Code Monger, cyclist, sim racer and driving enthusiast.
10258 stories
·
6 followers

Nissan Just Created The Weirdest Merch But Doesn’t Have The Guts To Sell It

1 Comment

When car companies attempt to reach younger, trendier audiences through cross-promotional lifestyle branding, the result is usually a branded hoodie, an overpriced wristwatch, or perhaps a sleek electric scooter that nobody asked for.

Nissan’s motorsport division, NISMO, has decided to leap straight past the conventional swag bag and instead head directly for dental cosmetics.

As it bids to celebrate the finale of the ABB FIA Formula E World Championship in London this weekend, NISMO has partnered with London-based custom jeweler LOUD MOUTH LDN to craft a set of bespoke “grillz” inspired by iconic Nissan performance cars.

Nissan Grillz
NISMO

While it reads like a rejected April Fool’s gag, this collaboration is literally putting grilles on your grill as it takes the front ends of four well-known performance and motorsport Nissan machines and reinterprets them for your front teeth.

Ordinarily, grillz are silver- or gold-based tooth jewelry, and there are pretty wild designs out there, some even with precious gems embedded in them. These four Nissan pieces are much more brightly colored than the norm though, based on the subject matter.

That begins with the bright blue of the R34 Skyline GT-R, with Bayside Blue enamel laid over the silver base. The design includes the intakes of the lower front end and little amber accents to mark the indicators on the only set inspired by a road car.

Grillz 3
NISMO

A second R34 features on a yellow set, based on the Pennzoil livery of the two-time champion GT500 race car from the All-Japan Grand Touring Championship (JGTC) series. This slightly less complex design features the race car’s deeper air dam and the stripes of the livery complemented by sponsor-inspired roundels.

Grillz 1
NISMO

There’s a red set taking its cues from the more modern Nissan Z GT500, used in the successor Super GT series. This set looks like it includes the Z’s headlights and something that could be an attempt to replicate the front wing stays.

Grillz 2
NISMO

Finally there’s the most relevant vehicle, the outgoing Gen.3 Evo Formula E of the NISMO team, with a detailed design featuring the car’s sakura livery, #23 race number, and a full front wing assembly. This car is in with a chance of securing a second successive driver’s title for Barnsley-born Oliver Rowland in the season-ending double-header, though he currently sits in fourth.

Grillz 4
NISMO

Before you run out to schedule a dental impression kit, there is a catch: Nissan is treating this absurdly detailed project as a one-off artistic showcase rather than something destined for even limited production.

The collection will be put on public display at the Westfield Stratford City mall before moving a couple of miles down the road to ExCeL London for the Formula E race weekend (August 15-16), where attendees will have a chance to win a custom piece created by the jeweler.

There’s been some strange promotional automotive tie-ins, but NISMO placing Super GT styling cues directly onto your teeth feels like a high-water mark for factory-backed weirdness.

It may not add horsepower, but it gives new meaning to “smiles per gallon.”

Top graphic image: NISMO

 

 

 

 

 

The post Nissan Just Created The Weirdest Merch But Doesn’t Have The Guts To Sell It appeared first on The Autopian.

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
1 hour ago
reply
Hw about you just focus on making a fun, reliable, inexpensive car like you did in the 80’s and the 90’s Nissan?
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

New Pass-ta-key attack reveals all the things we didn't know about passkeys

1 Share

Last week a researcher outlined what he said was a “novel attack surface” in passkeys, the new authentication paradigm that offers a more secure alternative over password-based methods. In fact, the attacks demonstrated in the post are neither novel nor unique to passkeys. This distinction is important because the research has generated confusion among end users and security professionals as they assess whether this new mechanism is truly safe to use.

The attack is called Pass-ta-key—a blending of the word passkey with the phrase “pass the key” and a nod to a plate of pasta. Arie Olshtein, a researcher at security firm Palo Alto Networks, described in a post last week how Pass-ta-key could obtain all passkeys stored in the Google Password Manager app (GPM) for Windows when it’s running on a machine infected with malware.

This came as a surprise to many people because they believed passkeys are stored exclusively in the trusted platform manager (TPM), the locked-down enclave in a hardened silicon chip that’s reserved for storing cryptographic keys and other highly sensitive information on Windows machines. If passkeys are stored in the TPM, then how was Pass-ta-key able to extract the entire set of passkeys stored by the app, they wanted to know.

Local passkey storage is OK, with one exception

The answer is that, contrary to common belief, the FIDO 2 specifications—managed by the industry group FIDO Alliance—don’t mandate that passkeys be kept in TPMs, or any other sort of dedicated piece of hardware (they go by different names, depending on the platform, including secure enclaves, trusted execution environments, and StrongBoxes). In fact, most platforms and third-party software for managing passkeys do not store passkeys in such dedicated hardware. Virtually the lone holdout is Microsoft, which gives users the option to store passkeys in the Windows TPM. The company mainly recommends this choice to enterprises, not consumers.

Unbeknownst to me until I began research for this article, all platforms other than those running Windows store passkeys locally on the device. The shift to local storage came a few years ago after OS and third-party application developers realized that passkeys had no chance of gaining widespread usage unless they could easily be synced to all of a user’s devices. Requiring TPM storage made syncing impossible. The only way to load them into the TPM of a new device would be to re-create each one individually.

Ultimately, architects of the FIDO specifications decided that it was generally safe to store passkeys on the devices. The thinking was that app permissions are so granular that malware lurking on the device would have no ability to access the private keys that form the lynchpin of passkey security. Malware installed on a device running macOS, iOS, and Android, for instance, has no ability to defeat this isolation unless the OS itself is compromised through some sort of exotic zero-day exploit. So far, these assumptions have been proven correct in real-world practice.

The lone exception is Windows. Unlike all the other platforms, Windows apps generally run with all the privileges of the user, whereas other platforms encourage the restriction of the privileges of each application by default. While Windows provides some sandboxing protections designed to isolate apps, it doesn’t prevent unsandboxed apps, such as malware, from accessing the data of a sandboxed app. That is, the sandbox only protects in one direction. Sandboxing technologies on other platforms are much more protective.

That means Windows malware has decidedly fewer problems accessing data used by a separate app. Passkey architects have been keenly aware of this difference, which is largely necessary for Windows backward-compatibility reasons. With no confidence that passkeys stored on a Windows device won’t be harvested in the event of a malware infection, many third-party developers opted for a new design—storing the passkeys in end-to-end encrypted blobs located in the cloud. Server-stored passkeys are now the design used not just by GPM for Windows, but 1Password, Dashlane, and other third-party apps for the Microsoft OS as well.

At a simplified level, here’s how it works: When a Windows GPM user wants to use a passkey to log in to a site, the device retrieves a user and/or device key from the TPM and presents it to Google’s backend authenticator. Presentation of the key, combined with the device already being signed in to the user’s Google account, triggers the Google server to present an authentication assertion to the site the user wants to log in to. The assertion is signed with the private key, which is stored in encrypted form on the Google server. With that, the user is logged in. Again, most other third-party apps for Windows work the same way.

Those same apps for other platforms, by contrast, store passkeys locally on the device. When a user wants to log in using a passkey, the local device—not the one in the cloud—presents an authentication assertion. It’s signed by the private key, which is also stored in encrypted form on the local device.

When your device is infected, all bets are off

The malware in the Pass-ta-key attacks uses its access to the Google account—and in some cases, the user or device key stored in the TPM—to obtain the secret passkeys. The most powerful of the three attack variants causes the infected Windows machine to masquerade as an iPhone. This triggers a synchronization capability in GPM that allows users to transfer all stored passkeys to a new device. The keys are now transferred to the infected Windows device.

Olshtein described Pass-ta-key as a “novel” attack that targets the attack surface in the passkey ecosystem. The reality is more nuanced. The stakes of this attack would be much the same if an infected Windows machine was fully authenticated into other sensitive apps. The attacker on the other side of the keyboard would likely be able to activate the mechanisms in the credential management app to log in to a site or download all the passwords.

This risk has always been present and is the reason some people regard password managers as unsafe to use. Based on Olshtein’s write-up, it’s possible that GPM lacks some protections found in password managers like 1Password, such as calling OS APIs to restrict other processes from reading its memory. Generally speaking, though, it is universally accepted that it’s game over whenever an infected device is logged in to a sensitive account. In other words, Pass-ta-key is a fact of life that has existed for as long as computing security has. There’s nothing novel here, and the attack surface extends to any data that requires authentication for access.

The purpose of passkeys is to eliminate a shared secret that can be phished or obtained through server breaches. Passkeys aren’t intended to withstand physical attacks against the devices that store them. It’s not surprising that Pass-ta-key can extract keys when a Windows device is compromised. The research may not be novel, but it will be helpful nonetheless if it helps users understand that once a device—particularly one running Windows—is compromised while it’s logged in to an account, all data stored there is free for the taking.

Read full article

Comments



Read the whole story
LeMadChef
1 hour ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Get to know George Markert, Victor Marx’s running mate in Colorado’s gubernatorial race

1 Comment
The 54-year-old retired Marine was originally running for the US Senate this year, but he failed to make the GOP primary ballot
Read the whole story
LeMadChef
1 hour ago
reply
Not that I wanted to find out, but now that I know more I am even more angry.

Every answer was “oh, running a state government isn’t that hard, I’m a Marine!”
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Zuckerberg’s super yacht stood by while stranded boaters looked for help

1 Share

Social media scuttlebutt about Mark Zuckerberg’s $300 million super yacht failing to assist stranded boaters off the coast of Alaska was partly corroborated by ship-tracking data—and eventually prompted responses from both the US Coast Guard and a spokesperson for Zuckerberg.

The incident was made public when Michael Love, a passenger aboard the replica steamship Wilderness Legacy during an Alaska cruise, posted about it on the social media platform Bluesky. The ship detoured to rescue a stranded 21-foot skiff with two women, a child and a dog, after the US Coast Guard had supposedly first radioed Zuckerberg’s superyacht, Launchpad, for help without success.

“There was near unanimous booing when the captain announced this,” Love wrote in describing the Alaska cruise passengers’ response to the lack of help from Zuckerberg’s ship.

The US Coast Guard described being hailed for assistance by the stranded boat located near Point Highland, Alaska, at 9:32 pm on August 3, in a statement shared by Halifax Shipping News. After the Coast Guard determined the vessel was not in distress, it issued a marine assistance request broadcast asking for voluntary help from nearby mariners.

This is an important distinction because it means nearby vessels were not legally obligated to respond. If the Coast Guard had determined the stranded boat was in distress, then both international maritime law and US law would have legally required ship captains to render assistance.

Although Launchpad and its $30 million support ship, Wingman, were not legally obligated to assist in this case, it may have represented a missed opportunity to do a little bit of good, according to Love, the passenger aboard the Wilderness Legacy.

“Frankly, if I was Mark Zuckerberg I would be absolutely ecstatic at a chance to do something helpful for someone in need and maybe get some good PR out of it,” Love told the Alaska Beacon in a Bluesky message.

Mark Zuckerberg and his family were not aboard the super yacht at the time of the incident, according to a spokesperson for the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative in a statement shared with Halifax Shipping News and the Alaska Beacon.

What the ship-tracking data shows

Ship-tracking data using AIS transponder data actively broadcast by each vessel shows that Zuckerberg’s 387-foot super yacht was initially moving ahead of the 192-foot Wilderness Legacy at a slightly faster speed. But then Launchpad slowed to a stop and allowed Wilderness Legacy to pass it.

Wilderness Legacy appears to proceed with assisting the stranded boat, as described by the YouTube channel The Yacht Report in a video showing the AIS tracking paths. The Coast Guard confirmed that the ship towed the boat to Farragut Bay so that it could find safe anchorage, and the Alaska Beacon reported that Wilderness Legacy was able to refuel the skiff for the rest of its journey.

Did Mark Zuckerberg's superyacht refuse to help a vessel in distress?

However, the Coast Guard statement made no mention of Zuckerberg’s superyacht, Launchpad.

Launchpad’s support ship, Wingman, is described by the publication YachtWorld as being equipped with deck space for carrying a helicopter, a Triton submarine that acts as a personal submersible for superyachts, water scooters, and multiple smaller boats.

Ship-tracking data shows that Wingman moved past both Launchpad and the Wilderness Legacy without stopping. It also shows that Launchpad finally resumed moving again after the Wilderness Legacy appeared to return from having assisted the small skiff.

The missed emergency broadcast

The Zuckerberg spokesperson offered an explanation for why Launchpad did not initially respond to the Coast Guard’s request for assistance.

“As the Coast Guard noted, the boat was not in distress, and by the time the crew reviewed the Coast Guard contact on a different radio channel from the one they were operating on, the assist was already underway,” the spokesperson said in the statement shared with news outlets. “We’re grateful all parties are safe.”

But Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, himself a member of an elite sailing club, in a Facebook post criticized the lack of response from Zuckerberg’s super yacht. “Vessels are supposed to monitor channel 16 at all times, for this exact purpose,” Whitehouse wrote. “Billionaires don’t follow that rule either?”

The US government’s radio watchkeeping regulations require any vessel equipped with a VHF marine radiotelephone to maintain watch on channel 16—reserved for emergency messages—whenever the radiotelephone is not being used for communication. Marine radiotelephones typically have dual watch or even tri-watch features that specifically enable monitoring of multiple channels, with the transmissions on the emergency channel automatically taking priority.

That means any nearby ship monitoring the channel should have heard the stranded boaters asking the Coast Guard for help, along with hearing the Coast Guard’s follow-on request for assistance. It is also unclear why the crew of the support ship Wingman did not initially hear or heed the Coast Guard broadcast.

Zuckerberg’s super yacht has previously courted controversy for turning off its AIS transponder and “going dark” to avoid public ship-tracking services, according to YachtWorld. That is a tactic only used by “shadow fleet” vessels carrying sanctioned oil or gas, illegal fishing boats, and the high-profile owners of luxury yachts, such as Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos.

But for safety of navigation reasons, the Coast Guard typically requires vessels to keep AIS activated in US waters. Such AIS tracking data helped shed a little more light on this latest controversy surrounding Launchpad.

Read full article

Comments



Read the whole story
LeMadChef
21 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Has Ford got cheap car fever? A $25K crossover is supposedly on the way.

1 Comment

Talk of the affordability crisis may be penetrating corporate boardrooms. Hot on the heels of the name and starting price for Ford's new affordable electric truck, news leaked today that the sub-$30,000 Fathom isn't the only cheap Ford in the works. According to a report at Automotive News, the automaker is working on a new entry-level crossover that will start at around $25,000, although don't expect it in showrooms until 2029.

The leak is courtesy of an unnamed Ford dealer, which, together with its peers, was shown an early prototype described as resembling a first-gen Ford Escape. The crossover is said to have both hybrid and unelectrified powertrain options, and Automotive News notes that several sources have told it that Ford will assemble a hybrid crossover at its Hermosillo plant in Mexico in 2029, alongside the Bronco Sport and Maverick.

Additionally, Ford apparently showed off a four-door Mustang, which Automotive News compares to the Porsche Panamera in terms of size and styling, albeit with a sub-$40,000 price tag (making it almost a third the price of the cheapest Panamera). And a third nugget of news—the universal electric vehicle platform that will build the Fathom will result in four other electric Ford models as well.

2029 is far enough out that plenty could happen to the proposed small Ford before it reaches the streets. But average transaction prices* crept above $50,000 by the end of last year, and we're now left with a relatively small handful of new vehicles that can be purchased for less than $30,000. Even fewer if MSRP needs to be closer to $25,000. So an additional entry to that list ought to be welcome, especially if the starting price is about $25,000 in 2029 dollars. Even better would be other OEMs paying attention and following suit.

Ars reached out to Ford, which told us that it won't comment or speculate on future products.

*ATP is the statistic that the industry tracks rather than the more potentially informative median; take it up with the people who collect the statistics.

Read full article

Comments



Read the whole story
LeMadChef
23 hours ago
reply
I'll believe it when I see the Munrony
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

The Golden Age Of Bond Villains

1 Share

So, the second novel in the Laundry Files, The Jennifer Morgue, was first published on November 1st, 2006. And while it was superficially a pastiche of the Bond movie canon (as it existed at that time--I was writing before the Daniel Craig era, ushered in with Casino Royale--it was also interrogating the dramatic conventions of the genre and also the implications of rule by Bond Villains.

At about the time I was writing it, a friend of mine (initially a tech journalist, later an industry pundit) described his experience of interviewing Elon Musk, who was allegedly leaning hard into the archetype. "I must be a Bond villain!" He joked, "I have an electric car and a tropical island where boiler-suited minions launch rockets!" And then he laughed it off. (In those days, we thought it was a simile: these days it's more clearly understood as a metaphor, if not the absolute raw truth.)

Anyway, I wrote a little afterword for The Jennifer Morgue discussing the significance of the Bond Villain as an archetype for our times and it does still appear to have something relevant to say, 20 years later; and I figure the current publisher has forgotten about it, so I'm going to shamelessly pirate my own work and reprint the entire epilogue from The Jennifer Morgue right here on my blog (the horror!).

Note that the Great Financial Crisis that kicked off the current era really started in late 2007, and our current era of oligarchic misrule, only got underway in the mid-20-teens, with the evitable rise to power of a deeply unpleasant TV reality star whose main claim to fame was playing a stupid man's idea of a successful business mogul.

(At least I didn't predict that.)

Anyway, the text is below the fold--it's quite long--and I ask this: what would you add, today?

The Golden Age of Spying

1. The Mary-Sue of MI6

"My name is Bond. James Bond."

These six words, heard by hundreds of millions of people, are almost invariably spoken during the first five minutes of each movie in one of the biggest media success stories of the 20th century. Unless you've lived under a rock for the past forty years, you hear them and you know at once that you're about to be plunged into a two hour long adrenaline saturated extravaganza of snobbish fashionable excess, violence, sex, car chases, more violence, and Blowing Shit Up -- followed by a post-coital cigarette and a light-hearted quip as the credits roll.

It wasn't always so. When "Casino Royale" was first published in 1953, it got a print run of 4750 hardcover copies and no advertising budget to speak of; while the initial reviews were favorable, comparing Ian Fleming to Le Queux and Oppenheim (the kings of the pre-war British spy thriller genre), it took a long time for his most famous creation to set the world on fire. Despite his rapidly rising print runs ("Casino Royale" eventually sold over a million paperbacks in the UK alone), and despite his increasing prominence among the post-war thriller writers, a decade elapsed before any of Fleming's novels were filmed; indeed, their author barely lived to see the commercial release of "Dr No" and the runaway success of the icon he created. (Nor were the films seen as a runaway success before they were made -- "Dr No" was notoriously made on a tight budget, even though it went on to gross nearly $60M around the world.)

Literary immortality -- or indeed, mere post-mortem survival -- is dauntingly hard for a novelist to achieve. The limbo of post-mortem obscurity awaits 95% of all novelists -- almost all novels go out of print for good within five years of the death of their author. But in addition to being a million-selling best-seller, Fleming was a ferociously well-connected newspaper executive with a strong sense of the value of his ideas, and he pursued television and film adaptation remorselessly. Cinematic success arrived just in time for his creation, and the synergy between best-selling books and massive movie hype has sufficed to keep them in print ever since.

James Bond is a creature of fantasy, perhaps best described using a literary term looted from that most curious and least respected of fields, fan fiction: the Mary-Sue. A Mary-Sue character is a placeholder in a script, a hollow cardboard cut-out into whose outline the author can squeeze their own dreams and fantasies. In the case of Bond, it's cruelly easy to make a case that the famous spy was his author's Mary-Sue: for Fleming had a curious and ambiguous relationship with spying.

A dilettante and dabbler for his first three decades, unsuccessful as a stockbroker, foreign correspondent, and banker, Fleming fortuitously landed his dream job on the eve of the Second World War: Secretary to the Director of Naval Intelligence in the Admiralty. The war was good for Ian Fleming, broadening and deepening him and giving him a job that captured his imagination and drew out his not inconsiderable talents. But Fleming was the man who knew too much: privy to too many secrets, he was wrapped in tissue paper and prevented from pursuing his desire to go into the field. He ended the war with a distinguished record -- and absolutely no combat experience (if one excludes being bombed by the Luftwaffe or watching the Dieppe raid from a destroyer, safely far off the Normandy coastline). Fleming grew up in the shade of a father who died heroically on the western front in 1917, and in adult life he wrote in the shadow of an elder brother whose reputation as a novelist surpassed his own. It's easy to imagine these unkind familial comparisons provoking the imaginative but flighty playboy who almost found himself during the war, goading him to imagine himself in the shoes of a hero who was not merely larger than life, but larger in every way than his own life.

And, as it turns out, James Bond was larger than Ian Fleming. Not only do few novels survive their author's demise, even fewer acquire sequels written by other hands; yet several other authors (including Kingsley Amis and John Gardner) have toiled in Fleming's vinyard. Few fictional characters acquire biographies written by third parties -- but Bond has not only acquired an autobiography (courtesy of biographer John Pearson) but spawned a small cultural industry, including a study of his semiotics by Umberto Eco. Now, that has got to be a sign of something ...

As with every true pearl, there was a sand-grain of truth at the heart of Bond. Fleming wrote thrillers informed by his actual experience. Years spent working out of the hothouse environment of Room 39 of the Admiralty building -- headquarters of the Naval Intelligence Division of the Royal Navy -- gave him a ringside seat on the operations of a major espionage organization. On various trips to Washington DC he worked with diplomats and officers of the OSS (predecessor organization to the CIA). As a foreign news manager at The Sunday Times after the war, there is some evidence that Fleming made his agency's facilities available to officers of MI6. His first Bond novels were submitted to that agency for security clearance before they were published. Bond himself may have been larger than life, but the strictures imposed by the organization he worked for were drawn from reality, albeit the reality of an intelligence agency of the early 1940s.

The world of secret intelligence gathering during the second world war was, however, very different from life in the intelligence community today. It was already changing by the late 1950s, as the bleeping football-shaped Sputniks zipped by overhead and intelligence directors began dreaming of spy satellites. By 2004, when MI5 (the counter-intelligence agency) openly placed recruiting advertisements in the press, we can be sure that Bond would be best advised to seek employment elsewhere. Spies are supposed to be short -- under 180 centimeters for men -- and nondescript. As a branch of the civil service, MI5's headquarters are presumably non-smoking, and drinking on the job is frowned upon. As intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6 staff aren't in the business of ruthlessly wiping out enemies of the state: any decision to use lethal force lies with the Foreign Secretary, the COBRA committee, and other elements of the British government's security oversight bureaucracy. An MI6 agent driving a 1933 Bentley racer with a supercharged engine, frequenting the high-stakes table at a casino as James Bond so memorably did in his first print appearance, is an almost perfect inversion of the real picture.

Nevertheless, the archetype has legs. James Bond continued to grow and evolve, even after his creator put away his cigarette holder for the last time. To some extent, this was the product of storytelling expediency. The film adaptations started in the middle of a continuing story arc -- for Fleming wrote his novels with a modicum of continuity -- and while "Dr No" was the first to make it to celluloid, the novel was in fact a sequel to "From Russia With Love" (which was filmed second). Thus, various liberties were taken with the plot of the canonical novels, right from the start. You can re-read the novels at length without finding anything of the banter between Bond and M's secretary Moneypenny that is a recurrent theme of the films, for example, and that's before we get into the bizarre deviations of the mid-period Roger Moore movies (notably "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "Moonraker").

The literary James Bond is a creature of pre-war London clubland: upper-crust, snobbish, manipulative and cruel in his relationships with women, with a thinly-veiled sadomasochistic streak and a coldly ruthless attitude to his opponents which verges on the psychopathic. Over the years, his cinematic alter ego has acquired the stamina of Superman, learned to defy the laws of physics, ventured into space -- both outer and inner -- and deflowered more maids than Don Juan. He's also mutated to fit the prejudices and neuroses of the day, dabbling with (gasp!) monogamy, and hanging out with those heroic Afghan mujahideen in the late-eighties AIDS-and-Soviets-era "The Living Daylights". He's worked under a post-feminist ball-breaking 'M' in "Goldeneye", and even confronted a female arch-villain in "The World is Not Enough" (an innovation that would surely have Fleming, who formed his views on appropriate behavior for the fairer sex in the 1920s, rolling in his grave). But other aspects of the Bond archetype remain timeless. Fleming was fascinated by fast cars, exotic locations, and intricate gadgetry, and all of these traits of the original novels have been amplified and extrapolated in the age of modern special effects.

Just how does James Bond -- a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War", to use the words the script-writers on "GoldenEye" so tellingly put into M's mouth -- survive in the popular imagination more than fifty years after his literary birth? What does it mean when Mary-Sue stalks the landscape of the imagination, blasting holes in the plot with a Walther PPK (or the P99 he upgraded to in "Tomorrow Never Dies")? If we're going to understand this, perhaps we ought to start by looking at Bond's dark shadow, the Villain.

2. In search of Mabuse

Bond is, if you judge him by his work, a nasty fellow and not one you'd choose to lend your car to: to make this rough diamond glitter it is necessary to display him against a velvet backdrop of darkest villainy. If you strip the Bond archetype of the bacchanalia, glamorous locations, and fashion snobbery, you end up with an unappetizingly shallow, cold-blooded executioner -- the likes of Adam Hall's Quiller or James Mitchell's Callan, only without the breezy cynicism, or indeed any redeeming features at all. The role of adversary is thus a critical one in sustaining the appeal of the protagonist. Fleming set out to depict a hard-edged contemporary world where the usual black-and-white picture of the pre-war thriller had blurred and taken on some of the murky grey-on-grey ambiguity of the cold war era; Bond was the knight in shining armor, fighting for virtue and the free world against the dragon -- be they Mr. Big, Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, or the looming shadow of Bond's greatest enemy of all, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Number One of SPECTRE, the Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion.

It is interesting to note that Blofeld assumed his primacy as Bond's #1 enemy only in the movie canon; Fleming originally invented him while working on the screenplay and novel of "Thunderball", and used him subsequently in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "You Only Live Twice". (Prior to these later books, Bond typically tussled with less corporate enemies -- Soviet stooges, unregenerate Nazis, and psychotic gangsters.) Blofeld was born out of mere corporate expediency. Rather than demonize the Soviets and reduce their potential audience, the producers of the film of "From Russia With Love" appropriated SPECTRE as the adversarial organization. With the success of "Thunderball", the third of the films, Blofeld moved front and center and acquired a life of his own that far exceeded his prominence in the novels. Arguably, Fleming's death in 1964 freed up the movie series to diverge from their original author's plans; and so Blofeld may be seen as a demon of necessity, conjured up from the vasty depths in order to provide Bond with a worthy adversary.

'Twas not always so. Back at the turn of the 20th century, around the time that the British spy thriller was gradually cohering out of the mists of the penny dreadful and the literature of suspense (via the works of John Buchan and Erskine Childers -- not to mention the tangential contributions of Arthur Conan Doyle, by way of Sherlock Holmes) there was no great dualistic vision of the great champion confronting the villainous heart of evil. There was no great champion: we were on our own against the masters of night and mist, the great and terrible super-criminals. Professor Moriarty, Holmes' nemesis -- the Napoleon of Crime -- was but one of these: Fantômas, the 1911 creation of Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain, is another. The emperor of crime, Fantômas was a master of disguise and an agent of chaos (not to mention standing astride Paris in black mask, top hat and tails, in the posters for the 1913 movie of the same name: an icon of decadent wealth and criminal chaos). Nor was he alone. Guy Boothby's 1890's super-villain Dr Nikola fits the bill too, right down to the fluffy lap-cat and the fiendish plans. But perhaps the root of Bond's nemesis can be found in his full-fledged form somewhat later, and somewhat further to the east -- in the guise of Dr. Mabuse.

Dr. Mabuse is an archetype and a runaway media success in his own right, famous from five novels and twelve movies. The Doctor was created in 1922 by author Norbert Jacques, and was developed into one of the most chilling creations of the silent era by no less a director than Fritz Lang. Mabuse is a name, but one that nobody in their right mind speaks aloud. He's a master of disguise, naturally: and a rich, well-connected socialite and gambler. (Some social context: gambling at the high stakes table is no so much an innocuous recreation as an obscenity, in a decade of hyper-inflation and starvation, with crippled war veterans dying of cold on the street corners, as was the case in Weimar Germany). Mabuse has his fingers in every pie, by way of a syndicate so shadowy and criminal that nobody knows its extent; he's a spider, but the web he weaves is so broad that it looks like the whole of reality to the flies trapped in it. He is (in some of the stories) a psychiatrist, skilled in manipulation, and those who hunt him are doomed to become his victims. If Mabuse has a weakness it is that his schemes are over-elaborate and tend to implode messily, usually when his most senior minions rebel, hopelessly late; nevertheless, he is a master of the escape plan, and with his ability to brainwash minions into playing his role he's a remarkably hard phantom to slay.

It is all too easy to make fun of the likes of Fantômas and Dr. Nikola, and even their modern-day cognates such as Dr. Mabuse and Ernst Stavro Blofeld; for do they not represent such an obsessively concentrated pinnacle of entrepreneurial criminality that, if they really existed, they would instantly be hunted down and arrested by INTERPOL?

Careful consideration will lead one to reconsider this hasty judgment. Criminology, the study of crime and its causes, has a fundamental weak spot: it studies that proportion of the criminal population who are stupid or unlucky enough to get caught. The perfect criminal, should he or she exist, would be the one who is never apprehended -- indeed, the one whose crimes may be huge but unnoticed, or indeed miscategorized as not crimes at all because they are so powerful they sway the law in their favor, or so clever they discover an immoral opportunity for criminal enterprise before the legislators notice it. Such forms of criminality may be indistinguishable, at a distance, from lawful business; the criminal a paragon of upper-class virtue, a face-man for Forbes.

When the real Napoleons of Crime walk among us today, they do so in the outwardly respectable guise of executives in business suits and thousand-dollar haircuts. The executives of Worldcom and Enron were denizens of a corporate culture so rapacious that any activity, however dubious, could be justified in the name of enhancing the bottom line. They have rightfully been charged, tried, and in some cases jailed for fraud, on a scale that would have been the envy of Mabuse, Blofeld, or their modern successor, Dr. Evil. When you need extra digits on your pocket calculator to compute the sums you are stealing, you're in the big league. Again, when you're able to evade prosecution by the simple expedient of appointing the state prosecutor and the judges -- because you're the President of a country (and not just any country, but a member of the rich and powerful G8) -- you're certainly not amenable to diagnosis and detection in the same sense as your run-of-the-mill shoplifter or petty delinquent. I'm naming no names (they have intelligence services! Cruise missiles!) but this isn't a hypothetical scenario.

3. Interview with the Entrepreneur

In an attempt to clarify the mythology surrounding James Bond, I tracked his old rival down to his headquarters in the Ministry of Inward Investment in the breakaway Republic of Transdniestria. Somewhat suspicious at first, Mr. Blofeld relaxed as soon as he realized I was not pursuing him on behalf of the FSB, CIA, or IMF, and kindly agreed to be interviewed for this book. Now aged 72, Blofeld is a cheerful veteran of numerous high-tech start-ups, and not a few multinationals where, as a specialist in international risk management and arbitrage, he applied his unique skills to business expansion. Today he is semi-retired but has agreed to work in an voluntary capacity as director of the State investment agency.

"It took me a long time to understand the agenda that the British government was pursuing through the covert activities of MI6," he told me over a glass of sweet tea. "Call me naive, but I really believed -- at least at first -- that they were honest capitalists, the scoundrels."

Over the course of an hour, Ernst explained to me how he first became aware that the UK was attempting to sabotage his business interests. "It was back in 1960 or thereabouts that they first tried to destroy one of my subsidiaries. Until then I hadn't really had anything to do with them, but I believe one of my rivals in the phosphate mining business put it about that my man on site was some sort of spy, and they sent this Bond fellow -- not just to arrest him or charge him with some trumped-up nonsense, but to kill him." His lips paled with indignation at he contemplated the iniquity of the situation: that agents of the British government might go after an honest businessman for no better reason than an unsubstantiated allegation that he was spying on American missile tests. "I warned Julius to be careful and advised him to put a good lawyer on retainer, but what good are lawyers when the people you're up against send hired killers? Julius brought in security contractors, but this Bond fellow still murdered him in the end. And the British government denies everything, to this day!"

Ernst obviously believes in his own moral rectitude, but I had to ask the obvious questions, just for the record.

"Yes, I was chief executive of SPECTRE for twelve years. But you know, SPECTRE was entirely honest about its activities! We had nothing to hide because what we were doing was actually legal. We've been mercilessly slandered by those rogues from MI6 and their friends in the newspapers, but the fact is, we're no more guilty of criminal activity than any other multinational today: we simply had the misfortune to be foreign and entrepreneurial at a point in time when Whitehall was in the grasp of the communist conspirators Wilson and Callaghan and their running-dog so-called 'conservative' fellow Heath. And we were pilloried because what we were doing was in direct competition with the inefficient state-run enterprises that my good friend Lady Thatcher recognized as mosquitoes battening on the life-blood of capitalism. That cad Fleming put it about that SPECTRE stands for 'Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion' -- absolute tosh and nonsense! Would a group of criminals really call themselves something that blatant? I'll remind you that SPECTRE is actually a French acronym, as befits a non-profit charity incorporated in Paris. The name stands for 'Société Professionelle et Ethique du Capital Technologique Réinvestissement par les Experts.' Venture capitalists specializing in disruptive new technologies, in other words -- commercial space travel, nuclear power, antibiotics. Not some kind of half-baked terrorist organization! But you can imagine the threat we posed to the inefficient state monopolies like the British Aircraft Corporation, the coal mining industry, and Imperial Chemical Industries."

Blofeld paused to sip his tea thoughtfully.

"We were ahead of our time in many ways. We pioneered business methods that later became mainstream -- Sir James Goldsmith, Ronald Perelman, James Icahn, they all watched us and learned -- but by then, the commies were out of power in the west thanks to our friends in the establishment, so they had an easier time of it. No need to hire lots of expensive security and build concrete bunkers on desert islands! And yes, that made us look bad, don't think I'm unaware of it -- but you know, you want bunkers and isolated jungle rocket launch bases? All you have to do is look at Arianespace! It's fine when the government bureaucracies do it, but if an honest businessman tries to build a space launch site and hires security to keep the press and saboteurs from foreign governments out, it's suddenly a threat to world security!"

He paused for a while. "They put the worst complexion on everything we did. The plastic surgery? Well, we had the clinic, why not let our staff use it, so the surgeons could stay in practice between paying customers? It was a perk, nothing more. We did -- I admit it -- acquire a few companies trading in exotic weapons, non-lethal technologies mostly. And that business with Emilio and the yacht, I admit that looked bad. But did you know, it originally belonged to Adnan Khashoggi or Fahd ibn Saud or someone? Emilio was acting entirely on his own initiative -- a loose cannon -- and as soon as I heard about the affair I terminated his employment."

I asked Ernst to tell me about Bond.

"Listen, this Bond chap, I want you to understand this: however he's painted in the mass media, the reality is that he's a communist stooge, an assassin. Look at the evidence. He works for the state -- a socialist state at that. He went to university and worked with those traitors Philby and Burgess, that MacLean fellow -- communist spies to a man. He didn't resign his commission when the British government went socialist, like a decent fellow: instead he took assignments to go after entrepreneurs who were a threat to the interests of this socialist government, and he rubbed them out like a Mafia button man. There was no due process of law there, no respect for property rights, no courts, no lawyers -- just a 'License to Kill' enemies of the state, loosely defined, who mostly happened to be businessmen working on start-up projects that coincidentally threatened state monopolies. He's a damned commissar. Do you know why Moscow hated him? It's because he'd got them beat at their own racket."

Blofeld was clearly depressed by this recollection, so I tried to change the subject by asking him about his personal management philosophy."

"Well, you know, I tend to use whatever works in day to day situations. I'm a pragmatist, really. But I've got a soft spot for modern philosophers, Leo Strauss and Ayn Rand: the rights of the individual. And I've always wanted to remake the world as a better place, which is probably why the establishment dislike me: I'm a threat to vested interests. Well, they're all descended from men who were threats to vested interests too, back in the day: only I threaten them with new technologies, while their ancestors mostly did their threatening with a bloody sword and the gallows. I don't believe in initiating force." He laughs self-deprecatingly. "I suppose you could call me naive."

4. Trade Goods

When I played back my tape of our discussion, it took me some time to notice that Ernst had carefully steered the conversation away from certain key points I had intended to quiz him about.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Bond milieu is the prevalence of technologies that are strangely out of place. Belt-buckle grappling hooks with wire spools that can support a man's weight? Laser rifles? These aren't simple extrapolations of existing technology -- they go far beyond anything that's achievable with today's engineering tools or materials science. But forget Bond's toys, the products of Q division. From Blofeld's solar-powered orbital laser in "Diamonds are Forever" to Carver's stealthed cruiser in "Tomorrow Never Dies", we are surrounded by signs that the adversary has got tricks up his sleeve that far outweigh anything Bond's backers can provide. These menacing intrusions of alien super-science -- where can they possibly have got them from?

The answer can be discerned with little difficulty if one cares to scrutinize the writings of the sage of Providence, Howard Phillips Lovecraft. This scholar -- whose path, regrettably, never crossed that of the young Ian Fleming -- asserted that our tenancy of this planet is but a recent aberration. Earth has in the past been home for a number of alien species of vast antiquity and incomprehensibly advanced knowledge, and indeed some of them may still linger on alongside us -- on the high Antarctic plateau, in the frigid oceanic depths, even in strange half-breed colonies off the New England coastline.

If this strikes you as nonsensical, first contemplate your nearest city: how recognizable would it be in a hundred years' time if our entire species silently vanished away tomorrow? How recognizable would it be in a thousand years? Would any relics still bear witness to the once-proud towers of New York or Tokyo, a million years hence? Our future -- and the future of any once-proud races that bestrode our planet -- is that of an oily stain in the shale deposits of deep history. Earth's biosphere and the active tectonic system it dances on cleans house remorselessly, erasing any structure that is not alive or maintained by the living.

Consider also the extent to which we really occupy the planet we live on. We think of ourselves as the dominant species on Earth -- but 75% of the Earth's entire biomass consists of bacteria and algae that we can't even see with the naked eye. (Bacteria from whose ranks fearsome pathogens periodically emerge, burning like wildfire through our ranks.) Nor do we, in any real sense of the word, occupy the oceans. Certainly our trawlers hunt the bounty of the upper waters. But submarines (of which there are only a few hundred on the entire planet) fumble like blind men through the uppermost half kilometer of a world-ocean that averages three kilometers in depth, unable to dive beneath their pressure limits to explore the abyssal plains that cover nearly two thirds of the planetary surface. Finally, the surface (both the sub-oceanic abyss and the thin skin of dry land we cling tenuously to) is but a thousandth of the depth of the planet itself; we can't even drill through the crust, much less contemplate with any certainty the nature of events unfolding within the hot, dense mantle beneath.

We could be sharing the planet with numerous powerful alien civilizations, denizens of the high energy condensed-matter realm beneath our feet, and we'd never know it -- unless they chose to send emissaries into our biosphere, sprinkling death rays and other trade goods like glass beads before the aboriginal inhabitants, extracting a ghastly price in return for their largesse ...

5. A Colder War?

James Bond was a creature of the Cold War: a strange period of shadow-boxing that stretched from late 1945 to the winter of 1991, forty-six years of paranoia, fear, and the creepy sensation that our lives were in thrall to forces beyond our comprehension. It's almost impossible to explain the Cold War to anyone who was born after 1980; the sense of looming doom, the long shadows cast by the two eyeball-to-eyeball superpowers, each possessing vast powers of destruction, ready and able to bring about destruction on a planetary scale in pursuit of their recondite ideologies. It was, to use the appropriate adjective, a truly Lovecraftian age, dominated by the cold reality that our lives could be interrupted by torment and death at virtually any time; normal existence was conducted in a soap-bubble universe sustained only by our determination to shut out awareness of the true horrors lurking in the darkness outside it, an abyss presided over by chilly alien warriors devoted to death-cult ideologies and dreams of Mutually Assured Destruction. Decades of distance has bought us some relief, thickening the wall of the bubble -- memories misting over with the comforting illusion that the Cold War wasn't really as bad as it seemed at the time -- but who do we think we're kidding? The Cold War wasn't about us. It was about the Spies, and the Secret Masters, and the Hidden Knowledge.

It's no coincidence that the Cold War was the golden age of spying -- the peak of the second-oldest profession, the diggers in the dark, the seekers after unclean knowledge and secret wisdom. Prior to 1939, spying of the international kind rather than the sordid domestic variety (let us pass swiftly over the sordid Stasi archives of sealed glass jars full of worn underwear, kept as scent cues for the police dogs) was a small scale, largely amateurish concern. With the outbreak of the second world war it mushroomed. Faced with employment vacancies, the first response of a growing organization is to recruit close to home. Just like any 1990s dot-com startup, growing as the founders haul in all their friends and anyone they know who has the right skill set, the 1940s espionage agencies were a boom town into which a well-connected clubbable London playboy would inevitably be sucked -- and, moreover, one where he might try his hand and succeed, to everyone's surprise. (In the 1990s he'd end up in marketing, with stock options up to here. Sic transit gloria techie.)

When the Second World War gave way to the doomwatch days and Strangelove nights of the Cold War, it entered a period in which the same clubbable fellow might find himself working in a mature organization, vastly larger and more professional than the half-assed amateurism of the early days. The CIA was born in the shadow of the wartime OSS, and grew into the emblematic Company (traders in secrets, overthrowers of governments), locked in titanic struggle with that other superpowered rival, the KGB (and their less well known fellows in the GRU).

The age of the traditional sneak-spies with their Minox cameras gave way to the era of the bugging device. With the 1960s came a new emphasis on supplementing human intelligence (HUMINT) with intelligence from electronic sources (ELINT). New agencies -- the NSA in the United States, GCHQ in the UK -- expanded as the field of "spyless spying" went mainstream, aided by the explosion in computing power made possible by integrated circuits and, later, the microprocessor. As telephony, television, telex, and other technologies began to come online a torrent of data poured through the wires, a deluge that threatened to drown the agencies in useless noise. Or was it the whispering on the deep-ocean cables? Maybe the chatter served to conceal and disguise the quiet whispering of the hidden oracles, dribbling out strange new concepts that warped the vulnerable primate minds to serve their inscrutable goals. The source of the incredible new technologies that drove the advances of the middle of the twentieth century was, perhaps, the whispering of an alien farmer in the ears of his herd ...

Times change, and the golden age of spying is over. We've delivered the harvest of fear that the secret masters desired; or maybe they've simply lost interest in us for the time being. Time will tell. For now, be content that it's all over: the Cold War was a time of strangely rapid technological progress, but also of claustrophobic fear of destruction at three minutes' notice, of the thermonuclear stars coming right and bringing madness and death in their wake. Retreat into your soap-bubble universe, little primate, and give thanks.

From the perspective of the 21st century, Bond was a poor archetype for a hero; certainly he couldn't save us from the gibbering horrors of the Cold War, but only cast a shadow beneath their unblinking ground-zero glare. But we found salvation in the end, in the most unlikely place of all: if you turn on the TV you're likely to see one of old Ernst's protégés being held up for praise as an object of emulation. President of Italy, captain of industry, or chief executive of Enron -- SPECTRE won and it's their world that we live in, the world of the lesser evil.

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
2 days ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories