Archive for the ‘China’ Category


Oct

13

Criminal Export Charges Settled with $1.25M Fine and 10-Year Denial Order


Posted by Clif Burns at 7:55 pm on October 13, 2011
Category: BISChina

Iran LaptopNew-York based electronics wholesaler Earlier this year we reported on an indictment against New-York based electronics wholesaler Sunrise Technologies and Trading Company (“ST&TC”) and its president Jeng “Jay” Shih for exporting laptops to Iran by transshipping them through the UAE. Last Friday, the Department of Justice, along with officials of the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) announced that Shih and his company pleaded guilty to the export charges in exchange for an agreement to pay a $1.25 million criminal fine and to consent to a suspended 10-year export denial order. No jail time is contemplated by the plea agreement.

The suspended export denial order is contained in the BIS settlement documents. The suspension is conditioned on the defendants complying with the plea agreement, i.e., paying the $1.25 million fine, and on the defendants not committing any export violations during the 10-year period of the suspended denial order.

Although the judge could theoretically impose jail time during sentencing scheduled for January 13, 2012, that seems unlikely. The absence of jail time and the suspended denial order are unusual in cases like this. I can only speculate that the relative leniency of the penalty, particularly the absence of jail time, is due to a deficiency in the government’s case which I pointed out in my initial posting on the indictment. Although the government had evidence that Shih knew that the computers that he was shipping to the UAE were ultimately destined for Iran, he also said in conversations with the government’s informant that he believed his actions were legal because he was only exporting the items to the UAE. A criminal export violation requires knowledge by the defendant that his actions are illegal and it appears that was going to be difficult to prove here.

Obviously this is only speculation on my part and there may have been other factors involved in the lenient treatment of Mr. Shih and his company. Still, my speculation seems pretty reasonable in this case.

Permalink Comments (3)

Bookmark and Share



Jan

12

Hey Big Brother


Posted by Clif Burns at 10:18 pm on January 12, 2011
Category: BISChinaForeign Export ControlsWassenaar

Johan Gadolin
ABOVE: Johan Gadolin,
discoverer of yttrium


China Daily is a great source of unintentional humor, and I really wish I had more time to peruse it. I did stumble across a recent opinion piece in China Daily on the rare earth export issue and, not surprisingly, there is much to snicker about in it, unless, of course, your business depends on the availabilities of the lanthanides, known to us non-technical sorts as the rare earth elements.

China initially justified its restrictions on exports of the lanthanides as a measure to encourage companies using lanthanides to relocate to China. Article XI of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs generally prohibits export quotas unless they fall within the exceptions set forth in Section 2 of Article XI or Article XX. Not surprisingly, efforts to distort international trade by forcing companies to relocate to the country imposing the quota is not within the exceptions set forth in GATT.

Somewhat later China began to cite the environmental impact of rare earth mining as a justification for the quotas. That argument was easily dismissed as a transparent ruse because China imposed no restrictions on rare earth mining for domestic use, no matter how loudly they complained the foreign exports of rare earths were killing Chinese workers.

Now, the article referenced by this post attempts to concoct another justification for its export quotas: national security. The article starts with a slam at the Wassenaar Arrangement which it claims is some kind of anti-socialist conspiracy by capitalist Western nations and a broad-based justification for China to impose any export controls it can dream up:

Export regulation was originally introduced for security issues. After World War II, the United States and other countries established the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) against socialist countries; its successor, in effect today, is the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

In recent years the restrictions have become ever tighter. On June 19, 2007, the US Ministry [sic] of Commerce listed more than 2,500 kinds of technologies, devices, and materials banned [sic] for export to China.

Those familiar with the 2007 rule cited by China Daily, may wonder where the author came up with the idea that 2,500 kinds of technologies were banned for export. The rule imposed certain new license requirements for dual use items destined for use by the Chinese military but did not ban those exports. There were bans on items controlled for nuclear proliferation, missile technology, or chemical and biological warfare that would contribute to major Chinese weapons systems, but the 2,500 number is more than a little high as an estimate of the number of technologies involved.

More importantly, China’s claim that these restrictions are premised on national security would be more convincing if it had been its initial justification. And, of course, the Wassenaar list, which represents not a capitalist conspiracy but a multilateral consensus of strategic goods that require export controls, would permit China to exert export controls on the items on that list, items that don’t include the lanthanides.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Oct

14

White House Authorizes Temporary Export of C-130s to China


Posted by Clif Burns at 9:06 pm on October 14, 2010
Category: Arms ExportChina

C-130Last Friday the White House notified Congress that it intended to waive the arms embargo to permit the temporary export of C-130 cargo transport aircraft to China. The waiver was granted at the request of an unnamed European company that uses the aircraft in oil spill cleanup operations and would permit these aircraft to land in China. A temporary export license would be required and would be granted on a case-by-case basis, likely restricted to the oil spill scenario that served as a basis for the waiver.

Nevertheless, the usual suspects are predictably upset and see this as a slippery slope that culminates in the U.S selling fighter jets and atomic bombs to China

The C-130 proposal is obviously a toe in the water and, as such, should be rejected,” said John Bolton, former undersecretary of state for international security. “This administration seems to have two messages about America for foreign governments: weak and weaker.”

An administration official said that the waiver was not intended to allow the sale and export of C-130s to the Chinese government.

Permalink Comments Off

Bookmark and Share



Aug

26

Export Licenses For Radar Sales to Taiwan Complicate US-China Relations


Posted by Clif Burns at 8:51 pm on August 26, 2010
Category: Arms ExportChina

Chinese Military  PosterThere was an interesting colloquy on Tuesday during the State Department’s daily press briefing. After Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley announced the approval of export licenses to permit sale of military radar systems and components to Taiwan, one reporter asked what China’s reaction would be to the sale. China, of course, objects to all military sales to Taiwan, but Crowley dodged the question, saying ” I’ll let China react to this as they see fit.”

QUESTION: Just a quick one. As far as this – the Pentagon report to Congress on China, how much concern do you have as far as Chinese military buildup?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it is a – it is something that we watch closely. It’s something that other countries in the region watch closely. We would like to have a fuller military-to-military relationship and dialogue so that we can better understand China’s long-term military plans, and that is something that we continue to seek.

What Crowley doesn’t mention is that it was China that cut off military-to-military contact between the U.S. and China last January after the last announcement of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. These new sales aren’t likely to change the situation.

Permalink Comments (1)

Bookmark and Share



Feb

8

Do Not Open That Email Attachment


Posted by Clif Burns at 10:11 am on February 8, 2010
Category: ChinaTechnical Data Export

Big News!Everyone that has sensitive data (including, of course, ITAR-controlled data) on their computers networks should read this sobering article in Wired, which reveals, for the first time that I am aware of, the methodology, extent and scope of Chinese cyber-attacks on U.S. computer networks. After you read this article, there will be no question in your mind that these attacks are orchestrated and carried out by the Chinese government, even though the Chinese government is currently issuing risible denials of its involvement. Also, you will never open an email attachment again from anyone. The problem is, of course, that someone on your network will.

Called Advanced Persistent Threats (APT), the attacks are distinctive in the kinds of data the attackers target, and they are rarely detected by antivirus and intrusion programs. What’s more, the intrusions grab a foothold into a company’s network, sometimes for years, even after a company has discovered them and taken corrective measures. …

The Heartland and RBS attackers, and other criminal hackers of their ilk, tend to use SQL injections attacks to breach front-end servers. The APT attackers, however, employ undetectable zero-day exploits and social engineering techniques against company employees to breach networks.

… They attempt to take every Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and Adobe PDF document from every machine they compromise, as well as all e-mail, says Mandia. …

Last year, for example, an unidentified defense contractor discovered 100 compromised systems on its network, and found that the intruders had been inside since at least 2007.

APT attackers also appear to be well-funded and well-organized. In some cases, Mandiant has found multiple groups inside a network, each pursuing their own data in a seemingly uncoordinated fashion. …

Many entities don’t discover a breach until someone from law enforcement tells them. By then, it’s too late.

“By the time the government is telling you, you’ve already lost the stuff you didn’t want to lose usually,” Mandia says, noting that it’s generally not possible to ascertain everything that an attacker took.

While APT attacks are sophisticated, they use simple techniques to gain initial entry and, once inside, adhere to a pattern.

For starters, the attackers conduct reconnaissance to identify workers to target in spear-phishing attacks — such as key executives, researchers and administrative assistants who have access to sensitive information — and then send malicious e-mails or instant messages that appear to come from a trusted colleague or friend.

The e-mails have an attachment or link to a ZIP file containing zero-day malware that exploits Microsoft Office or Adobe Reader vulnerabilities. Google employees received an e-mail with malware that exploited a vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6 that Microsoft had not yet publicly disclosed.

Once the attackers have a foothold on one system, they focus on obtaining elevated access privileges to burrow further into the network. They do this by grabbing employee password hashes from network domain controllers — and either brute-force decrypt them or use a pass-the-hash tool that tricks the system into giving them access with the encrypted hash.

Not only should you be extremely cautious about email attachments and forwarded links, even from trusted friends, but also you might think about taking down your entry on LinkedIn or other business networking sites. Unless, of course, it’s already too late.

Permalink Comments (4)

Bookmark and Share