleed bug was discovered and Microsoft stopped support for Windows XP another major security issue has been revealed which may further compound problems for Internet users. The issue is so serious that some have suggested these security holes could allow hackers to initiate a 'Fire Sale' cyberattack.

Microsoft security holes

On Saturday 26th April Microsoft reported that a security hole existed in all versions of Internet Explorer from version 6 through to 11. The issue has been deemed so serious that the US and UK governments issued an unprecedented advisory saying that people avoid using the browser until the hole is patch and instead use Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox of Apple's Safari browser [Daily Mail / Washington Post / CNET].

Microsoft said it was already aware of "limited, targeted attacks" to exploit the security flaw which could enable hackers to gain access and user rights to a computer [BBC]. This could allow hackers to obtain passwords, remove and syphon off user date or insert malware and turn the PC into a botnet.

The discovery is significant given the huge number of people still using the browser. Estimates for Internet Explorer's overall market share range from 27.4% to 54.13%, as of October 2012.

No support for XP

The discovery is all the more worrying given the exploit appears to have been present for at least 12 years since it exists in version 6 of the browser. Furthermore, whilst Microsoft will eventually issue a patch there will be a great many users who will not receive it. Anyone still using Windows XP will not receive any support for their operating system and that includes security updates for Microsoft products such as Internet Explorer.

Again estimates vary, but there are still a significant number of people who continue to use Windows XP. The operating system, originally released in 2001, is still used by many government organisations who have failed to upgrade, often due to cost implications. Windows XP is also used in many ATMs, and while those systems could also be vulnerable to hackers most are in closed systems [ZDNet / Bloomberg / ZDNet].

China threat

While individual users can mitigate risk by using a different browser and operating system, the risks come from those who fail to update their systems. China in particular is a case in point. Windows XP is estimated to run on almost 70% of China's computers, while it's only used by 27% by the rest of the world. And while some security firms such as Qihoo 360 have taken on the task to update users not everybody will receive updates [CIO / EcumenicalNews].

China's users of Windows XP must of course register for the product. However many of China's computer users do not have legitimate products and there is a poor understanding of the importance of updating operating systems and software. According to Microsoft 90% of their software used in China, including Windows XP, is pirated meaning most computers have never been updated & are ripe for exploitation [Engadget].

As such millions of users in China could find their computers being taken over and used for malicious purposes. According to one top white-hat hacker, James Forshaw, a vulnerability researcher for Context Information Security, unsupported Windows XP machines in China could pose a threat to the Internet in general if bot-herders round up significant numbers of them to use as launch pads for malicious exploits [NetworkWorld]. This could spell disaster for millions of people not only in China but around the world.

Security

The problem lies in the fact that most people do not take computer and Internet security seriously enough. While one individual may increase their own layers of security such as installing timely operating system updates, running anti-virus software such as Norton or McAfee, and using password managers, others both in professional and non-professional quarters do not.

Thus data shared between one individual and another might not be secure if the third party has failed to take care of their own security. Even if you don't do Internet banking, the data held on some social networking sites could still be useful to criminals. And while one individual might keep their password safe and secure, another user and 'friend' might not. Following Heartbleed many people failed to update their passwords for compromised services which included Facebook amongst others. Thus a hacker, taking advantage of the Heartbleed bug, could potentially access some users' accounts and use that access to create phishing attacks or sift for information about others.

Patching holes

More worrying is where banking or financial institutions continue to use systems that are vulnerable. For example there are suggestions that Windows XP can put SOX, HIPAA and credit card security-compliance at risk [NetworkWorld].

Some firms and governments have paid Microsoft for continued updates. The British government, for example, has paid the software giant £5.5 million for continued support for one more year [Guardian / Telegraph]. The Dutch government has also paid Microsoft to keep its systems updated [ZDNet]. However these measures are merely a stop-gap and will not address the issue in the long term.

Lack of information

Indeed the publicity and understanding of a security threat can be a major factor in mitigating such security threats. Given the number of people potentially affected by the ending of support for Windows XP, the Heartbleed Bug and the security holes in Internet Explorer, the reportage has been relatively scant. Many companies failed to inform their users and information outside tech websites was often confused and contradictory.

'Fire Sale'

Of course Ukraine, the Korean ferry disaster and European elections are important issues. but the recent security issues are arguably far more significant. Indeed some have suggested these recent holes and exploits could lead to a 'Fire Sale', a term used to describe a hypothetical attack by computer hackers on vital networks [Wired].

The term 'Fire Sale' was first coined in the Die Hard movie "Live Free or Die Hard" in which hackers attempted a cyberwarfare attack that performed a three-stage systematic attack on the United States' computer infrastructure.

The film may well have been fiction, but the shocking truth is that the world's computer systems are vulnerable to attack and common flaws make such attacks easier and more likely.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Rumours fly after Google+ chief Vic Gundotra quits

There has been wild rumours and speculation after Vic Gundotra announced he was to step down and leave Google for pastures new [BBC].

Gundotra was the main driving force behind Google's social network Google+, and his leaving the company has driven speculation that the search giant may consign the platform to the scrap heap.

The main source for such rumours came from the website TechCrunch which described Google+ as the "Walking Dead" and suggested it would "no longer be considered a product, but a platform" and thus "ending its competition with other social networks like Facebook and Twitter."

Despite the article being widely quoted and shared on social networks, many have dismissed the suggestions.

One prominent voice was Yonatan Zunger, Google+'s Chief Architect, who said the information contained in the TechCrunch article was "BS" [bullshit].

"The TechCrunch article is BS," Zunger said, "Google+ isn't going anywhere, I can promise you."

Killing redundant products

Of course, anyone using Google+ may well have been justifiably concerned that their favourite social network might be consigned to history. Google has "retired" many of its products that it has deemed "redundant".

In the past few years Google has closed countless services which it said had lacked take-up. In 2011 Google dropped property search within its Maps citing lack of use. Google Desktop was also retired the same year and Google Health was shutdown in early 2012. Google Wave's retirement became one of the most talked about closure, especially given the huge publicity surrounding its launch.

Google Wave which started life in 2009 was hung out to dry within 3 months of its public release in May 2010 and by 2012 had been closed down altogether.

Google+ launch

Launched in 2011 Google+ provides a stream of content such as photos and status updates that its users post for their friends. Its original selling points included a way to create groups of contacts, or "circles," to share more specific types of information. Another is Hangouts, a popular messaging tool that enables group video chat.

The sharing of photos is a key part of the platform. Video & pictures may be set to automatically upload from a user's mobile device or even added to Google+ photos from Google Drive. Thereafter a user may select these to share with individuals, circles or even to an email address of a person not yet on Google+. And in recent months Google has added what it calls Google Awesome where automated algorithms put together movies or animated Gifs which may be shared.

Google+ has also been integrated into the sign-in procedure of Google's various services, including Gmail, YouTube and Google Play. Using a single login and password users are obliged to use their real name which also appears on any reviews or comments they post on Google platforms, an effort to reduce spamming and abusive behaviour.

While Google has received some criticism for some of its changes in log-in procedures and real name policies, the social network has grown significantly with a supposed 540 million active users, though remains far smaller than Facebook which claims more than 802 million [WSJ / The Register].

Trust

Killing the social network could prove to be suicidal for Google. While not as popular as Facebook and Twitter, Google+ has gained a large number of loyal users who would be disappointed and angry should the search giant decide to shut the service down.

Its closure would also reduce trust in the company. People would justifiably be concerned about the safety of other services such as Google Drive or GMail.

Certainly Google+ might change from its form, but it is unlikely to be killed off. It must also be noted that one of the authors of the TechCrunch article, Alexia Tsotsis, owns shares in Facebook, Yahoo!, and Twitter, while the other, Matthew Panzarino, is described in his TechCrunch bio as "relentlessly covering Apple and Twitter." Of course this does not explain their information or sources, but it could be partly why they closed the article by comparing Google+ to an "unwelcome hairy spider" whose integration is a form of "grating party crashing." And according to one blog it draws their credibility into question.

TechCrunch has based much of its assertions on anonymous sources which say that staff are being reshuffled. But reassignment is hardly proof of anything in a company which is in constant flux and redevelopment.

Angry beehive

While not completely dismissing the TechCrunch article other tech websites have asserted that Google+ still has a place, providing a particular niche for certain individuals.    

Mashable describes the social network as an "angry beehive" of enthusiastic users. The types of user also tend to be different, often more involved in technology and specialised interests, and according to Mashable's Chris Taylor, a little bit "weird". Indeed there has been an angry response from many users at the suggestion that Google+ could shut shop.

For its part Google has denied the rumours and meanwhile stated that Google+ Vice President of Engineering David Besbris will take command of Google+ [CNET]. The speculation may well continue, but for now the safety and future of the social network is assured.

As for Vic Gundotra, he has only praise for the company he is leaving but left no clue as to where he is heading next, something that is also open to speculation.

tvnewswatch, London, UK