Your Computer May Be Watching You

Written by Vanson Soo

MONDAY, 26 AUGUST 2013

No Cheeze Please

If you have ever got the feeling someone was watching you while you were using your computer, tablet or smartphone, it could be because someone is. You may well be sitting there while someone, somewhere out there, is commanding your electronic device to transmit pictures of you and what you are doing.

You might assume that if you haven't given electronic orders to the camera, it's shut off. But this might send a chill down your back. The friendly folks at the US's National Security Agency - the omnipresent spy agency dominating the news, and not in a good way - recently released a little two-page primer on tips to "harden" your computer against attacks.

One eye-catching bit of advice is to "Disable Integrated iSight and Sound Input" on Mac machines - the handbook was written explicitly for Mac devices but it is safe to assume the same applies to all built-in Webcams on other computers and devices.

"The best way to disable an integrated iSight camera is to have an Apple-certified technician remove it," according to the NSA Systems and Network Analysis Center. "Placing opaque tape over the camera is less secure but still helpful. A less persistent but still helpful method is to remove /System/Library/Quicktime/QuicktimeUSBVDCDigitizer.component , which will prevent some programs from accessing the camera."

And don't forget to mute or disable the internal microphone of these devices, the document says.

This comes as no surprise as anything with an Internet connection is vulnerable to attacks. The real surprise is that this advice came from the very agency now infamously known for conducting covert cyber-snooping and surveillance on ordinary citizens, as the former NSA contractor turned fugitive Edward Snowden has alleged.

But if even the NSA doesn't trust those Webcams, why should you? Irrational paranoia or cold reality?

The real issue is that most people have become thoroughly accustomed to these devices, it is indeed almost oxymoronic behavior to disable or give up on those innovations and gadgets supposedly designed to give us a modern digital lifestyle and to make us more efficient and put us abreast with the real world.

A hard pill to swallow? Consider this.

There are reportedly now special spy apps designed for smartphones. You don't have to be interested in them. You don't have to buy and install these apps. More importantly, you don't even need to know about them. Their very existence simply makes everyone highly vulnerable.

All it takes is for someone to install one of these apps on his/her phone and then covertly target another phone. The innocent victimized phone will then serve as a live broadcast for all the actions and conversations of the phone owner, or whoever was holding it or in proximity to that phone - who wouldn't even have the slightest clue as the compromised phone remains in rest mode in the midst of these intrusions.

The implications? Just imagine using the compromised phone in business meetings or say, on personal concerns, in the washroom - remember most smartphones these days come with front and rear cameras.

A client recently shared his concerns about these intrusive apps. But it is hard to give up the smartphone, he acknowledged.

The same good old words of wisdom: remove the SIM card and battery during important business meetings or private conversations. To go a step further, leave the phone outside the meeting room or inside a zip-loc plastic bag. Snowden was known to leave his phone inside the fridge, which works fine at home but isn't so convenient in a business setting. And what if the phone rang and you missed the calls?

The simple solution is to forward all calls to a spare old-fashioned mobile phone with a spare SIM card. Yes, those good old Nokias and the likes that are designed solely for phone calls and free of camera, internet connection, wi-fi, bluetooth, etc. Any phone but a smartphone.

So the choice is, give up the smartphone altogether or forward all calls to the spare phone, especially during those private, important conversations when you feel compelled to disable the smartphone. The forwarding function still works even when the smartphone is stripped of its SIM card and battery.

Now, it is fair to ask if the world has gone berserk. What is the point of buying sophisticated computers with all the digital add-ons and then disabling them? Using smartphones and reverting to old fashioned cellulars?

Well, just look at the Kremlin. The FSO, successor to the Russian KGB, announced last month a move to boost security of its communications and safeguard against cyber-snooping and NSA eavesdropping. The solution? Electronic typewriters.

Asia Sentinel: l

Malaysia's Surreptitious US Funding

Understanding US Funding to Malaysian Civil Society

NILE BOWIE

In 2012, the New Straits Times came under fire for accusing NGOs and actors within Malaysia’s civil society of scheming anti-government activities in an article titled “Plot to destabilise govt,” by journalist Farrah Naz Karim. The NST piece claimed that because various NGOs received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a non-profit foundation financed by the United States government, this was proof of a foreign destabilization agenda. Online news portal Free Malaysia Today published a counter argument written by Anisah Shukry, “NST report: ‘Ridiculous and rubbish’,” which contained valid refutations by accused figures in civil society who called on the NST to practice greater journalism ethics. Karim’s NST piece failed to substantiate these accusations with analysis and it was no doubt flawed, it is also clear that the author did not personally have a great deal of knowledge about the parties and institutions involved, evident in her erroneously referring to the Israeli government as the “Jewish government”. 

Although this article raised contentious sentiments and leveled serious accusations without a clear explanation, the issue itself should be critically examined. Its no secret that the National Endowment for Democracy has a presence in Malaysia, and according to its official website, it provides over $1 million USD to various projects in Malaysia each year. This funding has been perceived suspiciously because of the overtly political nature of the NED’s programs and the fact that senior US political figures have leading roles in the organizations active in Malaysia. According to the NED’s history statement on its official website, the CIA was responsible for distributing covert funding overseas throughout the 1960s, prompting the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to call for the establishment of “a public-private mechanism” to fund overseas activities openly. Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy, was famously quoted in a 1991 interview with the Washington Post reaffirming, “A lot of what we [NED] do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA.” 

The National Endowment for Democracy is funded primarily through the US Congress, within the budget of USAID, the US agency for development assistance, which is part of the US State Department – this means that the money the NED gives to foreign countries comes from public funds paid by citizen taxpayers. Funding mostly flows to its two main component parties, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), both affiliated with the Republican and Democratic political parties in the United States. While the NED remains accountable to the US Congress and is required to publish its disbursements, this doesn't apply to the organizations that it in turn finances, such as the IRI and NDI, both the main recipients of funding in Malaysia. According to historian William Robinson, "NED employs a complex system of intermediaries in which operative aspects, control relationships, and funding trails are nearly impossible to follow and final recipients are difficult to identify." 

Read more.

Online Spying In Singapore

By Kirsten Han

It was an alarming headline taken froman article by Yahoo!SG: “S’pore among 25 govts using spy software: researchers.” The article, revolving around a report published by Citizen Lab, a think-tank at the University of Toronto, about a form of intrusion and surveillance software called FinSpy, made by UK-based Gamma Group International, suggested that the Singaporean government has been using software that allows them to “grab images off computer screens, record Skype chats, turn on cameras and microphones and log keystrokes.” A frightening thought…if it were true.

A closer look at the original Citizen Lab report reveals that the researchers merely found a “command and control” server for FinSpy in Singapore, operated by the company GPLHost. That company provides multi-domain hosting and has a presence in cities like Seattle, Paris, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Sydney, with most of their servers managed remotely.Read more.

Article 114 A :A Storm In A Teacup

Hantu Laut

I agree the amendment of article 114A was hurriedly done and without giving much thoughts to its side effects.

However,  Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has agreed for his cabinet to review the controversial law and hopefully appropriate amendment will be made to replace it. 

It is only a matter of interpretation. The lawyers in this country are used to the "you are innocent until proven guilty", which in my personal opinion is a misplaced notion. You are always deemed guilty until you proved yourself innocent.

If you are deemed innocent at the time of your arrest, say in a murder case, why do they keep you in prison and bail not allowed. It can only mean they have presumptuously declared you guilty of the crime, otherwise, why the detention before the verdict?

It is still up to you to prove your innocent. If you are truly innocent and you can't prove it, too bad, you may have to go to the gallows or in countries where there is no capital punishment you are condemned to life behind bars.

Miscarriage of justice have sent many innocent men to the gallows. That's why I am against capital punishment. It is an archaic law that have no place in today's civil society and is cruel and irreversible.A verdict sending an innocent man to death is as cruel as murder itself. 

Coming back to Article 114A, the legal experts say it is a reversal of "innocent until proven guilty" which they say has become "guilty until proven innocent" unfair to those who are innocent. As I have said in a murder case, it's the same, your are considered guilty the day they charged you.

Under the law Internet users are automatically presumed guilty for any content posted through their registered networks, handheld devices, blogs and web portals.

Saying that providers of free Internet Wi-Fi for public use can be made responsible for any seditious, defamatory, or libelous article online does not hold water. Wi-Fi providers can ask clients to register before allowing them to log in to the service. Most computers have IP address and are traceable if the police do a good police work.

The most dangerous and more difficult to trace are hackers hacking into your website and posting such defamatory article on yours and other websites using your anonymous identity. The endeavour to prove your innocent can be financially draining and the trauma may be too much for those who do not have the will and money to fight back to prove their innocent. 

Remember, when cellular phones was first introduced to this country. When it was expensive, there was no problem because only the higher strata of society can afford to buy them. When it starts to become very cheap to own one and every riffraff in town can buy them, all hell broke lose.......it  became an instrument with destructive power,  which can be used to send nasty and threatening messages to people you don't like and nasty politicians knowing its 'cloak and dagger' potentials used it to spread lies,  slandering their political opponents.

In the early days of the cellphone there was no need to register your name if you buy a prepaid SIM card and no one can trace who sent those nasty messages.Now, you have to  register to buy a SIM card. The rest is history.

Initially, there were some protests from some morons but majority of the people agree it was the right thing to do.

Now, there are less evils spawning out of the cellphone.

Article 114A is a necessary evil, all it needs is some fine tuning.

The Web's Enemies

Web freedom faces greatest threat ever, warns Google's Sergey Brin

Exclusive: Threats range from governments trying to control citizens to the rise of Facebook and Apple-style 'walled gardens

Ian Katz

• guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 April 2012 18.07 BST
• Article history

Sergey Brin says he and Google co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create their search giant if the internet was dominated by Facebook. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The principles of openness and universal access that underpinned the creation of the internet three decades ago are under greater threat than ever, according to Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

In an interview with the Guardian, Brin warned there were "very powerful forces that have lined up against the open internet on all sides and around the world". "I am more worried than I have been in the past," he said. "It's scary."

The threat to the freedom of the internet comes, he claims, from a combination of governments increasingly trying to control access and communication by their citizens, the entertainment industry's attempts to crack down on piracy, and the rise of "restrictive" walled gardens such as Facebook and Apple, which tightly control what software can be released on their platforms.

The 38-year-old billionaire, whose family fled antisemitism in the Soviet Union, was widely regarded as having been the driving force behindGoogle's partial pullout from China in 2010 over concerns aboutcensorship and cyber-attacks. He said five years ago he did not believeChina or any country could effectively restrict the internet for long, but now says he has been proven wrong. "I thought there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle, but now it seems in certain areas the genie has been put back in the bottle," he said.

He said he was most concerned by the efforts of countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and Iran to censor and restrict use of the internet, but warned that the rise of Facebook and Apple, which have their own proprietary platforms and control access to their users, risked stifling innovation and balkanising the web.

"There's a lot to be lost," he said. "For example, all the information in apps – that data is not crawlable by web crawlers. You can't search it."

Brin's criticism of Facebook is likely to be controversial, with the social network approaching an estimated $100bn (£64bn) flotation. Google's upstart rival has seen explosive growth: it has signed up half of Americans with computer access and more than 800 million members worldwide.

Brin said he and co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create Google if the internet was dominated by Facebook. "You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive," he said. "The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation."

He criticised Facebook for not making it easy for users to switch their data to other services. "Facebook has been sucking down Gmail contacts for many years," he said.

Brin's comments come on the first day of a week-long Guardian investigation of the intensifying battle for control of the internet being fought across the globe between governments, companies, military strategists, activists and hackers.

From the attempts made by Hollywood to push through legislation allowing pirate websites to be shut down, to the British government's plans to monitor social media and web use, the ethos of openness championed by the pioneers of the internet and worldwide web is being challenged on a number of fronts.

In China, which now has more internet users than any other country, the government recently introduced new "real identity" rules in a bid to tame the boisterous microblogging scene. In Russia, there are powerful calls to rein in a blogosphere blamed for fomenting a wave of anti-Vladimir Putin protests. It has been reported that Iran is planning to introduce a sealed "national internet" from this summer.

Ricken Patel, co-founder of Avaaz, the 14 million-strong online activist network which has been providing communication equipment and training to Syrian activists, echoed Brin's warning: "We've seen a massive attack on the freedom of the web. Governments are realising the power of this medium to organise people and they are trying to clamp down across the world, not just in places like China and North Korea; we're seeing bills in the United States, in Italy, all across the world."

Writing in the Guardian on Monday, outspoken Chinese artist and activist Ai Weiwei says the Chinese government's attempts to control the internet will ultimately be doomed to failure. "In the long run," he says, "they must understand it's not possible for them to control the internet unless they shut it off – and they can't live with the consequences of that."

Amid mounting concern over the militarisation of the internet and claims – denied by Beijing – that China has mounted numerous cyber-attacks on US military and corporate targets, he said it would be hugely difficult for any government to defend its online "territory".

"If you compare the internet to the physical world, there really aren't any walls between countries," he said. "If Canada wanted to send tanks into the US there is nothing stopping them and it's the same on the internet. It's hopeless to try to control the internet."

He reserved his harshest words for the entertainment industry, which he said was "shooting itself in the foot, or maybe worse than in the foot" by lobbying for legislation to block sites offering pirate material.

He said the Sopa and Pipa bills championed by the film and music industries would have led to the US using the same technology and approach it criticised China and Iran for using. The entertainment industry failed to appreciate people would continue to download pirated content as long as it was easier to acquire and use than legitimately obtained material, he said.Read more.

Beware Of The Dotcom Bubble.

A billion reasons to beware of the latest dotcom bubble

What exactly has Facebook bought with its $1bn purchase of Instagram? Recent internet history suggests it may be a huge haul of overpriced pixels…

• • 

• • John Naughton
  • The Observer, Sunday 15 April 2012
  • Article history

A grid of photos showing different filter effects enabled by Instagram. Photograph: Picasa

So Facebook has bought Instagram, a company with a single product – a photosharing app – for $1bn in cash and (FB) shares. Just to put that in context, Instagram has been in existence for 18 months, employs 13 people, has 30 million users and has had a grand total of $7m in investment funding. Oh, and it has precisely zero dollars in revenue.

Sound familiar? YouTube was founded in February 2005 as an angel-funded enterprise. In November 2005 Sequoia Capital invested $3.5m, and in April 2006 Sequoia and Artis Capital Management put an additional $8m into the company, making $11.5m in all. Then, in October 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google for $1.65bn.

Or how about this? In 1996 a group of Israeli engineers founded Mirabilis, a company that developed the ICQ messaging technology.AOL bought Mirabilis in 1998 for $407m, which then was a lot of money. In 2010 AOL sold ICQ to Digital Sky Technologies for $187.5m.

Or this? Skype was founded in 2003 by Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström. It grew rapidly because it offered free VoIP (voice overinternet protocol) but was slow to earn revenues by selling "Skype-out" facilities, which enabled subscribers to make calls to conventional telephones. In October 2005 eBay purchased Skype for a sum variously estimated at between $2.6bn and $3.1bn. Two years later eBay took a $1.4bn impairment on the value of Skype, revaluing the company at $2.7bn. In May 2011 Microsoft acquired Skype for $8.5bn. At the time this was Microsoft's largest ever acquisition.

And then there's MySpace, also founded in 2003 and acquired byRupert Murdoch's News Corporation in July 2005 for $580m – a purchase lauded by some eminent commentators at the time as the wily Digger's latest masterstroke. Myspace was flogged off last June to an outfit called Specific Media for $35m. Some masterstroke!

What is the moral of these stories? Answer: that internet valuations are like the Bible's description of the peace of God: they "passeth all understanding". There's no rational way of valuing companies like these. That doesn't mean, of course, that armies of high-priced accountants, consultants and lawyers toting massive Excel sheets and market "research" didn't provide wodges of impressive documentation rationalising whatever number senior executives had plucked out of the ether. But, in general, there's no way of knowing in advance whether any of these purchases will turn out to be masterstrokes or follies.

At the moment it looks as though YouTube was the only really shrewd acquisition in the sense that one can at least envisage a way that it might eventually turn into a serious money-pump for Google. ICQ was a disastrous mistake for AOL, as was MySpace for Murdoch. And it's hard to see how Microsoft will ever get its money back from Skype.Read more.

Dangerous Minds

BY JAMIE BARTLETT

A new study finds that an alarming number of young people are too trusting of what they read online. But is there anything we can do about it?

Fears about the corruption of young, innocent minds always accompany new technology. Socrates used to worry that the written word would promote forgetfulness. When the first printed books rolled off Johannes Gutenberg's press, many thought they would overwhelm young minds with too much information.Read more

Please Don't Kill The Messenger

Hantu Laut

I view with grave concern the government contemplation of cracking down on bloggers.

If you were given the bad news and are not happy with it should you kill the messenger or do something to find out the source of your trouble.That's exactly what our government going to do with the internet,make it simple and easy, kill it.

In January this year, after the Davos conference, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that Google is interested in building a data centre in the country. Google is also looking at Japan,South Korea Taiwan,India and few other countries in Asia as possible data centres.Would Malaysia have one hell of a chance to compete with the others with the recent clampdown on bloggers and blocking of the most popular website?

The government have ordered 21 ISPs in the country to block the controversial website Malaysia Today as a prelude to a bigger and wider clampdown on bloggers and websites that are deemed to be anti-government.The government explained here.What happened to the BILL OF GUARANTEES that promised no Internet censorship? Where would the government stands in the eyes of the international community having reneged on its promise to foreign and local investors.

Is Raja Petra one bad apple that's going to spoil the whole damn basket? He might have spun a yarn or two, much to the anguish of the aggrieved party, but why punish the messenger when there are laws in this country to bring civil actions against him for libellous publications.Were there too many skeletons hidden in the closet that deter those who felt the heat of his seemingly venomous compositions to drag him to a civil court to settle the score.

Using the doctrine of fear to silence him have not deterred him at all.It appears the government have found Raja Petra a hard nut to crack and are prepared to lose its credibility by blocking his website which is more a news portal rather than a personal blog.Among other things including his own writings, his website also carries assortment of local and world news and writings from other blogs that he deems worthy of wider audience and readership.

The government is adding more iron to the fire. It's already suffering a serious credibility crisis,instead of simmering down the flame it has added more inflammable material to add to its misery.

For how long could the government stop bloggers from speaking up?

Any further clampdown and restrictions would send them underground, which is not too hard to do for those who are determine.Using a laptop and blogging under anonymity a blogger can move from one place to another using public wi-fi system, it would be hell of a hard time for the authorities to nap him.What than, ban all wi-fi in the country?

I am all for pulling in rogue bloggers and charged them with the relevant laws but to try close down or block websites just goes to show the government have ran out of ideas on how to find the right solution to the problem.It has brought itself to inextremis malady.

For those who truly believe in their political cause being incarcerated is not something that they fear.Anwar Ibrahim spent many years in prison and has come out stronger and more determined to change the political landscape in this country.He may be unstoppable if the government do not shape up pretty soon.

A Demonised Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Hantu Laut

The once affable Abdullah Badawi has been so much demonised by the oppositions, by some of his party members and most of all, the most vocal of all his critics, his former mentor and ex Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad.

His seemingly weak leadership, irresolution and people's perception of him allowing his family of getting involved in affairs of the nation, notably his unpopular son-in-law, has smudged and damaged his political image. Mahathir's relentless call for him to resign or be removed is making his tenure as prime minister untenable and UMNO divided.

The ex-premier has again called for Abdullah's resignation and accused him of having 'no sense of shame' for hanging on to a job that most people think he should give up. He also accused the PM of poor selection of candidates that led to the substantial erosion of support for the party by letting his son-in-law interfered with the list submitted by state leaders.

“Of course, everyone knows that the list of candidates is chosen and submitted to 'Sultan' Abdullah (Ahmad Badawi) by state leaders but once it reached to the party president, somebody else takes over,” he said, referring to Khairy as the culprit.

Mahathir's sarcasm is completely lacking in finesse. Calling Abdullah Sultan only shows his irrational nature and his grudge against the man.

Pak Lah is not fully responsible for UMNO's eroded support. The Mahathir's legacy that he inherited played significant role in its making.The culture of corruptions, nepotism, cronyism and abuse of power have always existed in that regime. Mahathir had always swept the dirt under the carpet if it is not in his favour.

During Anwar’s second trial in June 2000 before Justice Arifin Jaka, then ACA director Shafee Yahya had given sworn testimony when asked about an investigation on the director-general of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU).

Transcript of the notes recorded by the judge of this part of the testimony (excerpts are unedited):

Counsel: Adakah you search the EPU chief’s office?

Shafee: Yes, I did.

Counsel: Was a big sum of money found in the drawer of the EPU director-general for which he could not explain?

Court: What is the relevancy? No need to answer.

Counsel: Did Anwar Ibrahim directed you to raid the office of the EPU chief?

Shafee: No.

Counsel: Did Anwar ask you to close the case against the director?

Shafee: No.

Counsel: Did anyone ask you to close the case?

Shafee: Yes, the prime minister did.

Counsel: Narrate the circumstances under which the PM asked you to close the investigation.

Counsel: Were you called up by the PM?

Shafee: Yes. I was told off, 'How dare you raid my senior officer’s office?' I was taken aback and I replied 'This was based on official complaint by an aggrieved party'.

I did what was officially required under the law. He accused me of trying to fix the former DG of EPU.

I replied that is totally wrong because it is wrong in law to fix anybody. As a Muslim it is a big sin to fix anybody.

He asked me, 'Did Anwar Ibrahim ask you to raid the office?' I said, 'no'.

It was based on an official complain and to be fair to Anwar when I mentioned the complain against the EPU chief, I inform Anwar of my intention to raid but he said, 'Have you cleared this with the PM?'.

I said, 'I mentioned this to PM, the PM kept quiet'.

Counsel: What was the tone of PM when he asked you whether Anwar asked you to raid? Was it in an angry tone or normal conversation tone?

Shafee: The tone was rather accusatory.

Counsel: The EPU was directly under the PM’s Department.

Court: No more questions on the investigation on the EPU chief. I am not satisfied of the relevancy of such evidence.

Counsel: Was the EPU responsible for awarding privatisation of projects?

Shafee: As far as I know, it is.

Counsel: After you were scolded by the PM did you inform anybody about this?

Shafee: I informed the Chief Secretary to the Government.

Counsel: What was your reaction when the PM scolded you and told you to close the case against the DG of EPU?

Shafee: I was highly dissolution and when I went home I told my wife I wanted to resign. But in view that I have two or three months to finish my extension - my wife persuaded me not to resign.

Counsel: Why did you feel dissolution and decide to resign?

Shafee: In my whole career with the government, this was the first time my boss accused me of trying to fix somebody and also my dissolution in the way the PM was interfering with my duty.

Mahathir was never investigated for interfering with the ACA investigation and Shafee had never been charged for perjury, if he had actually lied about his testimony.

Like most cases involving high level corruption by his men, the case was closed.

Pak Lah's biggest mistake was the promise he made to kill corruption before the 2004 polls. Without giving it much thought he made the promise and later realized the monstrosity of the problem and the difficulty in arresting it. It was so widespread and deeply entrenched a full disclosure would have caused the collapse of his entire administration.

The second biggest mistake he made was to allow certain amount of freedom of disclosure of corrupt practices in his administration where high-level personalities were involved but did not take appropriate actions to push through the cases and charge those involved in the court of law.

If he had followed his predecessors style of putting on the lid on every case that's likely to ruin the name of his administration , he wouldn't have the kind of problem he has now.

Another big mistake he made was to ignore the Internet, the blogging community.

In a country where freedom of the press is only free for the government. The Internet was godsend. The new found vehicle for freedom of expression has created an alternative media that penetrates millions of homes, unrestricted and uncensored. The oppositions which have no access to the mainstream media was quick to jump on the bandwagon. They not only utilised it directly themselves but also have cleverly engaged independent bloggers to their sides. Many well-known bloggers are allied to the oppositions.The government on the other hand looked at bloggers as pests and considered them unworthy of any respect.

Having a self-indulging Minister of Information didn't help either.Instead of advising the PM the benefits of engaging bloggers, he did otherwise, reviled them with all kind of names and declared them enemies of the nation.

The government, of all people, should have known that the urban areas are well wired up. Many households in the urban belt have computers and ready access to the internet.It would be safe to say at least 40 to 50 percent of BN electoral losses would have been attributed to bloggers.E-news websites like Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today had become household names and have strong followings. Those like Raja Petra Kamaruddin who was so convincing with his story, even his fictional writing sounds plausible and readily believed by his readers.

After 22 years of Mahathir's Machiavellian rule most Malaysians are not quite used to Badawai's amiable style which is translated as weakness of character.Neither is he a forceful speaker unlike the former prime minister, who has better oratory skills.

The problems in UMNO are combinations of many things, past and present, and the follies of many leaders including Mahathir and Abdullah which culminated to the current political crisis.

Is it fair to blame it just on one man?

Note:Court's transcript taken from Malaysiakini