Thanks for your comments.

As said, I agree that Markoff has certainly been one of the most informed writers on Cybersecurity issues in the past. My personal guess is that he is morally committed to the journalistic standards of his paper, with which I well acquainted. I am therefore supposing that any misdirection that has occurred (which in my mind is possible) would have arisen by an attempt of his sources to instrumentalize him, rather than the other way around. I would not impugn his journalistic integrity, but I might think his standards have slipped a bit.

I don’t agree with your view that Markoff “approaches the subject matter with sceptism” or that he has “an unwillingness to assert as fact that which wasn’t subject to independent objectively knowable verification.” The former claim is clearly incorrect, while the later is a logical fallacy – just because he claims a single source (the IEEE paper, which is hardly objective) does not count as “objectively knowable verification”. According to such criteria he is lending equal credence to a very small minority view compared to other open sources. That is misrepresentation and unbalance. I posted a link to the SPIEGEL article and I especially draw your attention to how they describe the Israeli Unit 8200 involvement, and what Markoff implies. Given that you acknowledge that misdirection “can occur” (you rightly point out that the “Suter news” might also be such) I find it strange that you exclude the possibility in this context. Finally, Markoff does not accord the “Siberian Pipeline bombing” story the caveat that is most certainly deserves (although that is quite a debate on its own).

By the way, although it has not come up: I have also heard from my own US sources various supporting claims to all of the above “stories”. Ever since I personally experienced not one but a number of (now former) senior administrative officials hopelessly get their info confused I am a bit more careful on the value of insider information.

At the same time it is my experience that, in a world of increasing “InfoWar”, people are much more eager to instrumentalize the press then previously. This has always been true, and as you probably know in your industry, there is a strong drive to commit the US government to spend a lot more money on the trusted foundry and associated programs.

To clarify again: I do not belittle the danger of hardware attacks that you, James, are certainly familiar with (indeed I am actually quite a radical on this issue). I don’t even pass judgment on the trusted foundry program, which may well the best solution. I do however very much believe that Markoff’s article was not balanced and that it was timely in its support for what happens to be an issue with “quite a budgetary overhang”.

The issue of defending us (and I mean here “us Western liberal democracies”) from the very real danger of hardware attacks is much too serious to be diluted by unbalanced reporting. Markoff’s case can be a lot stronger than that. We don’t need FUD – the true story speaks for itself.

All the best,

AK

Ab initio, I thought John Markoff’s reporting was nothing less than stellar. He approached the subject matter with skepticism, and an unwillingness to assert as fact that which wasn’t subject to independent objectively knowable verification. Markoff does acknowledge the views and opinions of those who have written on the topic, i.e., General Wesley Clark’s recent article in Foreign Affairs, but never adopts their positions as true or as his own.

Insofar as the Syrian air strike is concerned, Markoff doesn’t claim to possess independent knowledge about any of this, but rather, permits for the possibility that the Israeli’s embedded a kill switch. I’m not certain that I understand why you believe that those who speak openly about the use of a Suter jamming system during the Syrian attack are not, themselves, engaged in misdirection and self-interest.

I recently authored a paper for In-Q-Tel (commercial branch of the CIA) on this subject. I am unaware of compelling evidence to support the notion that the Israelis used a BAE Suter system (or comparable Israeli system) when disarming Syria’s radar. That doesn’t mean that no such evidence exists. Likewise, I cannot state with absolute certainty that the Israelis successfully embedded a kill switch into Syria’s radar electronics, but I am 100% certain that it was wholly within the realm of the possible for such to have occurred at that time, and am also convinced of the probability of the kill switch scenario. That said, I am thankful that I do not have to prove such in a court of law.

John Markoff is a superb reporter, with a passion for seeking out the truth; insofar as I am concerned, any suggestion to the contrary is simply inaccurate.

With warm personal regards,

Jim Kelley

http://defense-update.com/features/2008/may08/suter_v.htm