If these were US government workers reporting secrets to the Chinese I would expect imprisonment, etc. I guess it isn't too shocking they would do the same, albeit more cruelly, to their own traitors.
There was a post recently about how easy it was for foreign governments, in the 1970's, to track the actual CIA Officers on station at an embassy. TL;DR: Reading job titles and observing who they hung out with was one way. Also mentioned was that CIA officers rarely intermingled with actual Diplomats and support staff often knew who was who because of secret areas of the embassy that were off limits.
The article mentions a potential hack into the systems but it could have been good old spy-craft by following people and noticing patterns to find the sources.
I suspect that is the case, too. Especially this:
> Some officers met their sources at a restaurant where Chinese agents had planted listening devices, former officials said, and even the waiters worked for Chinese intelligence.
I sometimes go to some fancy and downtown restaurants in the Eastern European capital where I live, and you very often can see politicians there and people you very often see on TV as having had problems with the law. I often joke with one of my work-colleagues about how most probably all the restaurant tables in those kind of places are wired. It doesn't help that the most fancy party place in the city is partially owned by the daughter of a the director of the Security Services back in the 1990s. All these places are also filled with foreign businessmen and I suspect there are also people working for foreign embassies.
While I used to live and eat out in the poorer parts of the city I never, never saw what looked to be foreign persons eating at those restaurants. They are all gravitating around the same area in downtown city. I suspect a very similar thing is happening in China and in other countries' capitals around the world. Most of the Western diplomats who are also carrying intelligence activity on the side don't seem very capable of just blending in in a foreign environment.
Lol, you don't know how close to truth you are. It has actually happened already in Poland in 2014 - a high-end restaurant in Warsaw, where ruling party's politicians liked to hang out, was wired and the recording subsequently leaked to the press. It was one of the factors that led to this party falling out of favor with voters and the "right-wing" opposition taking over.
Yep. If you haven't read it, the Billion Dollar Spy details the efforts the CIA made in Moscow during the Cold War. Pretty good read.
Definitely: "one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building"
If you're running a US-agent embedded spy ring, your ring's members don't hang out together. They probably don't even know of each others' existences.
Many of the cold war era wars were proxy wars with Russia to stop the spread of communism. A natural place for that to occur was where Russia was attempting to move neighboring governments to communism, which was Asia.
Also we were at war with Japan, they attacked the US after all, so I would hardly call them allies at that point in history.
We seem to have forgiven Germans for the holocaust. I don't detect any particular "Germans are less humane than us" sentiment in the U.S. these days.
> torturing and eating dogs, cats, monkeys, which just is entirely sacriligious everywhere else
We torture and eat pigs in the U.S., who are just as intelligent as dogs. I think you have the causality arrow wrong. We latch on to a few people in Asia eating dogs because we already decided they're lesser than and we're looking for an excuse.
> A few bad apples really do spoil the whole bunch, and that's reality.
I think it's much more complicated than that. Why do bad apples spoil feminism for example, but bad apples don't spoil the NFL?
No. There were no US Einsatzgruppen, there was no US equivalent to the nazi Backe-Plan.
The US occupation of Japan was remarkably benign, for a country concerned with "systematic and indiscriminate extermination". You may wish to contrast this with, say, the behaviour of the Japanese Imperial Army within the Asian-Co-Prosperity sphere, which, while not really engaged in genocide, had a habit of large-scale massacres, gang rape, torture and enslaving the local Asian population which they considered as inferior, for all the propaganda about freeing Asia from the white man's rule.
If you really want to see what a blueprint for genocide looks like, I invite you to read about the Nazi Hunger plan . Nothing the US did was even remotely like this.
Why bother when you can just drop some atomic bombs to test on them (to "make them surrender")? Or spray them with agent orange? Or just help Suharto get rid of some millions and let him do the footwork?
>The US occupation of Japan was remarkably benign, for a country concerned with "systematic and indiscriminate extermination"
Or course it was. As was their post-war dealings of West Germany. It helps that there was a large competitor eyeing both regions, so they had to make friends quickly...
Why the scare quotes? It is still debated, and the fanaticism of the Japanese resistance (for instance, in Okinawa) makes a fairly compelling case that a land-based invasion of Japan would be extremely costly for both the invaders and the civilian population.
> Or spray them with agent orange?
It's pretty terrible as a weapon of mass destruction. Don't you think that if the US had wanted to annihilate the population of North Vietnam, they would have employed something a bit more direct?
Comparatively, I don't see the general disregard for civilian casualties exhibited by the Saudis in their ongoing bombing campaign in Yemen as a sign that they intend to wipe out the population wholesale.
> Or just help Suharto get rid of some millions and let him do the footwork?
Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not condoning the US foreign policy. But I don't see the US involvement in the mass killings conducted by Suharto as something racially motivated against Asians. It was a case of "the only good communist/leftist sympathizer is a dead one".
It also completely ignores the historical context - events like the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, or actions of the Khmer Rouge were still casting a shadow over what people thought would happen if these countries were taken over by Communists.
The US government did a lot of things to affect the way communism was viewed in the US, so I suspect there may have been some official spin involved here.
Its basically unknowable, lest we find some memoir of somebody who was present claiming one way or another, especially confounding is the fact that the meeting was planned before the bombings
Only as much as needed to clean-up a predetermined decision for a show of power for the post-war era to fit the official narrative.
(And even if it was "that a land-based invasion of Japan would be extremely costly for both the invaders and the civilian population" still wouldn't justify nuking civilians. War crimes are not excused when they make one win more cheaply).
>It's pretty terrible as a weapon of mass destruction. Don't you think that if the US had wanted to annihilate the population of North Vietnam, they would have employed something a bit more direct?
Why would they want to annihilate them? They wanted to win the war. So fucking their livelihood and health over AND still getting to use the hypocritical defense of "see, we weren't meaning to annihilate them" works even better when you need to maintain face.
If anything of the kind was done on their own soil of course, they'll still be screaming bloody murder for all eternity (like Pearl Harbor, even though they purposefully provoked Japan for months before it acted).
War crimes are not, in themselves, "programs of systematic and indiscriminate extermination" as claimed by OP, unless they are part of a wider policy. I'd argue if the US had the intention to conduct such a policy, the results would have been very different (as can be deduced by looking at successful genocides).
> Why would they want to annihilate them? They wanted to win the war.
> If anything of the kind was done on their own soil of course, they'll still be screaming bloody murder for all eternity (like Pearl Harbor, even though they purposefully provoked Japan for months before it acted).
I agree that Pearl Harbor needs to be seen in the wider perspective of the US-Japan relationship. And yes, most countries are a lot better at forgetting slights against them than the offenses they themselves committed (ironically enough, both protagonists of the conflict are an excellent example of this problem).
It seems to me that you are arguing that the US disregard the human cost of their foreign policy and have little regard for "collateral damage", not that they have been engaged in some bizarre extermination program of Asians, which is what OP was suggesting.
That logic completely ignores historical events like the mass starvation under Mao during the Great Leap Forward, the crimes of the Japanese during WW2 (the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, comfort women etc), and millions killed in the post WW2 independence conflicts (partition of India etc).
Putting the blame on the US alone is some seriously inaccurate historical revisionism.
How is that categorically different than the firebombing of Germany?
I am not implying that what US did was a planned genocide.
I am just pointing out that above is not a rebuttal of it.
Of course. The US genocide of Native Americans did not lead to the Nuremberg trials.
> I am just pointing out that above is not a rebuttal of it.
It is about giving an example of what a policy of genocide lead by a technologically equivalent power looks like, and contrasting it with the actual behaviour of the US in the same area. Shoplifting and murder are both against the law, but there is a marked difference between the two.
Here is one much more subtle example of genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrian_Finns
The deportations led to the rapid ethnic assimilation of
Ingrian Finns. After 1956, return to Ingria was officially allowed
but made unfeasible in practice;
Genocide is not killing of people but killing a génos (nation, race, religious group etc).
As the author of the term Raphael Lemkin put
>Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim
of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.
So yes, what happened to the Ingrian Finns was a genocide.
> Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify…
Perhaps it would be possible to display such cases with indentation so that they would stand out more and look more like real quotes?
As for indenting block quotes, I agree it would be a nice-to-have, though I think it's unlikely that HN will update the formatting options, at least any time soon. The formatting on HN is limited, though workable.
I think Africans and Native Americans would beg to disagree. Heck, experiments like the Tuskegee Experiment were done not on foreign Africans but natural born Americans who just happened to have black skin.
Stuff like the Sand Creek massacre, Wounded Knee, and so many others just aren't part of our national (or international) consciousness. No body talks about the intentional sterilization of hundreds of thousands of Native American women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_Americ...
Likewise, the north Vietnamese really practiced total war to an extreme, and well, it worked out for them at high costs they were will to pay.
Otherwise, you're saying "well Americans are fine because even though they killed loads of people, it still wasn't as many as the Chinese killed".
Though I agree with the US hardly being "the" aggressor in the world, the second part, that "war happens to be brutal", is precisely the reason starting one was declared the worst crime of all, encompassing all other crimes. You can't just say "oh well, it's war after all".
> at high costs they were will to pay.
Defending such monstrosities doesn't leave a man's soul untouched, either.
Where does he say that he does no values the life of the "Orientals"?
From his experiences in the war between north and south vietnam or the chinese invovement in Korea it certainly seems that local actors valued the life of their soldiers or civilians less than most western countries would have.
I do not think that this would have been disputed by Ho, Kim or Mao.
Show me when the US "flattened" Laos and Cambodia: show me the specific, vast invasions, the war details, and the numbers of people that said US wars killed in those nations. You're inventing history. Pol Pot's regime flattened Cambodia, murdering millions of his own people.
The truth you're intentionally evading, is that Asian nations have done drastically worse to each other and or their own people in the last century than anything America has done in the three primary wars the US has been involved in there (all of which were wars of defense/response; defending South Korea, defending South Vietnam, trying to stop the wars of the Empire of Japan). Most of the deaths in the Vietnam civil war as an example, were Vietnamese people killing each other (witness what happened when America left: vast indiscriminate slaughter by the North of the South).
North Vietnam started the war of conquest on the South, which the US attempted to stop. Just as North Korea attempted to enslave South Korea under Communism by military means (and would still like to conclude that 'reunification').
The US expended vast sums of money and blood to keep South Korea from the outcome that North Korea has seen. While China was rotting under Mao, South Korea was being protected and economically nurtured, becoming a first world nation while China and most other nations of Asia were still third world economically (for these purposes, third world meaning the level of economic development, not the definition based on alliance).
The US has protected Japan for 70 years, while they maintained a pacifist constitution. We were far more civil with them post war (a war they started), than what your claims imply we would have been. We didn't hold them as a slave nation, instead they rapidly re-industrialized and ended up passing the US in GDP per capita by the 1980s. We should have nuked them in WW2; they started multiple wars of conquest in the Pacific that resulted in the genocide of millions, including aligning themselves with Hitler's Axis, declaring war on the US and attacking the US. The alternative was to lose hundreds of thousands of American soldiers invading Japan (and one nuke was not enough, they refused to surrender, which logically demonstrated their resolve). The nuking of Japan, or the fire bombing of Tokyo, was no worse than the fire bombing of Germany.
The US also shielded China from being nuked by the USSR . Then we invested extraordinary sums of capital into their economy, providing the economic seed - through mutual trade - that has made their present outcome possible. It was, in part, Nixon's political efforts that helped to open China to the world as a society through trade. Further, given the extreme advantage the US held post WW2 (in every possible regard), it could have attempted to conquer China (or if it were consistent with your false premise: the US could have slaughtered China with nukes), using Japan as a launching point. The US did nearly the exact opposite instead.
The US didn't hold the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, South Vietnam, etc. as conquered territories (it could have attempted it).
Meanwhile, in America, Asians have the highest standard of living of any demographic: they have the lowest crime rates, the highest employment rates, the highest median incomes, the highest household incomes, the highest median net wealth levels, the highest education levels, the longest life expectancy.
Pol Pot's regime flattened Cambodia
Coincidentally, Pol Pot was politicised/radicalised in France by the French communist party, received ideological training in Moscow, Beijing and former Yugoslavia. I imagine that at least some of those who organised Pol Pot's take-over are still alive in in France, the former Soviet Union, China and former Yugoslavia, and could be brought to justice.
But that is all that it was.
The Khmer Rouge were already ousted and powerless.
Asian nations have done drastically
worse to each other
That does not mean that colonialism was great, or that anybody wants it back. Hopefully humanity has evolved towards better ways of dealing with each other.
This is just ahistorical nonsense.
The first Opium War had already happened, and the second was about to begin. If the Japanese were to maintain their autonomy and avoid the disastrous fate China suffered as a result of Anglo-Chinese trade, colonial expansion was their only realistic option.
When they attacked Pearl Harbor it was mostly out of desperation, because the oil embargo ordered by Roosevelt placed Japanese imperial operations in imminent jeopardy.
For a less US-centric perspective on the US/Japan war, Noam Chomsky's 1967 essay  is worth a read. He doesn't excuse their violence, but he does point out that it was more justifiable than other US violence in South East Asia.
Whether some Japanese derived some benefit from the ultimatum doesn't change that it was a coercive relationship, enforced by a nation with a history of destructive exploitation of other nations and races, justifying its exploitation in terms of cultural and racial superiority over its subject people. Your argument is straight out of "White Man's Burden."
That era was a shitshow ruled over by oppressive sociopathic samurai where life was short, domineering, and often brutal. They kept their country isolated from technology for the only reason of disempowering potential reformers. It is only looked back with fondness by those whose naïveté keeps them from knowing better, or who have nationalistic political agendas.
The gunboat diplomacy was frankly a move of liberation that benefited the people of Japan. And it was not an occupation either -- fair trading terms were what was offered, by the standards of the day, a far better deal than China had for example. Japan was enabled by the deal, turned into a prosperous trading partner and world superpower a mere 40 years later.
I don't know what lense you are looking at his through, but it is not refracting history correctly.
Mostly from reading Buruma's Inventing Japan, and Dower's War Without Mercy and Embracing Defeat.
The fact that the pre-Perry regime was nasty has no bearing on the causal factors of Japan's later imperialism
I don't buy the line that coercive actions are necessarily wrong. Using force to remove a dictator that is oppressing its people (or an entire caste of brutal autocrats) is morally justifiable IMHO. And if you compare the American involvement in Japan with the other sorts of things that were going on at the time in East Asia, it was pretty tame.
Historians must restrict themselves to evaluating choices by the standards of the time under consideration. And by the standards of day, the Japanese got a pretty good deal, especially when compared with their neighbors.
Look what happened to all those North Koreans thanks to all those chinese-influenced "good-willed" communists.
And after the Korean war, US bombarded South Korea with supplies - even people born on '30s and '40s remember rations from U.S. left over
Seems more like Kim-ism.
Look at what Chinese gov. does to North Korean escapees.
Chinese gov. uses 'civilian police force' to round em' up and send back to North Korea, even though it knows 99.99% of them ends up tortured-to-death.
In that regard, Chinese gov. hates Koreans more than it can
This seems like an extreme claim. I can't find any reliable source that claims that more bombs than the ones dropped in WWI and WWII combined were dropped to Korea.
> And these are two of the US' closest Asian "allies".
Not back then, Japan had sided with the Axis.
> The US simply hates the Asians
Some far-right people do probably hate Asians in the US, but my experience with the people from the US that I know as well as my experience here in the UK Asians tend to be quite liked.
I don't know about "WWI and WWII combined" but the US bombing campaign against Korea definitely was devastating. The US did bomb the absolute shit out of North Korean cities -- with more tonnes of bombs than in entire US war against Japan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Bombing_of_North_Ko... , https://theintercept.com/2017/05/03/why-do-north-koreans-hat...
Even US Generals concur:
General MacArthur: "The war in Korea has already almost destroyed that nation of 20,000,000 people. I have never seen such devastation. I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man, and it just curdled my stomach the last time I was there. After I looked at the wreckage and those thousands of women and children and everything, I vomited [...] If you go on indefinitely, you are perpetuating a slaughter such as I have never heard of in the history of mankind."
General O'Donnell: "I would say that the entire, almost the entire Korean Peninsula is a terrible mess. Everything is destroyed [...] There is nothing left standing worthy of the name."
General LeMay: "We burned down just about every city in North Korea and South Korea both [...]We killed off over a million civilian Koreans and drove several million more from their homes, with the inevitable additional tragedies bound to ensue", "We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, someway or another, and some in South Korea too. [...] Over a period of three years or so, we killed off -- what -- twenty percent of the population of Korea as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure?"
Worth pointing out that "Asian" in the UK would normally refer to South Asian people - i.e. Indians, Pakistanis, etc. If you meant Far East Asian people, you'd specify that, or the actual country.
> The Korean War, a “limited war” for the US and UN forces, was for Koreans a total war. The human and material resources of North and South Korea were used to their utmost. The physical destruction and loss of life on both sides was almost beyond comprehension, but the North suffered the greater damage, due to American saturation bombing and the scorched-earth policy of the retreating UN forces.1 The US Air Force estimated that North Korea’s destruction was proportionately greater than that of Japan in the Second World War, where the US had turned 64 major cities to rubble and used the atomic bomb to destroy two others. American planes dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea -- that is, essentially on North Korea --including 32,557 tons of napalm, compared to 503,000 tons of bombs dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of World War II.2 The number of Korean dead, injured or missing by war’s end approached three million, ten percent of the overall population. The majority of those killed were in the North, which had half of the population of the South; although the DPRK does not have official figures, possibly twelve to fifteen percent of the population was killed in the war, a figure close to or surpassing the proportion of Soviet citizens killed in World War II.
Doesn't quite live up to the parent's exaggerated claims, but still not a pretty picture.
Recklessness of this is beyond my comprehension, not just accepting cash but also communication and computing devices like iphone and laptop that may have been tampered with.
Details of the charges and bribery here.
Unbelievable lapse in judgement.
The reward vs. risk ratio seems to be way off. You would assume that successful spy would be worth of tens of millions for the risk of spending rest of his/her life in a prison. Usually they settle for smaller sums. They just want to feel important and have a lifestyle and/or feel loved or have sex.
FBI translator secretly married Islamic State leader
People are cray.
Otherwise it's nothing new - e.g. when somebody becomes a multimillionare while working for government or makes some spectacularly lucky investments and gets some unexplainably lucrative deals from people needing the influence in the government - it's completely routine. Most of the times they get away with it. So no one could blame a state dept worker for thinking maybe she could get away with it too.
If I can make a software analogy here, this is the least satisfying resolution to a bug in your program. Imagine a devastating but intermittent bug, that simply disappears after a period of time or after innocuous changes to your program. Not knowing what happened or how it "fixed itself" is very frustrating.
Alternate theory: The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. know exactly how they fixed it, but they won't tell The New York Times that part.
This OPM hack is probably the most damaging for the US government's spying efforts, even more than the Snowden disclosures.
Snowden took only documents that describe the overall global surveillance infrastructure.
Snowden had access to raw data streams for almost all SIGINT operations. System administrators like Snowden received special "root access like" clearance called PRIVAC (Privileged Access) where people allowed to be exposed to information of any classification, regardless of what their position actually needs, apparently because they are sysadmins and need to see what's going on. Snowden had 'technical' access to live feeds for all active operations, drone feeds and other information regardless of classification all over the world was wider than anyone participating in operations had.
It's not hard to imagine that there are other people with PRIVAC access who are actual spies. Just by observing important stuff and not taking anything compromises the system. If they downloaded some of that stuff, it has been open doors all this time.
Only after Snowdon's revelations NSA has added the two-man rule for sysadmins. Apparently it was too costly before. Increasing the data collection was more important than building the system.
I think there is systemic failure in US/UK intelligence organizations. They constantly emphasize offense over defense even when they know that they are very vulnerable. It's hard to show results for good defensive posture.
People ... need a years to develop, and could potentially provide useful service for decades. Having an entire cohort of agents removed is a substantial blow.
It's something that I've wondered about for a while now, but really, who am I to question such things?
So I think the strategy is much different and much more durable now. The military designs ciphers to be resistant to theoretical future quantum computer architectures. They fund research every year to prove various properties of crypto systems. And I'll bet there are lots of fallbacks for any critical infrastructure.
You would think that a counter-espionage chief would be much more "paranoid". I would guess that in the world of intelligence, getting "ironclad evidence" of something is probably the exception and not the rule.
From a state point of view, a false positive will cost you the life of a citizen - very unfortunate, and a tragedy - but in the end nobody is irreplaceable.
A false negative exposes the state at risk, which affects everybody, possibly leading to catastrophe. In a risk vs reward scenario, it's vastly better to have a false positive vs a false negative.
But this is not an easy decision to make. We are humans, and emotions and empathy are very strong - we don't want to hurt anybody, and normal people are reluctant to hurt other people no matter how logical it seems.
This is why you want a paranoid in charge - somebody that is so afraid of making a disastrous mistake that the emphaty and emotions are suppressed.
We search and copy laptops and phones at borders, with no kind of court order.
We put non-dangerous people in jail for weeks because they can't pay $500 bond, even though it costs us more to have them in jail than to just forgo the bond payment.
It was just on 60 Minutes last night that in Cook County IL, people are being held in prison so long before being convicted, that by the time they are convicted, they've already served their sentence, and often have served way more than their sentence.
I can forgive the Chinese for killing or imprisoning US spies. I'm sure we do the same thing or worse. As far as I'm concerned, the US has lost any moral high ground when it comes to imprisonment.
You might also try The Honourable Schoolboy by John Le Carré. Set primarily in Hong Kong, it's part spy novel, part sweeping tour of Southeast Asia just as the last dominos are falling to Communism in the 1970s. Although it's technically in the George Smiley series, I don't think you really need to read those in any particular order.
Steinhauer if you like beach reads/page turners. Le Carré if you like a more literary slow-burner.
Also, Tiger Trap was an interesting nonfiction read on US-China spying.
E7ther biases, or possibly about to change sharply in age of Trump.
how can the CIA conclude the problem is resolved when they have no idea what the problem is? this sounds exactly like a government report to CYA (all too familiar if you've ever worked for the USG).
It goes both ways. Geopolitical peers and adversaries always spy on each other.
But you like to put things in boxes dontcha.
There is a lot to be said about obama era failures on a lot of different levels. Which includes intelligence agencies performance.
That sends very strong signal about how should be treat secrets.
The it is not a big deal narrative about Clinton server also helped in instilling the right sense of respect towards protecting information.
If you think that Uber culture problems and failures are Travis' fault, you cannot let Obama off the hook.
If there are still those doing this un-ironically, Trump betrays Israel's secret intel and they cry about emails instead. The mental gymnastics are insane.
> they CHOSED to publish this. Why?
> From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources.
Hillary Clinton was secretary of State from 2009 to early 2013. In October 2010, she traveled to Vietnam for the ASEAN conference while using a personal, older model Blackberry. This timeframe also overlaps with her personal email server.
> In Vietnam in particular, analysts say, there’s a concern Chinese government hackers could pull information from the Vietnamese government-owned telecom — either through an intelligence-sharing agreement with Vietnam or because Vietnamese officials make little effort to keep Chinese spies out of their networks.
I like being informed. This story is incredible - it shows a massive failure of the US system. The most likely source, a leak inside. A leak they were never truly able to detect.
It bodes for sloppiness. The incredible level of sheer sloppiness we are seeing from the deep state is beyond incredible.
If the reality is the intel services need a bad and serious reshaping, and we are watching them actively try to avoid that possibility. This article exposes a little more truth of the matter.
Our spies have been assassinated. Our most sensitive databases breached. Our own weapons stolen and used for bullshit crap coded ransom-ware. I would hope this story sticks around and becomes a talking point, but the media will strangle this out.
> They Could Buy, but Why? Meet the High-Renters
> Google, Not the Government, Is Building the Future
> Lyft and Waymo Reach Deal to Collaborate on Self-Driving Cars
> Noncompete Clauses: Signing Away the Right to Get a New Job
> How Harvard Business School Has Reshaped American Capitalism
> China's $1T Plan to Shake Up the Economic Order
> Google is transforming public education with low-cost laptops and free apps
Honestly, I really don't understand how anyone, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum, can wholesale dismiss the NYT. They do good reporting, solid analysis, and if you don't like their editorial board (just as I have little liking for the WSJ editorial board) - don't read them. This tendency to stick with a limited set a source(s) you agree with is at the core dysfunction of the US government today, imo.
If you believe this, you should definitely not read much of any single source. Including the NYT. Unless you have time to read much of many sources, which makes it full-time job.
Though I'd agree with you that if you skip reporting on current US politics, part of the world politics (e.g. all Middle East reporting) and any editorial content on left's causes du jour, NYT may be not that bad.
This is pure conjecture.
It is quite easy to do data mining on your subjects if you aren't actually bound by laws, evidence, or human rights.
The drug lords were using AS/400 mainframes decades ago to ferret out traitors. Sure, they killed a few people who weren't, but, meh, who cares, right? I can't imagine the Chinese government actually cares to any greater degree.
Unless an informant doesn't actually want any tangible benefit, there is going to be SOME trail in the electronic ether nowadays. Even the act of disabling your phone is going to be a trail nowadays.
If you simply kill off anybody who falls afoul of your "standard profile" you're going to get your intelligence agents.
Why? Because I would assume that my opponent was planting evidence to slander my people, and if I thought that they would act on hints and slanders well - I'd have a fun program of hinting and slandering the keystones of their operations (especially counter intel) as well as I could identify them.
The dominant game here is to trust your operation. The way that you win is to build as capable a trust system as you can thus enabling you to run as large an operation as possible. This is why terrorist networks operate in atoms, they are short duration by definition because they tip their hands with any action so there is no deep network building.
At work I often struggle to understand the motivations of some of my less benevolent colleagues, and this gets me into difficulty from time to time. But, the thing about the Chinese shooting the fella in the office carpark, to me, it doesn't sound like an act that is likely to forge deep bonds in the team.
do you have any reading on this?
By informing, they do take a side. It's just that now you like the side they've taken. I'm not saying that all Trump articles are completely justified - the media feeds on hyperbole and fear after all, but a large number of articles are simply trying to inform when talking about Trump.
It's only when they go hyperbolic, and exclaim themselves as the last stand against the Dark Lord that it's a bit tiresome.
4-Year-Olds Don’t Act Like Donald Trump
By ALISON GOPNIK
Comparing our president to a child is inaccurate and unfair to children.
What is it informing me about? That Trump is not literally 4 years old? Well, thanks a lot. In fact, the whole article is dedicated to describing how Trump sucks so much that comparing anybody to him is an insult. Yeah thanks for "informing" me, I'd never know it if not for NYT reporting.
For myself, I wouldn't read the WSJ expecting to agree with all of their opinion pieces, though it does happen.
At best, it's a complete reversal of Hanlon's razor, where witches and commies and whatnot are hiding behind every corner.
So in some sense I think the deep state could use a bit of a shake-up to hopefully get it back in line with what I believe are American values. At the same time I'm afraid of the short term consequences of this shake-up.
Besides, as far as feudal masters go, the US is despite their colorful history on the more benign end of the cruelty spectrum, which is really saying something about the competition.
Ultimately the regions subjected to American rule would see their conditions deteriorate further if the deep state didn't soften the brutal seesaw motion that inevitably follows the change in leadership.