Sunday, April 10, 2016

I Don’t Believe I’m Black And Beautiful

I do not think that I am beautiful. 

Whether or not I actually am is irrelevant, but whether I think that I am has become a constant source of preoccupation for me in recent months. Not feeling beautiful worries me for one specific reason: it feels like a defeat.

All women are forced to deal with unrealistic and harmful beauty standards. All women are expected by society to base their self-worth on the way they look — or, rather, the way in which the way they look garners them attention and approval from men. 
It’s a messed-up system, but what I’ve always struggled with is the thing we never really want to talk about: the hierarchy of the system. For black women, the harsh realities of beauty standards are twofold: we’re socialized to feel less than beautiful specifically because we are black. Why else did a black model’s naturally large lips receive so much hate comments on Instagram last week, when big lips on white woman like Kyle Jenner and Angelina Jolie are praised? The things that make us black women, our big lips or big butts or kinky hair, are singled out as the main factors that we must change about ourselves in order to be more attractive, in order to be more acceptable.

Skin-lightening creams and relaxers are marketed to us, and while of course there have been important movement towards accepting who we are naturally, thanks to events like BET’s Black Girls Rock! and hashtags like #flexinmycomplexion, the mainstream still doesn’t seem to fully get it. 

Recently, a Latina friend of mine was lamenting being the darkest amongst her three sisters. I had to stretch myself to sympathize and empathize with her, understanding the cultural differences and nuances that could allow her to say “I hate being so dark” to me, despite the fact that she is five shades lighter than I am. Despite the fact that with her loose curls and much lighter skin, hers is a beauty that’s far more palatable than mine. 

The journey to better self-esteem, to self-love and acceptance for the black woman, seems always to hinge on the journey of accepting those things that make us black. I struggle with this too. I’ve written before about the fact that in spite of having dark skin and kinky hair, I’ve never had a complex about those things. I’ve never looked at my dark skin in the mirror and wished that it was lighter. I’ve never prayed for straight blonde hair and blue eyes.

But black self-esteem, of course, does not hinge only on colorism. That’s the dominating narrative, but it isn’t the only one. It’s far more complex than just the “color of your skin.” Being black and a woman, society would have us all believe, means being at the very bottom of the totem pole, and we have that to grapple with as well. While dating and desirability shouldn’t be the main marker we use to define beauty, it’s still incredibly telling that, according to OKCupid data, black women are the least desired in the dating world compared to white women and other women of colour. 

The messaging is out there. It permeates pop culture, from movies to magazines, and trickles down into the real world. As a young girl, I had examples of black beauty all around me, in my mother and my aunts, my sister, my friends. That helped. But I was always hyper-aware of the kinds of black women who were praised universally for their beauty — women like Halle Berry and Beyonce, women with light features and button noses. And when dark women were praised in the mainstream, they were regarded largely as novelties, exotic anomalies — the fetishisation of Lupita Wyong'o and Alex Wek’s dark skin is a perfect example of this.  

I want to be uninterested in beauty; I want to be uninterested in the idea that self-esteem only has to do with the way one looks. But in a society where black beauty is so invisible, so little celebrated, it’s impossible not to be preoccupied with it. That’s the crux. Beauty isn’t and shouldn’t be the scale by which we measure our self-worth and validation. But for black women, the constant bombardment of negative messaging sometimes makes it so hard to separate those things from one another. 

For me, the struggle of black beauty is not accepting that it exists in this world. I see black beauty everywhere — I see it in my family and friends; I see the complexity and the range of black beauty in women I don’t know but admire, women like First Lady Michelle Obama, or the French-Senegalese actress Aissa Maiga, or the singer SZA, or the model and activist Bethann Hardison. The struggle is very personal. I can see our collective beauty, I can celebrate it in others, but I can’t celebrate it in myself.

It feels contradictory and hypocritical, to celebrate the beauty of black women but be perpetually unable to recognize my own. To be black and to be beautiful and to recognize, appreciate, and accept your own beauty is in itself a kind of revolutionary act. I believe that. That’s why I feel defeated — thinking I’m not beautiful, that I’m in fact ugly, feels like I’m giving in to all the lies that have been subliminally broadcast to me and every young black woman out there. I haven’t quite figured out how to change the narrative, but maybe at least being aware of it, at least wanting to change, is a kind of tiny victory. 
Zeba Blay

THE CORRUPTION OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA




It’s clear to anyone of sound mind that the Irish police force has become corrupt and unaccountable. What may have started as a fairly trivial investigation into the systemic erosion of penalty points has underpinned what many have believed for some time now, the Gardaí are above the laws they purport to uphold. Here is a brief summary of the important, inter-linked issues to date.

Penalty Points – The Gardaí have been wiping people’s penalty points from their licenses as personal favours on an enormous scale. At first glance, a typically Irish brand of parochial corruption but the story goes much deeper.

War on Whistleblowers – The mechanisms by which Gardaí can report wrongdoing within the force have proven to be a sham. Gardaí can supposedly approach the office of the Confidential Recipient, a subset of the Department of Justice, anonymously and blow the whistle on internal corruption. However the case is then referred to the Garda Commissioner to investigate so it can be a case of senior Gardaí investing senior Gardaí. The internal report into the penalty points found no evidence of corruption surprisingly enough, a report which didn’t even interview the very whistleblowers who raised the issue in the first place. The Gardaí have a long record of harassing and frustrating the work of whistleblowers in the past including the two officers who revealed the penalty points scandal. Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan described the actions of the whistleblowers as “disgusting”.

The Media – Irish Independent journalist Gemma O’Doherty who was investigating the penalty points corruption, was internally disciplined for calling to Garda Commisioner Martin Callinan’s house for comment, a fairly typical journalistic tactic. A few weeks later, she was offered a “voluntary redundancy” despite having been one of the paper’s top investigative reporters for over a decade. It subsequently emerged, though absolutely nowhere in the Irish media, that the Irish Independent’s editor in chief Stephen Rae, a former editor of the Garda Review magazine, had his penalty points wiped clean.

Cold Case –Father Niall Molloy was murdered in 1985 in an inheritance quarrel seemingly lifted from John B. Keane’s The Field. Evidence was contaminated, key witnesses were not interviewed and the Judge was a family friend of the accused. Where the Gardaí come in is intriguing. Martin Cahill, ‘The General’ and one of Ireland’s most infamous crimes bosses, stole files from the Director of Public Prosecution’s office, files that contained details of the case previously unknown to the public. Journalist Veronica Guerin then revealed some of Cahill’s information which exposed the pathetic Gardai investigation into the murder and the willingness of the DPP to cover it up.

So concerned were the Gardai with retrieving Cahill’s stolen files that, according to crime reporter Paul Williams, they cut a deal with him to drop charges against his associate John Traynor, one of the most notorious gangsters in Ireland. The Molloy case was reopened but despite the overwhelming amounts of evidence for a cover-up and at least mass negligence, nothing ever came of it. The journalist who took up the case and forced the State to reopen it? Gemma O’Doherty of the Irish Independent.

GSOC and former Minister Alan Shatter – One of the whistleblowing Gardai involved in the penalty points case was told by the office of the Confidential Recipient that Minister Alan Shatter “will go after you” if he were to proceed with his complaints. In addition, GSOC, the Garda Ombudsman, discovered that its office had been bugged last year but did not approach Minister Shatter over the issue, clearly in fear or knowledge that he would not do anything about it. The Gardaí have denied bugging the office but the question of who else would bug the office of a body charged with supervising the state’s police force springs to mind.


Rather than address this essential question of who bugged GSOC, Minister Shatter had sought to downplay the event and even focus his criticism on the comparably insignificant matter of GSOC failing to inform him of this security breach at an earlier date.

Written by Greg McInerney

Saturday, April 9, 2016

The problem with Panama: It’s all legal



Frank Flannery. Picture: Gareth Chaney

I never cease to be amazed at how good some people are with money. Take Frank Flannery. Twenty years ago when he was working for Rehab, the charity that champions people with disabilities, he bought a house in London for £615,000. This would be the equivalent today of forking out more than €2m for a pad. And you thought those kind of living quarters were the exclusive preserve of wealthy businesspeople, bankers, lawyers, and accountants? No sir, if you watch the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves.
Frank was moving to London to continue his work with the group and needed a place to live. The Bank of Ireland sorted him out for a large mortgage. Except, as the Panama papers published this week revealed, he also had a mysterious benefactor.
A letter written by the bank refers to further security for the mortgage coming from an offshore company based in Jersey to the amount of £250,000. Frank has reacted to this news with astonishment, saying he is “a stranger to the matter”.

Maybe it was somebody who admired the good work Frank was doing with Rehab, and weighed in ‘on the QT’ to help him find a half-decent place to lay his head.
Or maybe it was somebody who admired the good work Frank had done in Fine Gael. Until recently, he was a major force in the party for the last 35 years. Supporting the democratic process is an admirable pursuit often favoured by shy, rich folk. Maybe somebody thought that sorting out Frank without his knowledge was a nod towards good politics.
Between the cost of the house — located in salubrious Primrose Hill — and the mysterious benefactor, the revelations about Frank’s home affairs once more demonstrate to mere mortals how it is that those with wealth and connections can really live.

The most interesting aspect of Frank’s Panama story — apart from his ignorance of the whole thing — is that it was all perfectly legal. Wealthy individuals can shovel a quarter of a million into an offshore account out of the reach of national agencies. They can set up a myriad of companies and accounts through law firms such as Mossack Fonseca, from which the Panama papers emerged. They can move money around, engaging in major tax avoidance — the legal version of tax evasion. And they are assisted by no shortage of banks, lawyers, and accountants, all taking a generous slice on the pie. It’s their world, we just live in it.
This is all legal, because there is no political will to ensure that wealthy individuals and corporations pay something at least approaching their fair share.

Thomas Piketty, the French economist who has written about global inequality, reckons that up to six trillion dollars could be squirrelled away in a manner that ensures little or no tax is paid on it. That’s six thousand billion dollars.
Hiding money and assets is accommodated mainly because most of those engaged in it are well-connected, particularly to politicians who make the laws.
Why would lawmakers discommode friends who are influential and supportive? Of course, every now and then, the smell becomes a little overpowering and a morsel of law is thrown at the peasants to quieten them.

Even within that context, laws are useless without a willingness to enforce. Back in the 1980s, when this country was on its knees, there was a massive off-shore tax fraud for the middle classes. Bogus non-resident bank accounts were opened up by hundreds of thousands of people who were resident in the State.
The accounts were exempt from Deposit Interest Retention Tax, and beyond the reach of the taxman. So if you shovelled in undeclared money, you won on both counts. Many did, at a cost of hundreds of millions, to an exchequer that was in dire need of money.
In his 1987 budget speech, Minister for Finance Ray McSharry scoffed at the notion that there was some sort of a scam afoot.

“There appears to be some misconception about the tax status of non-resident deposits,” he said. “Let me make the position clear. Such deposits are entirely free of retention tax in our jurisdiction. I can give assurances that we have no intention of changing this arrangement. Non-residents can lodge deposits here in complete confidence.”
Yet a few weeks earlier his department had been warned by the State-owned TSB bank that “a large number of non-resident accounts held in certain commercial banks are not genuine”.
Throughout this period, another scam, this one for those with serious wealth and connections, was taking place through Charlie Haughey’s bagman, Des Traynor.
The Ansbacher accounts facilitated more than 200 individuals with offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands. Considering whom Traynor was, and that he was skimming the accounts to feed Charlie, it’s little wonder that there were no great efforts at the time to investigate.

Charles Haughty
Today, whether it be individuals or corporations, the laws are fashioned to ensure that money can be shifted around the globe in a manner that allows for taxation to be treated as little more than an irritant.
This country is regarded in some quarters as a corporate tax haven. In 2013, Apple confirmed that it paid just 2% tax on two of its Irish subsidiaries.
Imagine that? We, the citizens, offer one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the developed world at 12.5%, yet the tech giant managed to legally pay less than a fifth of that.
Last week, Barack Obama made a rare intervention on behalf of US citizens. A multi-billion dollar deal between pharma giants Pfizers and Allergan would have seen their combined tax bill shrink. The process involved the smaller company being backed into the larger one in a process called “inversion”. Obama blocked this kind of deal by executive order.
It was a small move, but one that reflected a growing anger among the wider population.
History has shown that the political will to take on vested interests only gains momentum when the injustices are too obvious and severe to ignore any longer.

In the aftermath of a major recession across the developed world, the issue of tax injustice is growing larger by the day. This week’s publication of the Panama papers can only add to the growing cacophony for it to be addressed in a coherent and decisive manner.
Meanwhile, Frank Flannery sold his London pile in 2012 for £2.8m. By then, he had left his post in Rehab, but was engaged in consultancy work for the charity which netted him in excess of €350,000 over seven years. Much of this work involved lobbying the politicians whom he had helped elect.

When issues over Rehab blew up in controversy, Mr Flannery refused to appear before a Dáil committee. He claimed to be victimised by politicians. Right up until last Sunday, he had been a prominent media pundit, expounding on what politicians should do in the national interest.

Now he has been victimised again by this leak about something of which he is entirely ignorant. The world is just so unfair sometimes.

Michael Clifford

Confessions of a political hacker who rigged elections for a decade


Ándres Sepúlveda in the undisclosed maximum-security building of the general attorneys office in Bogotá. Picture: Juan Arredondo

IT WAS just before midnight when Enrique Peña Nieto declared victory as the newly elected president of Mexico. Peña Nieto was a lawyer and a millionaire, from a family of mayors and governors. His wife was a star of a telenovela soap opera.
He beamed as he was showered with red, green, and white confetti at the Mexico City headquarters of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which had ruled for more than 70 years before being forced out in 2000. Returning the party to power on that night in July 2012, Peña Nieto vowed to tame drug violence, fight corruption, and open a more transparent era in Mexican politics.

Two thousand miles away, in an apartment in Bogotá’s upscale Chicó Navarra neighbourhood, Andrés Sepúlveda sat before six computer screens. Sepúlveda is Colombian, bricklike, with a shaved head, goatee, and a tattoo of a QR code containing an encryption key on the back of his head. On his nape are the words “</head>” and “<body>” stacked atop each other, dark riffs on coding. He was watching a live feed of Peña Nieto’s victory party, waiting for an official declaration of the results.

When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives, hard drives, and mobile phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with a hammer.
He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.
For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he travelled the continent rigging major political campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex.
He led a team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto, a right-of-centre candidate, eke out a victory.

On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.
Sepúlveda’s career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small — mostly defacing campaign websites and breaking into opponents’ donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America.
He wasn’t cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could hack smartphones, spoof and clone web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts.
The premium package, at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met only a few.

His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico’s PRI and the campaign of Guatemala’s National Advancement Party would comment.
As a child, he witnessed the violence of Colombia’s Marxist guerrillas. As an adult, he allied with a right wing emerging across Latin America. He believed his hacking was no more diabolical than the tactics of those he opposed, such as Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega.
Many of Sepúlveda’s efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the 21st century.

“My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda, rumours — the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see,” he says in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily fortified offices of Colombia’s attorney general’s office.

He’s serving 10 years in prison for charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia’s 2014 presidential election. He has agreed to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he’s rehabilitated — and gather support for a reduced sentence.
Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant who’s been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal, and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave of their relationship, but admits knowing him and using him to do website design.

“If I talked to him maybe once or twice, it was in a group session about that, about the web,” he says. “I don’t do illegal stuff at all. There is negative campaigning. They don’t like it — OK. But if it’s legal, I’m gonna do it. I’m not a saint, but I’m not a criminal.”
While Sepúlveda’s policy was to destroy all data at the completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted third parties as a secret “insurance policy”.
Sepúlveda provided what he says are emails showing conversations between him, Rendón, and Rendón’s consulting firm concerning hacking and the progress of campaign-related cyber attacks.

Rendón says the emails are fake. An analysis by an independent computer security firm said a sample of the emails they examined appeared authentic.
Some of Sepúlveda’s descriptions of his actions match published accounts of events during various election campaigns, but other details couldn’t be independently verified. One person working on the campaign in Mexico, who asked not to be identified out of fear for his safety, substantially confirmed Sepúlveda’s accounts of his and Rendón’s roles in that election.
Sepúlveda says he was offered several political jobs in Spain, which he says he turned down because he was too busy. On the question of whether the US presidential campaign is being tampered with, he is unequivocal. “I’m 100% sure it is,” he says.

Sepúlveda grew up poor in Bucaramanga, eight hours north of Bogotá by car. His mother was a secretary. His father was an activist, helping farmers find better crops to grow than coca plants, and the family moved constantly because of death threats from drug traffickers.
His parents divorced, and by the age of 15, after failing school, he went to live with his father in Bogotá and used a computer for the first time. He later enrolled in a local technology school and, through a friend there, learned to code.

In 2005, Sepúlveda’s older brother, a publicist, was helping with the congressional campaigns of a party aligned with then-Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. Uribe was a hero of the brothers, a US ally who strengthened the military to fight the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

During a visit to party headquarters, Sepúlveda took out his laptop and began scanning the office’s wireless network. He easily tapped into the computer of Rendón, the party’s strategist, and downloaded Uribe’s work schedule and upcoming speeches. Sepúlveda says Rendón was furious — then hired him on the spot. Rendón says this never happened.
For decades, Latin American elections were rigged, not won, and the methods were pretty straightforward. Local fixers would hand out everything from small appliances to cash in exchange for votes. But in the 1990s, electoral reforms swept the region.

Voters were issued tamper-proof ID cards, and nonpartisan institutes ran the elections in several countries. The modern campaign, at least a version North Americans might recognise, had arrived in Latin America.
Rendón had already begun a successful career based partly, according to his critics — and more than one lawsuit — on a mastery of dirty tricks and rumour-mongering.

(In 2014, El Salvador’s then- president Carlos Mauricio Funes accused Rendón of orchestrating dirty war campaigns throughout Latin America. Rendón sued in Florida for defamation, but the court dismissed the case on the grounds that Funes couldn’t be sued for his official acts.)
The son of democracy activists, he studied psychology and worked in advertising before advising presidential candidates in his native Venezuela. After accusing then-President Chávez of vote rigging in 2004, he left and never went back.

SEPÚLVEDA’S first hacking job, he says, was breaking into an Uribe rival’s website, stealing a database of email addresses, and spamming the accounts with disinformation. He was paid $15,000 in cash for a month’s work, five times as much as he made in his previous job designing websites.
Sepúlveda was dazzled by Rendón, who owned a fleet of luxury cars, wore big flashy watches, and spent thousands on tailored coats. Like Sepúlveda, he was a perfectionist. His staff was expected to arrive early and work late. “I was very young,” Sepúlveda says. “I did what I liked, I was paid well and travelled. It was the perfect job.”

But more than anything, their right-wing politics aligned. Sepúlveda says he saw Rendón as a genius and a mentor. A devout Buddhist and practitioner of martial arts, according to his own website, Rendón cultivated an image of mystery and menace, wearing only all-black in public, including the occasional samurai robe.
On his website he calls himself the political consultant who is the “best paid, feared the most, attacked the most, and also the most demanded and most efficient”. Sepúlveda would have a hand in that.

Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe’s turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television and in newspapers.

He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts.

The software let him quickly change names, profile pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard — or, as he puts it, “When I realised that people believe what the internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to make people believe almost anything.”
According to Sepúlveda, his payments were made in cash, half upfront. When he travelled, he used a fake passport and stayed alone in a hotel, far from campaign staff. No one could bring a smartphone or camera into his room.

Most jobs were initiated in person. Sepúlveda says Rendón would give him a piece of paper with target names, email addresses, and phone numbers. Sepúlveda would take the note to his hotel, enter the data into an encrypted file, then burn the page or flush it down the toilet. If Rendón needed to send an email, he used coded language. To “caress” meant to attack; to “listen to music” meant to intercept a target’s phone calls.
Rendón and Sepúlveda took pains not to be seen together. They communicated over encrypted phones, which they replaced every two months. Sepúlveda says he sent daily progress reports and intelligence briefings from throwaway email accounts to a go-between in Rendón’s consulting firm.

Each job ended with a specific, colour-coded destruct sequence. On election day, Sepúlveda would purge all data classified as “red”. Those were files that could send him and his handlers to prison: intercepted phone calls and emails, lists of hacking victims, and confidential briefings he prepared for the campaigns.
All phones, hard drives, flash drives, and computer servers were physically destroyed. Less-sensitive “yellow” data — travel schedules, salary spreadsheets, fundraising plans — were saved to an encrypted thumb drive and given to the campaigns for one final review. A week later it, too, would be destroyed.

For most jobs, Sepúlveda assembled a crew and operated out of rental homes and apartments in Bogotá. He had a rotating group of 7 to 15 hackers brought in from across Latin America, drawing on the various regions’ specialties. Brazilians, in his view, develop the best malware. Venezuelans and Ecuadoreans are superb at scanning systems and software for vulnerabilities. Argentines are mobile intercept artists. Mexicans are masterly hackers in general but talk too much. Sepúlveda used them only in emergencies.

The assignments lasted anywhere from a few days to several months. In Honduras, Sepúlveda defended the communications and computer systems of presidential candidate Porfirio Lobo Sosa from hackers employed by his competitors.
In Guatemala, he digitally eavesdropped on six political and business figures, and says he delivered the data to Rendón on encrypted flash drives at dead drops. (Sepúlveda says it was a small job for a client of Rendón’s who has ties to the right-wing National Advancement Party, or PAN. The PAN says it never hired Rendón and has no knowledge of any of his claimed activities.)

In Nicaragua in 2011, Sepúlveda attacked Ortega, who was running for his third presidential term. In one of the rare jobs in which he was working for a client other than Rendón, he broke into the email account of Rosario Murillo, Ortega’s wife and the government’s chief spokeswoman, and stole a trove of personal and government secrets.

In Venezuela in 2012, the team abandoned its usual caution, animated by disgust with Chávez. With Chávez running for his fourth term, Sepúlveda posted an anonymized YouTube clip of himself rifling through the email of one of the most powerful people in Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, then president of the National Assembly. He also went outside his tight circle of trusted hackers and rallied Anonymous, the hacktivist group, to attack Chávez’s website.
After Sepúlveda hacked Cabello’s Twitter account, Rendón seemed to congratulate him. “Eres noticia :)” — you’re news — he wrote in a September 9, 2012, email, linking to a story about the breach. (Rendón says he never sent such an email.) Sepúlveda provided screen shots of a dozen emails, and many of the original emails, showing that from November 2011 to September 2012 Sepúlveda sent long lists of government websites he hacked for various campaigns to a senior member of Rendón’s consulting firm, lacing them with hacker slang (“Owned!” read one).
Two weeks before Venezuela’s presidential election, Sepúlveda sent screen shots showing how he’d hacked Chávez’s website and could turn it on and off at will.

Chávez won but died five months later of cancer, triggering an emergency election, won by Nicolás Maduro. The day before Maduro claimed victory, Sepúlveda hacked his Twitter account and posted allegations of election fraud. Blaming “conspiracy hackings from abroad”, the government of Venezuela disabled the internet across the entire country for 20 minutes.
In Mexico, Sepúlveda’s technical mastery and Rendón’s grand vision for a ruthless political machine fully came together, fuelled by the huge resources of the PRI. The years under President Felipe Calderón and the National Action Party (also, as in Partido Acción Nacional, PAN) were plagued by a grinding war against the drug cartels. As 2012 approached, the PRI offered the youthful energy of Peña Nieto, who’d just finished a successful term as governor.
Sepúlveda didn’t like the idea of working in Mexico, a dangerous country for involvement in public life. But Rendón persuaded him to travel there for short trips, starting in 2008, often flying him in on his private jet. Working at one point in Tabasco, on the sweltering Gulf of Mexico, Sepúlveda hacked a political boss who turned out to have connections to a drug cartel. After Rendón’s security team learned of a plan to kill Sepúlveda, he spent a night in an armoured Chevy Suburban before returning to Mexico City.

MEXICO is effectively a three-party system, and Peña Nieto faced opponents from both right and left. On the right, the ruling PAN nominated Josefina Vázquez Mota, its first female presidential candidate. On the left, the Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, chose Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor.

Early polls showed Peña Nieto 20 points ahead, but his supporters weren’t taking chances. Sepúlveda’s team installed malware in routers in the headquarters of the PRD candidate, which let him tap the phones and computers of anyone using the network, including the candidate.
He took similar steps against PAN’s Vázquez Mota. When the candidates’ teams prepared policy speeches, Sepúlveda had the details as soon as a speechwriter’s fingers hit the keyboard. Sepúlveda saw the opponents’ upcoming meetings and campaign schedules before their own teams did.
Money was no problem. At one point, Sepúlveda spent $50,000 on high-end Russian software that made quick work of tapping Apple, BlackBerry, and Android phones. He also splurged on the very best fake Twitter profiles; they’d been maintained for at least a year, giving them a patina of believability.

Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion around topics such as Peña Nieto’s plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with views that real users would mimic.
For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency issue was a major vulnerability; he’d read it in the candidate’s own internal staff memos.
Just about anything the digital dark arts could offer to Peña Nieto’s campaign or important local allies, Sepúlveda and his team provided. On election night, he had computers call tens of thousands of voters with prerecorded phone messages at 3 am in the critical swing state of Jalisco.

The calls appeared to come from the campaign of popular left-wing gubernatorial candidate Enrique Alfaro Ramírez. That angered voters — that was the point — and Alfaro lost by a slim margin. In another governor’s race, in Tabasco, Sepúlveda set up fake Facebook accounts of gay men claiming to back a conservative Catholic candidate representing the PAN, a stunt designed to alienate his base.
“I always suspected something was off,” the candidate, Gerardo Priego, said recently when told how Sepúlveda’s team manipulated social media in the campaign.
In May, Peña Nieto visited Mexico City’s university and was bombarded by angry chants and boos from students. The rattled candidate retreated with his bodyguards into an adjacent building, hiding, according to some social media posts, in a bathroom. The images were a disaster. López Obrador soared.

The PRI was able to recover after one of López Obrador’s consultants was caught on tape asking businessmen for $6m to fund his candidate’s broke campaign, in possible violation of Mexican laws.
Although the hacker says he doesn’t know the origin of that recording, Sepúlveda and his team had been intercepting the communications of the consultant, Luis Costa Bonino, for months. (On Februrary 2, 2012, Rendón appears to have sent him three email addresses and a phone number belonging to Costa Bonino in an email called “Job”.)

Sepúlveda’s team disabled the consultant’s personal website and directed journalists to a clone site. There they posted what looked like a long defense written by Costa Bonino, which casually raised questions about whether his Uruguayan roots violated Mexican restrictions on foreigners in elections. Costa Bonino left the campaign a few days later. He indicated recently that he knew he was being spied on, he just didn’t know how. It goes with the trade in Latin America: “Having a phone hacked by the opposition is not a novelty. When I work on a campaign, the assumption is that everything I talk about on the phone will be heard by the opponents.”
The press office for Peña Nieto declined to comment. A spokesman for the PRI said the party has no knowledge of Rendón working for any PRI campaign. Rendón says he has worked on behalf of PRI candidates in Mexico for 16 years, from August 2000 until today.
In 2012, Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos, Uribe’s successor, unexpectedly restarted peace talks with the FARC, hoping to end a 50-year war. Furious, Uribe, whose father was killed by FARC guerrillas, created a party and backed an alternative candidate, Oscar Iván Zuluaga, who opposed the talks.

Rendón, who was working for Santos, wanted Sepúlveda to join his team, but Sepúlveda turned him down. He considered Rendón’s willingness to work for a candidate supporting peace with the FARC a betrayal and suspected the consultant was going soft, choosing money over principles. Sepúlveda says he was motivated by ideology first and money second, and that if he wanted to get rich he could have made a lot more hacking financial systems than elections. For the first time, he decided to oppose his mentor.
Sepúlveda went to work for the opposition, reporting directly to Zuluaga’s campaign manager, Luis Alfonso Hoyos. (Zuluaga denies any knowledge of hacking; Hoyos couldn’t be reached for comment.) Together, Sepúlveda says, they came up with a plan to discredit the president by showing that the guerrillas continued to traffic in drugs and violence even as they talked about peace.

Within months, Sepúlveda hacked the phones and email accounts of more than 100 militants, including the FARC’s leader, Rodrigo Londoño, also known as Timochenko. After assembling a thick file on the FARC, including evidence of the group’s suppression of peasant votes in the countryside, Sepúlveda agreed to accompany Hoyos to the offices of a Bogotá TV news program and present the evidence.
It may not have been wise to work so doggedly and publicly against a party in power. A month later, Sepúlveda was smoking on the terrace of his Bogotá office when he saw a caravan of police vehicles pull up. Forty black-clad commandos raided the office to arrest him.
Sepúlveda blamed his carelessness at the TV station for the arrest. He believes someone there turned him in. In court, he wore a bulletproof vest and sat surrounded by guards with bomb shields. In the back of the courtroom, men held up pictures of his family, making a slashing gesture across their throats or holding a hand over their mouths — stay silent or else. Abandoned by former allies, he eventually pleaded guilty to espionage, hacking, and other crimes in exchange for a 10-year sentence.

THREE days after arriving at Bogotá’s La Picota prison, he went to the dentist and was ambushed by men with knives and razors, but was saved by guards. A week later, guards woke him and rushed him from his cell, saying they had heard about a plot to shoot him with a silenced pistol.

After national police intercepted phone calls revealing yet another plot, he’s now in solitary confinement at a maximum-security facility in Bogotá. He sleeps with a bulletproof blanket and vest at his bedside, behind bombproof doors. Guards check on him every hour.
As part of his plea deal, he says, he’s turned government witness, helping investigators assess possible cases against the former candidate, Zuluaga, and his strategist, Hoyos. Authorities tried arrest of Hoyos, but according to Colombian press reports, he’s fled to Miami.
When Sepúlveda leaves for meetings with prosecutors at the Bunker, the attorney general’s Bogotá headquarters, he travels in an armed caravan including six motorcycles speeding through the capital at 60mph, jamming cell phone signals as they go to block tracking of his movements or detonation of bombs.

In July 2015, Sepúlveda sat in the small courtyard of the Bunker, poured himself a cup of coffee from a thermos, and took out a pack of Marlboro cigarettes. He says he wants to tell his story because the public doesn’t grasp the power hackers exert over modern elections, or the skills needed to stop them.

“I worked with presidents, public figures with great power, and did many things with absolutely no regrets because I did it with full conviction and under a clear objective, to end dictatorship and socialist governments in Latin America,” he says.
“I have always said that there are two types of politics — what people see and what really makes things happen. I worked in politics that are not seen.”
Sepúlveda says he’s allowed a computer and a monitored internet connection as part of an agreement to help the attorney general’s office disrupt drug cartels.
The government will not confirm or deny that he has access to a computer, or what he’s using it for. He says he has modified Social Media Predator to counteract the kind of sabotage he used to specialise in, including jamming candidates’ Facebook walls and Twitter feeds. He’s used it to scan 700,000 tweets from pro-Islamic State accounts to learn what makes a good terror recruiter.

Sepúlveda says the program has been able to identify ISIS recruiters minutes after they create Twitter accounts and start posting, and he hopes to share the information with the US or other countries fighting the Islamist group. Samples of Sepúlveda’s code evaluated by an independent company found it authentic and substantially original.

Sepúlveda’s contention that operations like his happen on every continent is plausible, says David Maynor, who runs a security testing company in Atlanta called Errata Security. Maynor says he occasionally gets inquiries for campaign-related jobs. His company has been asked to obtain emails and other documents from candidates’ computers and phones, though the ultimate client is never disclosed. “Those activities do happen in the US, and they happen all the time,” he says.

In one case, Maynor was asked to steal data as a security test, but the individual couldn’t show an actual connection to the campaign whose security he wanted to test. In another, a potential client asked for a briefing on how a candidate’s movements could be tracked by swapping the user’s iPhone for a bugged clone. “For obvious reasons, we always turned them down,” says Maynor.

Three weeks before Sepúlveda’s arrest, Rendón was forced to resign from Santos’s campaign amid allegations in the press that he took $12m from drug traffickers and passed part of it on to the candidate, something he denies.
According to Rendón, Colombian officials interviewed him shortly afterward in Miami. Rendón says that Colombian investigators asked him about Sepúlveda and that he told them Sepúlveda’s role was limited to web development.

Rendón denies working with Sepúlveda in any meaningful capacity. “He says he worked with me in 20 places, and the truth is he didn’t,” Rendón says. “I never paid Andrés Sepúlveda a peso.”
Last year, based on anonymous sources, the Colombian media reported that Rendón was working for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Rendón calls the reports untrue. The campaign did approach him, he says, but he turned them down because he dislikes Trump.
“To my knowledge we are not familiar with this individual,” says Trump’s spokeswoman, Hope Hicks. “I have never heard of him, and the same goes for other senior staff members.”
But Rendón says he’s in talks with another leading US presidential campaign — he wouldn’t say which — to begin working for it once the primaries wrap up and the general election begins.

DIRTY WORK
Colombia
Supported re-election of Alvaro Uribe for president, 2006; congressional elections, 2006; failed campaign of Oscar Iván Zuluaga for president, 2014
Honduras
Supported Porfirio Lobo Sosa, elected president 2009

Against Daniel Ortega, 2011
Mexico

Venezuela
Against Hugo Chávez and Maduro in 2012 and 2013

Costa Rica
Supported Johnny Araya, failed presidential candidate for centre-left National Liberation Party, 2014 election
Panama

Supported Juan Carlos Navarro, presidental candidate for the centre-left Democratic Revolutionary Party, 2014 election
By Carlos Manuel Rodríguez and Matthew Bristow

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Ivan Yates to shelve media work and leave Ireland


Ivan and Deirdre Yates: The High Court ruled in February that AIB was entitled to a judgment of €1.6m against Ms Yates. It demanded repayment from her, a primary school teacher, in June 2014. Photograph: Gareth Chaney/Collins


Broadcaster and former minister Ivan Yates is to resign from his media commitments and is to leave Ireland for a second time. He has denied that the move was prompted by his family’s legal battle with AIB. 

Mr Yates will depart his role as co-presenter of Newstalk Breakfast on July 1st. He will also step down as host of TV3’s Sunday AM and stop writing a column for the Irish Independent, it is understood.

A statement on behalf of Mr Yates said he had informed Newstalk of his decision to leave in March 2015, more than a year ago. He denied suggestions that he was returning to live in Wales. “It is not true that myself or Deirdre are going to Wales. We are taking a year’s sabbatical. Our plans after that are unclear at this point,” it said.
AIB pursued his wife for monies arising from guarantees she signed on loans used to expand the Celtic Bookmakers chain, which was run by Mr Yates and collapsed in 2011.
The High Court ruled in February that AIB was entitled to a judgment of €1.6 million against Ms Yates. The bank demanded the repayment from Ms Yates, a primary school teacher, in June 2014.

Mr Yates previously moved to Swansea in Wales without his wife in 2012 in a case of so-called bankruptcy tourism.
He was declared bankrupt by a Welsh court in August 2012, qualifying for Britain’s more relaxed bankruptcy laws.

He emerged from bankruptcy in August 2013 and returned to Ireland where he resumed his role on Newstalk Breakfast that September. The show now has 171,000 listeners, making it the station’s most popular show.

Newstalk said it wanted to wish Mr Yates “the very best” and thank him for his contribution to the station.
Laura Slattery