CENTRAL BANKS HACKED, BUT WHAT AREN'T THEY SAYING?

CENTRAL BANKS HACKED, BUT WHAT AREN’T THEY SAYING?

May 21, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

Many readers sent various versions of the first article here, which formes the backdrop for the second article, and today's high octane speculations. Please note: last Thursday's News and Views was cancelled because I was unable to obtain assistance with the new upgrades we're making, so today's blog is essentially what I recorded, but was unable to upload, to You Tube.

So what's today's  blog (and last Thursday's News and Views) about?  Well, someone is hacking central banks, in particular, the New York Federal Reserve:

http://www.cutimes.com/2016/05/16/hackers-steal-81-million-from-new-york-fed?ref=rss&slreturn=1463676653&page=2

Now note the last paragraph of this article:

“The attackers clearly exhibit a deep and sophisticated knowledge of specific operational controls within the targeted banks, knowledge that may have been gained from malicious insiders or cyberattacks, or a combination of both,” Morey Haber, vice president of technology at the Phoenix-based BeyondTrust, said. “The hackers allegedly learned from internal resources what systems need to be attacked, whom to contact, and what vulnerabilities should be leveraged. The art of the hack then became a simple exploit to exercise due to the insider threat.”

So what do we have? In this article we have (1) "hackers" have hacked the NY Federal Reserve, with no mention of who the suspects might be, and (2) the statement is made that "knowledge... may have been gained from malicious insiders or cyberattacks, or a combination of both."

Say that again? "Maliscious insiders"?  Now, I don't know about you, but "maliscious insiders" sounds an awful lot like moles.

Stop and let that one sink in for a bit: moles... inside the NY Federal Reserve... aiding computer hackers...

Now, while you're considering that, consider this second article:

EXCLUSIVE: Anonymous Strikes the Heart of the Empire — Takes Down U.S. Federal Reserve Bank

Now note the following statement, allegedly made by the hacking consortium/cabal Anonymous:

“The banks have been getting away with murder, fraud, conspiracy, war profiteering, money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels, have put millions of people out on the street without food or shelter and have successfully bought all our governments to help keep us silenced. We represent the voice of the voiceless. We are uniting to make a stand. The central banks which were attacked in recent days were attacked to remind people that the biggest threat we face to an open and free society is the banks. The bankers are the problem and #OpIcarus is the solution.”

Operation Icarus was relaunched in conjunction with a video release announcing the beginning of a “30-day campaign against central bank sites across the world.” Since that time, the scope and magnitude of the attacks have increased exponentially, with Anonymous, Ghost Squad Hackers, a number of Sec groups and BannedOffline coordinating attacks — each focusing on separate financial institutions in an effort to maximize the number of targets hit.

Now let's assume, for the sake of argument and for the sake of today's high octane speculation, that (1) the second article is true in its assertions, and that (2) the two stories are connected. What does this imply? well, for one thing, It implies that the "moles" and Anonymous are related, and that Anonymous is much more than just a cyber-hacking group, but rather, it is also running intelligence and covert operations. This would make it a much more sophisticated player than has hitherto been thought, and the mere possibility of moles - especially in an "expanded target list" such as is being suggested in the second article - means that virtually any and every central bank, including the "heavyweights" like the Bank of France, the Bank of England, and so on, might be infected with Anonymous moles. This would make the group a global network, and very definitely a "player".

The question is, is it truly an independent group? or is it connected to or a front for some other power, Russia or China perhaps? Or, in yet another possibility, is it an independent group that sometimes contracts for others? Any way one slices it, if any of these speculations are anywhere close to the reality, then it has to have quite a few central bankers sleepless.

And, it means one more thing: these digital clearing networks are not secure, and that means think twice about crypto currencies and "going cashless."

See you on the flip side...