NATO Wikipedia ting Vit

Posted on by

NATO l tn tt ca T chc Hip c Bc i Ty Dng (ting Anh: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; ting Php: Organisation du Trait de l'Atlantique Nord v vit tt l OTAN) l mt lin minh qun s da trn Hip c Bc i Ty Dng c k kt vo ngy 4 thng 4 nm 1949 bao gm M v mt s nc chu u (cc nc 2 bn b i Ty Dng), vi mc ch thit lp mt lin minh phng th trong cc nc thnh vin thc hin phng th chung khi b tn cng bi bn ngoi.

Ba thnh vin ca NATO l thnh vin thng trc ca Hi ng Bo an Lin Hip Quc vi quyn ph quyt v l cc nc s hu v kh ht nhn: M, Php v Anh. Tr s chnh ca NATO t ti Brussels, B,[3], ni Supreme Allied Commander ta lc. B l mt trong 28 quc gia thnh vin NATO ti Bc M v chu u, v mi nht trong s cc thnh vin l cc nc Albania v Croatia, tham gia vo thng 4 nm 2009. Mt 22 quc gia khc tham gia vi t cch i tc quan h ca NATO trong chng trnh Ha bnh, v 15 quc gia khc tham gia vo cc chng trnh i thoi th ch ha. Chi ph qun s ca NATO chim 70% chi ph qun s th gii, ring M chim khong 50%, Anh, Php, c v gp li chim 15% chi ph qun s th gii.[4] Chi ph ca cc thnh vin NATO d tnh l 2% GDP.[5]

Mc ch thnh lp ca NATO l ngn chn s pht trin nh hng ca ch ngha cng sn v Lin X lc ang trn pht trin rt mnh chu u c th gy phng hi n an ninh ca cc nc thnh vin. Vic thnh lp NATO dn n vic cc nc cng sn thnh lp khi Warszawa lm i trng. S knh ch v chy ua v trang ca hai khi qun s i ch ny l cuc i u chnh ca Chin tranh Lnh trong na cui th k 20.

Nhng nm u tin thnh lp, NATO ch l mt lin minh chnh tr. Tuy nhin, do cuc chin tranh Triu Tin tc ng, mt t chc qun s hp nht c thnh lp. Nghi ng rng lin kt ca cc nc chu u v M yu i cng nh kh nng phng th ca NATO trc kh nng m rng ca Lin X, Php rt khi B Ch huy qun s ca NATO (khng rt khi NATO) nm 1966. Nm 2009, vi s phiu p o ca quc hi di s lnh o ca chnh ph ca tng thng Nicolas Sarkozy, Php quay tr li NATO.

Sau khi bc tng Berlin sp nm 1989, t chc b li cun vo cuc phn chia nc Nam T, v ln u tin tham d qun s ti Bosna v Hercegovina t 1992 ti 1995 v sau th bom Serbia vo nm 1999 trong cuc ni chin Kosovo. T chc ngoi ra c nhng quan h tt p hn vi nhng nc thuc khi i u trc y trong nhiu nc tng thuc khi Warszawa gia nhp NATO t nm 1999 n 2004. Ngy 1 thng 4 nm 2009, s thnh vin ln n 28 vi s gia nhp ca Albania v Croatia.[6] T sau s kin 11 thng 9 nm 2001, NATO tp trung vo nhng th thch mi trong c a qun n Afghanistan v Iraq.

Hy Lp v Th Nh K gia nhp t chc vo thng 2 nm 1952. Nm 1955 Cng ho Lin bang c (lc ch c phn Ty c) gia nhp, nm 1990 nc c thng nht m rng t cch thnh vin cho vng lnh th ng c tc Cng ho Dn ch c c. Ty Ban Nha gia nhp ngy 30 thng 5 nm 1982. Nm 1999, 3 nc thnh vin khi Warszawa c gia nhp NATO l Ba Lan, Cng ho Sc v Hungary.

Php l mt thnh vin NATO, nhng nm 1966 rt khi b ch huy qun s. Sau tng hnh dinh NATO chuyn t Paris n Bruxelles. Thng 4 nm 2009, Php quay tr li b ch huy qun s NATO, tr thnh thnh vin y , chm dt 43 nm vng bng. Iceland l thnh vin duy nht ca NATO khng c qun i ring v th lc lng qun i Hoa K thng trc ti Iceland m nhim vai tr Lc lng Phng v Iceland.

Ngy 29 thng 3 nm 2004, Slovenia, Slovakia, cc nc khi Warszawa c gm Bulgaria, Romania, cc nc vng Baltic thuc Lin X trc y l Estonia, Latvia v Litva chnh thc gia nhp NATO. Thng 4 cng nm, cc nc ny ln u tin d hp hi ng NATO.

Ngy 1 thng 4 nm 2009, Croatia v Albania chnh thc c kt np vo NATO sau 1 nm np n xin gia nhp.

Ngoi ra, NATO cn c chng trnh hnh ng thnh vin (MAP). Hin ti MAP gm Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina v Montenegro.

Theo NATO, trong hn hai thp k, NATO c gng xy dng quan h i tc vi Nga, i thoi v hp tc vi Nga trong cc lnh vc hai bn cng c li. Tuy nhin quan h ny b rn nt khi Nato co buc Nga can thip qun s vo Ukraina nhng NATO vn gi cc knh i thoi chnh tr v qun s vi Nga. NATO tip tc quan tm n cc hot ng qun s ca Nga sau s kin Ukraina.[7] V phn mnh, Nga cng li khng hong ti Ukraina l do NATO gy ra khi khng gi vng cc cam kt trc vi Nga cng nh tin hnh lt chnh quyn hp php ti y bng o chnh.[8] Trn thc t, Nga v Nato lun tn ti rt nhiu bt ng.

Theo Hc thuyt qun s Lin bang Nga, lc lng v trang Nga c t chc theo nguyn tc phng th, khng e da s dng v lc v ngn chn xung t nhm bo v ha bnh v cc li ch quc gia ca Nga, cc ng minh (bao gm cc li ch ca cng dn, x hi v nh nc) khi cc bin php chnh tr, kinh t, ngoi giao, php l v cc bin php phi bo lc khc khng c tc dng. Trong Hc thuyt qun s, Nga coi vic NATO s dng nng lc tim tng ca mnh vi phm lut php quc t thng qua qu trnh m rng l mt mi e da qun s i vi Nga ngang hng vi cc nguy c v gy mt n nh ni b ca cc quc gia, khu vc, th gii; trin khai qun t xut cc quc gia c bin gii vi Nga hoc bin gii vi ng minh ca Nga; cc h thng phng th v tn cng gy mt cn bng ht nhn chin lc ton cu; s ph bin v kh hy dit hng lot; s dng lc lng v trang khng theo lut php quc t v hin chng Lin Hip Quc; thnh lp nhng chnh ph chng Nga v ng minh m khng thng qua bu c hp php ti cc quc gia lng ging ca Nga v ng minh; ch ngha khng b v li dng chng khng b gy phng hi cho Nga v ng minh...Chnh sch i ngoi ca Nga vi NATO l i thoi trn c s bnh ng, tn trng ln nhau nhm xy dng nn an ninh vi nn tng khng lin kt v c tnh tp th (collective non-aligned), Nga v NATO cng nhau cng c vai tr ca T chc An ninh v Hp tc Chu u (OSCE).[9]

Chnh sch kt np cc thnh vin c trong khi X hi ch ngha ti ng u v cc nc thuc khng gian hu X-vit b Nga ln n l hnh ng vi phm Hip c Cc Lc lng V trang Thng thng chu u (CFE) khi Hip nh ny nghim cm cc thnh vin c trong khi X hi ch ngha ti ng u v cc nc thuc khng gian hu X-vit gia nhp NATO[10]. Bn cnh Nga cng co buc NATO khng gi ng cam kt v duy tr mc trn v s lng v kh thng thng. Vic NATO m rng v pha ng l mt trong cc nguyn nhn gy ra cuc khng hong chnh tr ti Ukraina. V c bn, NATO m rng v pha ng ti khng nh a v lnh o ton cu ca M, khng gian an ninh v khng gian sinh tn ca Nga dn b thu hp, b cc an ninh a chnh tr ca chu u thay i ng k[11].

Hoa K ch trng duy tr NATO v thc y chnh sch ng tin ca NATO, bin y tr thnh l do NATO tn ti sau chin tranh Lnh. Nga tuy tha k v th php l ca Lin X nhng khng th hng mnh mt cch ton din nh Lin X trc kia. Tuy nhin, Nga vn l mt cng quc chu u v chnh sch ng tin l kim ch Nga[11].

Sau khi Chin tranh Lnh kt thc, NATO tin hnh 3 t ng tin. Ngay trong ln m rng u tin, bin gii NATO c m v pha ng thm 900km, qun s tng thm 13 S on, tip nhn ton b v kh-kh ti cc thnh vin mi v ng c. iu ny khin cho cn cn Nga-NATO mt cn bng nghim trng. Tng qun s NATO gn 5 triu qun (cha tnh qun s ca Hoa K v cc nc ngoi chu u), trong khi Nga c 3,2 triu. ngy 27/5/1997 k kt Vn kin c bn v quan h, hp tc v an ninh gia Nga vi NATO. Trong vn kin, NATO cam kt s Nga c quyn pht ngn mc nht nh i vi cc s v ca NATO. Hn na NATO bo m khng b tr v kh ht nhn trong lnh th cc nc thnh vin mi.[11].

Chnh sch ng tin xm phm n sn sau ca Nga v e da n li ch chin lc ct li ca nc ny, mt iu m Tng thng Putin nhn mnh v lp li nhiu ln. Tng thng Nga Boris Yeltsin ni: y l du hiu u tin v iu c th xy ra khi NATO tin gn n bin gii ca Lin bang Nga. Ngn la chin tranh c th bng chy v tri khp chu u" khi NATO m rng ln th nht sau chin tranh Lnh[10]. Ngoi trng Nga Lavrov cng b cc ti liu chng minh rng NATO tng ha vi Lin X v Nga rng NATO khng bao gi m rng v pha ng[12].

Bn cnh chnh sch ng tin, h thng phng th tn la ca NATO ti ng u cng b Nga coi l mt mi e da khc. Mc d NATO tuyn b h thng ny lm nhm chng li cc mi e da t Iran nhng Nga cho rng s thiu cn bng trong vic trin khai lc lng gia ng u-a Trung Hi l minh chng cho s bao vy Nga[13]. Bn cnh , vic Iran khng c kh nng tn cng chu u nn thc t h thng ny l kim ch Nga[14]. Nm 2001, Chnh quyn ca Tng thng G.W.Bush n phng tuyn b rt khi Hip c chng tn la n o (ABM), m M v Lin X k kt nm 1972 xy dng h thng ny khin Nga cc k lo ngi khi Hip c ny l nn tng hai bn duy tr th cn bng lc lng.[15].

p tr, Nga ln k hoch vic nng cp kh nng tn cng bng tn la ca mnh, trong c k hoch trin khai tn la n o chin thut Iskander ti Kaliningrad, Krashnodar (Nga) v Belarus[16].

Ngy 13/05/2015, Nga phn ng gay gt khi Hoa K a h thng phng th tn la ng u chnh thc i vo hot ng. H thng ny tr gi 800 triu USD[17]. Ngoi ra Nga cng thnh lp 3 s on mi ti min Ty nc ny lm i trng vi NATO[18]

Pht ngn vin in Kremlin Dmitri S. Peskov ni rng: "Ngay t u, cc chuyn gia qun s ca Nga b thuyt phc rng h thng tn la ny to ra mt mi e da ln vi Lin bang Nga"[19]

Hin ti, khc phc nhng nhc im ca NATO cng nh c lp hn vi Hoa K trong chnh sch i ngoi v phng th, Lin minh Chu u a ra xut thnh lp mt qun i ring ca cc nc trong khi. C ng Jean-Claude Juncker - Ch tch y ban chu u, ln b Federica Mogherini - Cao y Lin minh Chu u v i ngoi (tng ng Ngoi trng ca khi) u ng h k hoch ny.[20] Tin trnh ny trc y b Anh phn i do lo ngi lc lng v trang ny s cnh tranh vi NATO. Theo Anh, k hoch ny s lm hng chnh sch phng th ca EU.[21] Tuy nhin, t sau khi Anh ri EU, k hoch ny li c ni li. Vic thnh lp lc lng v trang ring ca EU rt c c, Php - 2 nc ch cht trong khi ng h.[22] V pha Hoa K, vic thnh lp qun qun i EU s khin nc ny gim bt chi ph dnh cho cc nc ng minh Chu u thng qua NATO, khng phi can thip vo nhng cng vic ca ring Chu u nhng t c nh hng ti li ch ca Hoa K nh nhng s vic Balkan.[23] Vic b Mogherini tuyn b qun i EU s lm vic c lp vi NATO lm gia tng lo ngi rng qun i EU s thay th vai tr ca NATO chu u. Hungary, Italia v Sc u ng h k hoch ny.[24] T Ngi Bo v ca Anh cho rng Hoa K s ng h vic thnh lp qun i ny nu n khin cho Chu u "suy yu mt cch nhanh chng v vng chc". T bo ny cng nhn mnh rng hin ti Chu u khng thiu mt qun i m thiu mt cam kt v phng th gia cc nc Chu u v xuyn i Ty Dng.[25] Ngy 22 thng 11 nm 2016, Lin minh Chu u a ra cam kt qun i ring ca khi s i vo hot ng vo nm 2017.[26] Theo ng Sergey Rastoltsev thuc Vin Kinh t Th gii v Quan h Quc t Primakov, thuc Hc vin Khoa hc Lin bang Nga, qun i EU c th khin quan h chnh tr-qun s gia Nga-EU thm cng thng nhng trong trng hp quan h Nga-EU c ci thin, qun i EU cng c th to ra nhiu c hi hp tc hn gia Nga-EU nu so vi vai tr ca NATO do NATO vn d l mt vt tch t thi Chin tranh lnh v do s nh hng ca Hoa K ln quan h Nga-EU cng s b gim bt khi qun i ny khng c Hoa K tham gia nh NATO.[27]

c thm Giai on u

c thm Giai on Chin tranh Lnh sp kt thc

c thm Giai on hu Chin tranh lnh

c thm Lch s chung

c thm Cc vn khc

Go here to see the original:

NATO Wikipedia ting Vit

Turkey’s Drift from the EU and NATO Could Be Permanent – The Cipher Brief

Posted on by

Relations between Turkey and the European Union already fraught have deteriorated swiftly over the last few months. In June, the refusal of Turkish officials to allow German parliamentarians to visit their troops stationed at the Incirlik air base in southeastern Turkey, who are part of the fight against ISIS, encouraged Berlin to pull its forces surveillance aircraft out of the country and move them to Jordan.

In a resolution passed last week, the European Parliament voted to suspend Turkeys accession talks with the EU, citing Turkeys slide into authoritarianism under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. And, according to reporting from Reuters, Germany is now asking the European Commission to pause its negotiations with Ankara on the EU-Turkey Customs Union.

Squabbles between the European Union and Turkey, which has been negotiating accession to the bloc since 1999, are not new. However, the escalation in rhetorical attacks between Turkey and European powers in March Erdogan called the Netherlands the capital of fascism and compared German politicians to Nazis has been unique. That war of words now threatens to undermine the NATO alliance, especially as Turkey pursues the $2.5 billion preliminary agreement it signed with Russia to buy S-400 SAM air defense systems.

What does this mean for the U.S. and the Trump Administration, which relies heavily on Turkey for support against ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

Turkish ties to several EU countries have been damaged this year, but its relations with Germany have seen the sharpest decline. Those relations also offer the clearest look at the effects of a serious deterioration of Turkeys place in both NATO and the EU accession process. On the NATO side, Germanys decision to move its troops from Incirlik air base is significant, but it is a proposed redirection of AWACS surveillance planes from the Konya air base in central Turkey that would be most damaging to NATO unity. As Karl-Heinz Kamp, Director of the German Federal Academy for Security Policy in Berlin, notes, the AWACS fleets stationing in Turkey was not on the basis of a bilateral agreement with the country, it is part of a NATO agreement.

Not only does the anti-ISIS coalition lose the capability of the AWACS while they are in transit, the move also forms a diplomatic rift within NATO. This is why NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is currently attempting to mediate negotiations between the two allies. According to Kamp, Stoltenberg is in a very tricky situation where, faced with multiple crises within NATO, he is trying to avoid escalation in any of these conflict areas.

On the EU side of the equation, it is the perceived authoritarian and anti-European bent of the Erdogan government that is driving the diplomatic crisis, and the failed military coup against Erdogan in July of last year marks the turning point from tense relations into a burgeoning crisis. Since then, the Erdogan government has purged of over 100,000 military officers, civil servants, journalists, and academics suspected of involvement in the putsch. They also succeeded in winning a Yes vote in the countrys constitutional referendum that will grant sweeping new powers to President Erdogan when enacted.

European leaders have consistently expressed worry at what they see as the consolidation of powers in Erdogans hands and the multiple alleged human rights abuses committed by the Turkish government during the purge. In response, Erdogan and his allies deny any anti-democratic practices, claim the purge has been necessary to combat pro-coup elements in the country, and maintain that they do not need the EU accession process and that threats to end it will not influence their policy.

Many analysts believed that the severity of these exchanges would die off after Erdogan won the decision he wanted in the referendum. Secure in his power at home, the theory was that he would seek to repair his countrys ties with Europe. However, says Director of the Turkish Research Project at the Washington Institute and author of The New Sultan, Soner Cagaptay, this outcome no longer looks likely.

This is partially due to a new series of provocations including the arrest of ten Amnesty International human rights workers by Turkish authorities this July. But, says Cagaptay, this runs much deeper. According to him, what we saw before the Turkish constitutional referendum in April were not episodic glitches, they actually represented the culmination of [an Erdoganist] political ideology that is driven by a very deep sense of anti-European anti-western sentiment. This means that crises like this will continue to crop up between Turkey and Europe.

Nevertheless, Turkish economic growth is heavily dependent on foreign direct investment and tourism, and the bulk of this outside money is European. For this reason, despite the public saber rattling and chest-beating against Europe, Erdogans government is simultaneously pursuing talks to upgrade its critical customs union with the EU. Germany is now threatening that economic lifeline by asking the European Commission to halt those talks with Ankara but Erdogan still has a trump card to play here: refugees. Basically, says Cagaptay, if Erdogan wants, all three million [refugees] could be in Germany tomorrow, and the rest of Europe in three months.

This kind of exchange between economic support and curbing refugee flows may ease the current crisis with the EU, but it is hardly permanent. This presents a serious problem for the United States, especially where current and new crises intersect with NATO unity. Interestingly, questions about Turkeys place in NATO and relations with the European Union come at the same moment as similar questions about U.S. President Donald Trumps commitment to NATO and ties to key leaders in western Europe.

However, for the moment at least, the U.S. Administration needs some semblance of unity between Turkey and its European NATO allies. The U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq relies on Turkish bases, particularly the air base at Incirlik, to provide timely support to its forces and allies on the ground. Any threat to that support whether it comes from intra-NATO disputes or Turkish anger at U.S. support for the Syrian Kurdish YPG and the rise of anti-western political narratives could seriously degrade U.S. efforts to fight the terror group. As Stoltenberg attempts to negotiate a deal between Turkey and Germany, the Trump Administration should consider lending its voice to the mix.

Visit link:

Turkey's Drift from the EU and NATO Could Be Permanent - The Cipher Brief

Anti-sub defense, minesweeping ops on agenda at NATO’s Baltic States war games – RT

Posted on by

The Baltic Naval Squadron (BALTRON) annual naval war games kicked off Monday, the Lithuanian Ministry of Defense announced, local media reports. War ships from three NATO states are set to practice various military tactics amid the blocs build-up near the Russian border.

Starting from Tuesday, warships from Latvia, Lithuania, and Germany will take part in the BALTRON Squadron Exercise 17/2 in the Baltic Sea and Lithuanian territorial waters.

Over the course of five days, the vessels will practice naval maneuvers, submarine target defense, communication, as well as search-and-rescue and minesweeping operations under the supervision of Lithuanian Navy Commander Tomas Skurdenis.

Read more

Taking part in the exercise will be the Lithuanian LNS Jotvingis N42 ship, Suduvis M52 and Kursis M54 minehunters, Aukstaitis P14 and Selis P15 patrol ships, Sakiai rescue vessel and H21 harbor cutter in the exercises, while the Germans will use a Pegnitz M1090 minesweeper.

The Latvian contingent will consist of its Rusins minehunter ship and Varonis support vessel.

The BALTRON naval squadron was inaugurated in 1998 and comprises the navies of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, with each contribute one to two minesweeping vessels to the group. Working under the NATO umbrella, its stated purpose is to minimize mine hazards, enhance security of the Baltic States territorial waters and help to remediate environmental damage in the territorial waters and economic zones of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The exercises come amid a heightened period of NATO build-up and military activity in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, which has intensified since the Ukrainian crisis. In June, 5,300 troops from 10 NATO countries participated in the 10-day Iron Wolf military drills in Lithuania, with the stated purpose of deterring the perceived Russian threat.

Read more

Part of the drills took place on a 104-kilometer (64.6-mile) patch of land in the Suwalki Gap, which borders the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Around 1,500 troops took part in the drills, which were aimed at training them to respond to potential aggression.

Russian officials have repeatedly warned that such behavior could be seen as provocative and undermine regional security. In July, Russias permanent representative to NATO, Aleksandr Grushko, said that the alliances military activities near the Russian border pose a threat to national security.

Its clear for us that such activities not only ensure a reinforced military presence of the allies in the immediate vicinity of Russias borders but in fact represent an intensive mastering of the potential theater of military operations, accompanied by the development of the necessary infrastructure, Grushko told reporters.

Claiming that the growing NATO military presence in Eastern Europe undermines stability in the region, Grushko said that Moscow cannot leave such steps unanswered and will undertake necessary steps to boldly defend our interests.

Go here to read the rest:

Anti-sub defense, minesweeping ops on agenda at NATO's Baltic States war games - RT

Separating NSA and CYBERCOM? Be Careful When Reading the GAO Report – Lawfare (blog)

Posted on by

The Government Accountability Office last week published a report that, among other things, weighs in on the pros and cons the NSA/CYBERCOM dual-hat system (pursuant to which the Director of NSA/CSS and Commander of CYBERCOM are the same person). The report deserves attention, but also some criticism and context. Heres a bit of all three.

1. What is the dual-hat issue?

If you are new to the dual-hat issue, or in any event if youve not closely followed the developments of the past year, please read this recent post for an introduction and overview.

2. What was GAOs bottom line? Did they recommend keeping or abolishing the dual-hat?

Neither. The report does not purport to answer that question. It is, instead, no more no less than an attempt to convey the DOD perspective (and only the DOD perspective) on the pros and cons of keeping the dual-hat structure (as well as identifying some mitigation steps).

3. What method did GAO use to determine DODs perspective?

GAO did three things:

a. It reviewed documents previously generated by CYBERCOM and by the Joint Staff to educate their own leadership on the pros and cons.

b. It sent out questionnaires to various DOD components (with relevant responses received from CYBERCOM, 6 combatant commands, 4 combat support agencies, and 3 OSD offices, plus a collective response for DOD produced by DODs CIO); and

c. It conducted interviews with personnel from CYBERCOM, DOD CIO, and NSA/CSS.

4. Anything wrong with that methodology?

Not if your goal is to convey only DODs perspective. And to be fair, that was GAOs stated goal. But this approach is problematic.

One of the issues driving the dual-hat debate involves the tension that arises between intelligence-collection equities (which NSA would be inclined to favor) and disruption equities (which CYBERCOM would be inclined to favor), in the scenario in which access to enemy-controlled system could be used for either purpose. As a result, the Intelligence Community has a stake in this question. GAO should have reached out for input from ODNI in particular (and it also is odd that GAO only included NSA in one of the three methods mentioned above).

GAO might respond that its terms of reference were DOD-specific. Thats clearly true for certain other parts of the GAO report in question, dealing with other topics. Its less clearly the case with the dual-hat portion of the report. But even if it is, it does not follow that GAO could not include in its report any reference to possibly-competing perspectives from the IC. Indeed, I would go further and say it was a big mistake not to do so, for it was perfectly foreseeable that this report would be taken by many (especially the media) as conveying a general assessment of the dual-hat issue rather than just a DOD-specific summary of opinions, no matter how many caveats are given.

5. Fine, but it is what it is. So lets look at what GAO actually reported, starting with the three pros favoring preservation of the dual-hat arrangement. The first one asserts that the dual-hat promotes coordination and collaboration between NSA and CYBERCOM. Comments?

At bottom, this is a claim that having a common boss makes it relatively easy to collaborate when it comes to developing exploits and sorting out when and how they are used. That makes sense, and is consistent with conventional wisdom on the dual-hat situation.

6. The second pro is about how the dual-hat solves the deconfliction challenge mentioned above, but whats really interesting here is what the report implies about how that challenge would otherwise have to be managed.

As noted above, the need to deconflict when collection and disruption equities compete is a big part of this story. Here, GAO acknowledges that the status quo provides a ready-made solution. So far, so good. What is really interesting, though, is the comment GAO then makes regarding what would happen in such cases of tension in the absence of the dual-hat.

Tellingly, the report observes that, in that case, deconfliction issues would have to be taken to the Secretary of Defense and/or Director of National Intelligence for resolution (emphasis added). I love the use of and/or in that sentence. It perfectly captures a critical point: absent a dual-hat, there has to be a new deconfliction system, and yet the lead contenders for that role each have a dog in the fight. Let me expand on that a bit.

Assume we decide to end the dual-hat system, without first settling on a new deconfliction system. What then? In that case, CYBERCOM usually will win over NSA. Why? Think about it. NSA wants to use existing access to keep collecting, but CYBERCOM wants to use it to disrupt the platform. If NSA barrels ahead with its preference, nothing really changes; the target remains operational and the enemy is none the wiser, hopefully. But if CYBERCOM barrels ahead with its preference, in most instances that will shut down the target (or at least make it clear to the enemy that the target has been penetrated); no more collection at that point. NSA will lose such battles, except when DIRNSA manages to see the issue coming and gets someone over CYBERCOMs head to make them back off.

Sounds like we would need a formal system to replace the dual-hat for deconfliction then. But what would that look like? If the solution is to charge the DNI with making the call, CYBERCOM wont likely be happy. If the solution instead is to charge SecDef (or USD(I) or the like), NSA (and DNI) wont likely be happy. If the solution instead is to convene a committee of some kind with stakeholders from both sidesand that committee works by majority votethen the same problem arises (unless you find some third-party player, like the National Security Adviser, to ensure there is not a tie and that the IC and military have equal voting power).

The point being: this issue needs serious attention. I dont doubt a decent solution can be developed, but care must be taken lest we stumble into the default scenario mentioned above.

7. The third pro involves the efficient allocation of resources, but its really about the idea that NSA makes CYBERCOM possibleand that reminds us that the dual-hat isnt going away soon.

The third pro noted by GAO is that the dual-hat facilitates NSA and CYBERCOM sharing operational infrastructure (translated: hacking tools, accesses, staging servers, personnel, etc.), as well as the infrastructure for training. Of course, its pretty much a one-way street; this traditionally is all about NSA sharing its expertise with CYBERCOM as it has stood up. Legislation currently forbids separation of the dual hat until DOD can certify that CYBERCOM is truly ready to operate independently. Thats supposed to be the case by September next year, but of course its one thing to say it and quite another to achieve it.

8. Turning now to the cons, GAO introduces the idea that the dual-hat may give CYBERCOM an unfair advantage over other commands.

This one was phrased very carefully. Without saying that this problem already exists, GAO says that CYBERCOM thinks that other commands are worried that the dual-hat may in the future unduly favor CYBERCOM requests for NSA support over the requests that come from other military commands. This is an interesting twist on the more-familiar concern that military equities in general will trump collection equities. This is military-vs-military instead. At any rate, again note that it is framed as speculation rather than a current observation. That might be politeness, or it might really be purely speculative. You really cant tell from the GAO report (see my last point below, on whether any of the reports observations have strong evidentiary foundations).

9. The second con GAO lists is a bombshell: The dual-hat creates [i]ncreased potential for exposure of NSA/CSS tools and operations.

Wow. In an almost cavalier way, the GAO report links the dual-hat issue directly to the fierce, ongoing debate over the security of NSAs tools, a topic that goes to the very heart of NSAs mission. Because of the importance of that latter debate, GAOs assertion will constitute a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of separating the dual-hat, if it catches on. Time will tell if it will. For now, lets just take a closer look at the claim.

First, here is what GAO says on the subject:

The dual-hat command structure has led to a high-level of CYBERCOM dependence on NSA/CSS tools and infrastructure. According to NSA/CSS officials, the agency shares its tools and tactics for gaining access to networks with a number of U.S. government agencies, but CYBERCOMs dependence on and use of the tools and accesses is particularly prevalent. CYBERCOMs dependence on NSA/CSS tolls increases the potential that the tools could be exposed.

Lets parse the two claims here.

Does the dual-hat create CYBERCOM dependence on NSA, as the first sentence indicates? I think that has things backwards. As noted in the prior con, CYBERCOM badly needed NSA at first, and still needs it to no small extent. Thats not caused by the dual-hat. It is caused by lack of capacity. The dual-hat has been part of the solution to that need. Perhaps DOD meant to convey a different point: that keeping the status quo has become a crutch that prevents CYBERCOM from pressing faster to build its own capacities. That makes more sense.

Does CYBERCOM use of NSA tools and accesses (i.e., exploits and penetrations) increase the risk of their exposure? Put that way, the answer must be yes. Every instance of use of any exploit or access creates a new opportunity for others to discover it, and so the risk must go up each time (you might say each use increases the exposure surface). But note that weve just put the question in a non-nuanced way, without any attempt to quantify the degree of increase in the risk, let alone to place it in context with offsetting benefits or with reference to mitigation strategies for this problem. All that emerges from the GAO Report is the bottom line: CYBERCOM relies on NSA tools ostensibly because of the dual-hat, and therefore the dual-hat increases the risk of those tools getting loose. And any suggestion that a policy exacerbates that risk is bound to draw attention.

The possibility of loose NSA tools has become a flashpoint for debate, in a manner that threatens for better or worse to create new limits on the ability of NSA to develop or keep certain capacities (particularly knowledge of zero-day vulnerabilities). NSA received a substantial black eye when a Russian intelligence agency the mysterious entity identifying itself as the Shadowbrokers somehow acquired a cache of NSA-created exploits and then began dumping them publiclyespecially after one of those exploits was used in connection with WannaCry and NotPetya. Both WannaCry and NotPetya received a vast amount of media attention, much of it pinning the blame in large part on NSA. This fueled arguments to the effect that NSA should not be allowed to create or preserve such tools (or at least that current procedures for balancing the competing equities involved (building NSAs collection capacity, vs improving the security of commercially-available products) should be altered significantly so as to reduce NSAs capacities in this area).

That argument was out there before WannaCry and NotPetya broke, in fact, but once those stories broke it received a strong boost from Microsoft. As this June piece in the New York Times from Nicole Perlroth and David Sanger underscores, this perspective has gained considerable momentum with some in private industry, Congress, and foreign governments. Just this morning, former NSA Deputy Director Rick Ledgett wrote a post here at Lawfare fighting back against this argument, highlighting how important the issue is.

Whether you agree or disagree with this argument, you no doubt can appreciate how it has made the government acutely sensitive to questions about the security of NSAs tools. As a result, the argument that the dual-hat creates significant security risks for those tools has the potential to have an outsized impact on the dual-hat debate. Which is a good thing, if the argument is a persuasive one. Unfortunately, the GAO report does not come anywhere close to giving us enough information to judge the matter. And yet this part of the report grabbed headlines in some quarters (see this piece in NextGov, titled GAO: Keeping NSA and CyberCom Together Makes Hacking Tool Leaks More Likely).

10. The next con listed by GAO: NSA and CYBERCOM are too much for any one person to manage.

Thats a familiar and serious concern, and it is unsurprising that it arose here. It is entangled to some extent with the deconfliction issue, of course, but at the end of the day being Director of NSA and Commander of CYBERCOM both concern vastly more than deconfliction.

11. The next con on the list? Strangely, its the deconfliction issue, which we already discussed above as a pro for the dual-hat. What gives?

It is telling that the deconfliction issue pops up both as a pro and a con. As noted above, the dual-hat is a good thing for deconfliction insofar as one thinks there ought to be a single decision-maker who takes both collection and disruption equities seriously. But here we now see the flip-side of the argument, as GAO reports that personnel from both NSA and CYBERCOM (including a senior-level official) told GAO that the dual-hat leads to increased tension between NSA and CYBERCOM staffs, because their respective collection and disruption missions may not always be mutually achievable.

You know what Im going to say, I suspect. The tension is caused by the combination of incompatible missions and shared tools/accesses. Thats not the dual-hats fault. The dual-hat is one solution to resolving the tension. As I have noted here, there clearly is a view in some circles that the fix is in with the dual-hat, in favor of NSAs collection mission. Maybe thats right, maybe its not. But at any rate, listing the dual-hat as a con here seems to be a reflection of that perspective.

12. The last con on the list has to do with difficulties in tracking expenditures the NSA makes on behalf of CYBERCOM

This may well be a very important issue, but it seems to me the sort of thing to be addressed through improved procedures, and should not matter much in deciding whether to keep the dual-hat.

13. How strong is the evidence supporting the various pro and con claims?

I recommend caution. We get a description of GAOs methods, as noted above, but of course we do not also get the underlying documents, interview notes, etc. And the reports narrative on each point is exceedingly thin, no longer really than what Im providing here. Note, too, my earlier observation that GAO does not appear to have sought the views of ODNI, and only sought NSA views to a limited extent. None of which is to say that any of the observations are incorrect, of course.

Originally posted here:

Separating NSA and CYBERCOM? Be Careful When Reading the GAO Report - Lawfare (blog)

Posted in NSA

NSA whistleblower discusses ‘How the NSA tracks you’ – CSO Online

Posted on by

Ms. Smith (not her real name) is a freelance writer and programmer with a special and somewhat personal interest in IT privacy and security issues.

At the outdoor hacker camp and conference SHA2017, which is taking place in the Netherlands, NSA whistleblower William Binney gave the talk, How the NSA tracks you.

As a former insider, Binney knew about this long before Snowden dropped the documents to prove it is happening. Although he didnt say anything new, Binney is certainly no fan of the NSAs spying he calls the NSA the New Stasi Agency. If you are no fan of surveillance, then his perspective from the inside about the total invasion of the privacy rights of everybody on the planet will fuel your fury at the NSA all over again.

In todays cable program, according to Binney, the NSA uses corporations that run fiber lines to get taps on the lines. If that fails, they use foreign governments to get taps on the lines. And if that doesnt work, theyll tap the line anywhere that they can get to it meaning corporations or governments wont even know about the taps.

The companies are involved at the next step the PRISM program, which includes collection directly from the servers of U.S. service providers. However, Binney said PRISM is the minor program when compared to Upstream, which includes collecting data from the taps on fiber-optic cables in hundreds of places around the world. Thats where they are collecting off the fiber lines all the data and storing it.

PRISM was for show-and-tell purposes, to show Congress and courts what the NSA was doing and to say we have warrants and are abiding by the laws. Upstream was the one that allowed the NSA to take everything off the line.

Regarding worldwide SIGINT, CNE (computer network exploitation) was the big one. Implants in hardware or software, lets say switches or servers, make them do anything they want because the NSA pwned them.

That feeds the NSAs Treasure Map, which provides a map of the entire internet in near real-time; any device, anywhere, all the time every minute of every day. As Binney put it, So its not just collecting what youre saying encrypted or not but its also monitoring where you are when you do it.

Treasure Map is also how intelligence agencies use GPS from cell phones to target drone attack victims. Binney noted there are at least 1.2 million people on the drone hit list.

He also mentioned the programs that include the input of all phone data, fixed, mobile, satellite any kind of phone which both the FBI and CIA can directly access so that when they want to see who did what, they have an index, all, to everything they ever said in their database.

All the data is collected without warrants so its a basic violation of the rights of every human, Binney said.

He also covered how other agencies can directly access the NSAs data, Five Eyes, CIA, FBI, DEA and DIA. The police can access it via the FBIs system.

The NSA could choose to look at the right targets, but doesnt. The NSA may collect it all, but thats not the same as intelligence, as understanding all of what was collected. If you use one of the hot keywords in an email, for example, it will get flagged for review. But planned attacks happen because analysts are so buried beneath the data they cant see the attacks coming. Binney previously tried to convince the U.K. that bulk data kills people.

While all this data isnt helping to stop attacks, having all the data gives the intelligence community the power to manipulate anyone they want. Its like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids all the collected data gives intelligence agencies the means to target anyone. Then parallel construction is used after the fact to go back and build a separate basis for an investigation to cover up the fact that the data was obtained unconstitutionally.

Before taking questions from conference attendees, Binney pointed out an icon on a slide as a teaser to his startup, which will advise on ways you can do privacy and security by design. He came to Europe, since they cant get anything done in the U.S. The U.S. and U.K. are too dense to realize it can be done it also goes against their agenda for more money, power and control.

Can we expect more NSA employees to blow the whistle? Perhaps, but the people in power there are corrupt, Binney said. During the portion of the talk when attendees could ask questions, he talked about how the NSA has employed a lot of introverts, people with ISTJ personalities, making them easy to threaten. Binney added that the See Something, Say Something (about your fellow workers) program inside the NSA is what the Stasi did. Theyre picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS; they just arent getting violent yet that we know of internally in the U.S.; outside is another story.

Originally posted here:

NSA whistleblower discusses 'How the NSA tracks you' - CSO Online

Posted in NSA

Uber discloses details of Travis Kalanick’s deposition in Waymo lawsuit – TechCrunch

Posted on by

Uber unsealed former CEO Travis Kalanicks deposition in the Uber versus Waymo self-driving car technology case over the weekend. Kalanick, who was deposed for more than six hours last month, spoke about when he learned that Anthony Levandowski, who formerly worked at Google, downloaded documents related self-driving technology.

The deposition yet again confirms that Uber was focused on building its technology from the ground up. Uber never wanted any Google material, and took steps to prevent any such material from ever coming to Uber, an Uber spokesperson told TechCrunch.

Waymos suit alleges Uber knew about these documents at the time when Uber acquired Levandowskis self-driving trucking startup Otto. In Kalanicks deposition, he says he did not have any knowledge of the documents until shortly Waymo first filed the complaint in February.

I was pretty serious with him about making sure that these files had not and will not make it to Uber, Kalanick said in his deposition. He went on to say that, And I wanted to make it absolutely clear that no files of any kind from anybodys previous employer make it to Uber.

While Levandowski was still employed at Uber, Kalanick at one point directly asked him if any of the files made it to Uber, to which Levandowski said no.

In his deposition, Kalanick said Levandowski was expecting a bonus at Google and downloaded the documents to make sure hed get that bonus. The deposition, which is nearly 200 pages long, also touches on whether or not Kalanick thought what Levandowski was improper. Kalanick said yes, to which he was then asked why he didnt fire Levandowski at that point.

I was really hopeful that he would cooperate and tell the Court the facts of the matter, cooperate with our investigation, he said. And that was part of what this discussion was about, was just make the declaration, testify. And it may be that I was holding onto that possibility, trying to trying to get him to cooperate with the Court, with our investigation internally. And you know, it was Fing stupid. It was it it yeah. It it just felt like if he could if he could just say what he did and why, and that if you just cooperate, the would be great.

Levandowski, of course, has not cooperated. He very early on in the case invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Another key element of this case is Alphabet CEO Larry Page, who was seemingly unprepared in his deposition last month. In Kalanicks deposition, he describes a call between him and Page from October 2016. According to Kalanick, they spoke about flying cars as well as driverless cars and potential partnership opportunities. Page was not very interested in partnering on self-driving tech, Kalanick said in his deposition.

He he was he was upset about what he what he kept talking about was us taking his IP, Kalanick said. Page kept saying that Uber had taken Googles intellectual property, Kalanick said. And I kept responding and telling him that hiring his people was not taking his IP.

Kalanick went on to describe that it felt like he and Page didnt understand each other and that Page wouldnt explain what his exact issue was.

I told him, we will open up our facility if you think we have taken IP, Kalanick said. Like, come take a look. We will have your people take a look. We will dig deep and make sure. But we were very confident about the process of acquisition and the process we have in hiring people.

Update with comment from a Waymo spokesperson:

This deposition confirms a number of points Waymo has been making since we filed this case, including not only that Mr. Levandowski improperly downloaded files from Waymo but that he had ample opportunity to inject Waymos trade secrets into Ubers technology, given he actively advised Uber engineers on LiDAR design even well before he ran Ubers autonomous driving program. Waymo has significant and direct evidence that Uber is using stolen Waymo trade secrets and we look forward to presenting that evidence at trial.

You can read the full deposition below.

Continued here:

Uber discloses details of Travis Kalanick's deposition in Waymo lawsuit - TechCrunch

The Fourth Amendment’s Digital Update – The Daily Caller

Posted on by

The Fourth Amendment has protected our right to privacy since its ratification in 1791. Thetextof the amendment reads, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, but how well do these protections hold up in the digital age?

Today, most of us are typing emails on our laptops, not scribbling a letter with a quill and inkwell. Therefore, its important to ensure our sensitive, digital communications are well-protected. Clearly, the Fourth Amendment transcends time and technological change, but some sinister players are pretending otherwise.

Currently, under theElectronic Communications Privacy Act(ECPA), the United States federal government may seize any citizens private email communicationswithout a warrant, provided they are over 180 days old. By law, these older emails are not considered privy to a reasonable expectation of privacy under the ECPAsSection 2703(a).

Even worse, the ECPA was enacted in 1986, years before email usage was even widespread. However, the 180-day rule doesnt just apply to emailsevery Americans texts, GroupMe chats, and Facebook messages are fair game too.

Its time to modernize the Fourth Amendment to protect our online communications, and bipartisanThe Email Privacy Act, re-introduced by Reps. Kevin Yoder (R-KS) and Jared Polis (D-CO), does just that. Namely, the Email Privacy Act would require all government agencies to acquire a warrant before accessing any online communications over 180 days oldjust like any other private documents.

In the era of cloud technology, communications could be stored on enormous server, conceivably forever. More and more, our sensitive financial, relational, and personal details exist online, making their security absolutely essential.

The ECPA is problematic in other areas as well. In December of 2013, federal law enforcement sought asearch warrantfor Microsoft customers email account as a component of a criminal narcotics investigation. Microsoft complied up until a point, but there was one big problemthe actual emails were stored overseas.

Microsoft refused to turn the emails over, and was held in civil contempt by the district court. Three years later, however, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the federal government, expressing that companies cannot be compelled to release customer emails stored outside the United States.

We conclude that 2703 of the Stored Communications Act does not authorize courts to issue and enforce against USbased service providers warrants for the seizure of customer email content that is stored exclusively on foreign servers, the courtruled.

TheInternational Communications Privacy Act (ICPA) is one potential solution to this issue, creating, a legal framework that clarifies the ability of law enforcement to obtain electronic communication of U.S. citizens, no matter where the person or the communications are located.

Additionally, the ICPA would allow law enforcement to obtain communications from foreign nationals, in consistency with international law. Sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Dean Heller (R-NV), the bipartisan legislation would remedy this complex problem.

The International Communications Privacy Act aids law enforcement while safeguarding consumer privacy, striking amuch-needed balance in todays data-driven economy, Senator Hatchstated. Clearly, Americans can no longer be complacent about their privacy protections. In a digital age of prying eyes, the consequences of privacy violations can be costly, and long-lasting.

On June 23rd, the Department of Justiceapplied to take the Microsoft case to the Supreme Court, but Congress shouldnt wait for the court to take action. Passing the ICPA and other meaningful reform is too important to wait, when innocent Americans are being caught in the crossfire.

One way or another, its time to give the Fourth Amendment a sorely needed update.

The rest is here:

The Fourth Amendment's Digital Update - The Daily Caller

Congress must act to protect data privacy before courts make surveillance even easier – The Hill (blog)

Posted on by

The Fourth Amendment was established in a time when privacy expectations could be articulated through a simple maxim that every mans home is his castle. In the 21st century, however, our most private information is often guarded not by walls or with a key, but by the companies Microsoft, Verizon, and the like that provide us with access to the data cloud.

In a perfect world, the technologies of today would be met with the same principles that were laid out in the Fourth Amendment by our founders. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. Technology has added lots of complications, and we are left trying to figure out what a reasonable search is in the age of the data cloud.

Much of the doctrine of the Fourth Amendment is based on definitions that are ill-equipped for dealing with challenges in the era of cloud computing. For instance, do emails, location information, and other data and documents stored in the cloud fall within the Fourth Amendments protection of The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects?

That is just one of several ways in which the third-party doctrine, which holds that people who voluntarily convey information to a third-party such as a bank or a telephone company have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information conveyed, results in a gaping hole in Fourth Amendment protections in this new age. When applied to the data cloud, this relatively narrow third-party exception granted to law enforcement becomes a broad license for the government to monitor virtually all the data we transmit in our day-to-day lives.

One would have to virtually opt out of our high-tech society to evade this license. That should not be a required trade-off for enjoying the protections of the Fourth Amendment, especially when the government has lawful alternatives for achieving its law enforcement needs.

Then again, if an entire class of technology needs to be exempt from a legal doctrine, there may be a problem with the doctrine itself. At the end of the day, it may be that the third-party doctrine has become irreconcilable with the Fourth Amendment and needs to be discarded. However, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will go that far anytime soon.

The ECPA Modernization Act is a laudable effort to strengthen the warrant requirements for third-party data collection and guard the Constitutional right to due process when digital property is being searched. With the modernization act pending in the Senate andUnited States v. Carpenterpending in the Supreme Court, there is new hope that our institutions will succeed in applying the founders Fourth Amendment principles to the brave new high-tech world.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read the original:

Congress must act to protect data privacy before courts make surveillance even easier - The Hill (blog)

Second Amendment insight – Winona Post

Posted on by

From: Steven J. Beyers Winona

A July 30 opinion writer stated that the Second Amendment was originally meant for militia, now expanded to self defense.

In 1791, George Mason asked, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. He also wrote ... that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty ...

Patrick Henry said, The great object is, that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun.

In the Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton, wrote, If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no course left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.

The opinion writer also stated, The founders understood that majority rule had its dangers ... That is why we are not a democracy, but are, in the words of Ben Franklin, A republic, if you can keep it.

The Constitution provides an amendment process that allows for additions and adjustments. From privates to presidents, all public servants swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies. As someone who has sworn that oath twice, I find it curious that the writer, who has sworn that same oath, would describe the Constitution as deeply flawed.

Read the rest here:

Second Amendment insight - Winona Post

Bill Bennett on Leaker Journalists: First Amendment Not a License to Ruin Your Country – Fox News Insider

Posted on by

Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett came down hard on journalists who leak sensitive information to the public.

"The First Amendment is not a license to ruin your country," Bennett remarked to "Fox & Friends" on Monday.

The Trump administration has been plagued by illegal leaks through the press of sensitive and even classified information.

The latest leak debacle occurred last week when transcripts of President Trump's phone conversations earlier this yearwith the leaders of Mexico and Australia were published in the Washington Post. The leak embarrassed the administration, suggesting a lack of control over confidential information.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions vowed to crack down on leakers last week, saying they will be found and prosecuted.

Dershowitz: Being Black Doesn't Give You a License to Call People Racist

Florida Power Couple Divorcing Over Trump

Bennett agreed, saying all leakers should be prosecuted, and even reporters should not be exempt.

"Let's not have excluded special categories," he advised. "These are tough cases to make. I understand it."

"The law is the law and it has to be honored," he said.

Bongino: Baltimore's Urban Decay Caused By Liberals' Leadership

Florida Power Couple Divorcing Over Trump

See the article here:

Bill Bennett on Leaker Journalists: First Amendment Not a License to Ruin Your Country - Fox News Insider

Country Singer Dustin Collins: ‘Without the Second Amendment, There Is No First Amendment’ (Exclusive) – Breitbart News

Posted on by

Collins currently has a single out titled Cold Dead Hands. It is a declaration to gun-grabbers everywhere that the Second Amendment has been preserved by generation upon generation and that preservation will not end on his watch.

The first verse of Cold Dead Hands tells the story:

Theres a rifle in my closet, Made in 1893

Carved right on the barrel it says Winchester Company

Its been passed through generations, Ive been taught to use it well

Its put food there on the table, And it aint never been for sale

Theres people on my TV, telling me whats right and wrong

Not one damn gun of mine, has ever pulled the trigger on its own

From the verse, Collins transitions to a chorus reminiscent of the great Charlton Heston:

From my Cold Dead Hands

Its about you and me, aint no redneck thing, why dont you understand

You can bitch and moan, all you want

Youll get my gun from my Cold Dead Hands

When I wrote this song I was watching the news and I just got super aggravated, Collins told Breitbart News on Sunday. I got real irritated with the whole thing I thought about everybody I grew up with here in Kentuckyout here in rural America. You know, we get guns for our birthdays and Christmas. Its something you get when youre very young. When youre eight, nine, ten years old, you get your first rifle and go deer hunting and stuff. People out there in other parts of the country dont understand customs and traditions like we have in rural America.

America was built on guns, he added. We took our freedom from the English. If it wasnt for guns wed be having tea and biscuits instead of steak and beer. Its that kind of thing to me. Without the Second Amendment there is no First Amendment. Theres nothing that stops anybody from coming and taking what you worked hard for. To me its just a very simple fact of life; its freedom, thats what owning a gun is. Its the very foundation of freedom.

The Nelson County, Kentucky native is set to play a handful of concerts across his home state through the end of September.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Here is the original post:

Country Singer Dustin Collins: 'Without the Second Amendment, There Is No First Amendment' (Exclusive) - Breitbart News

WIPR survey: Google global injunction consistent with First Amendment – World Intellectual Property Review (subscription)

Posted on by

A global injunction issued by Canadas Supreme Court is consistent with the USs First Amendment, according to WIPR readers.

In June this year, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Google to de-index the website of Datalink Technology Gateways.

Datalink had unlawfully relabelled and sold products of a competitor, Equustek Solutions, a technology company in British Colombia.

Google had raised freedom of expression concerns and challenged the propriety and necessity of the extraterritorial reach of the global order.

The dispute found itself at the Supreme Court, which upheld a global injunction, enjoining Google from displaying any part of Datalinks websites on any of its search results worldwide.

In July, Google filed a claim against Equustek at the US District for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.

It said: Google brings this action to prevent enforcement in the US of a Canadian order that prohibits Google from publishing within the US search result information about the contents of the internet.

Google is seeking a declaration from the court that the Canadian order is unenforceable in the US as it is inconsistent with the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act.

The Canadian order is repugnant to those rights, and the order violates principles of international comity, particularly since the Canadian plaintiffs never established any violation of their rights under US law, said Google.

However, 100% of WIPR readers, when asked whether they agreed that the injunction was inconsistent with the First Amendment, said no (although they didnt provide any reasoning).

David Price, senior product counsel at Google, said: Rules regarding online content vary from country to country, so we're taking this court action to defend the legal principle that one country shouldn't be able to decide what information people in other countries can access online.

He added that the undermining of this core principle inevitably leads to a world where internet users are subject to the most restrictive content limitations from every country.

Did you enjoy reading this story?Sign up to our free daily newslettersand get stories like this sent straight to your inbox

Canada Supreme Court, Google, searches, trademark, trade secrets, labelling, trademark infringement, counterfeits

See more here:

WIPR survey: Google global injunction consistent with First Amendment - World Intellectual Property Review (subscription)

Major Improvements Are Coming Soon to the Tor Browser – The Merkle

Posted on by

The Tor software is a common tool among consumers who prefer to enjoymore privacy while accessing the internet on a regular basis. However, we also know the Tor software is not without its flaws. The developer of this browser hasacknowledged that furtherimprovements need to be made. A batch of new features wasannounced earlier this week. All of these improvements should make Tor a much safer tool.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the Tor software and the people who use it. Someautomatically assume that anyone using Tor must be frequenting the darknet. However, the vast majority of people utilizingTor do so to access regular websites. Thebrowser provides more privacy and anonymity features than any other browsing software in the world today. It is no surprise that a lot of people would prefer this software for regular internet usage.

Tors developer has clarified another myth surrounding the usage of this software. The NSA does not run half the relays used by the network by any means. With over 8,000 relays on a global scale, that would require a ton of resources to pull off. Some intelligence agencies doset up temporary relays every now and then. The vast majority, however, are run by independent users with no political agenda whatsoever.

The biggest announcement concernedsome new features coming to a Tor browser near you. The team has partnered with Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium to improve traffic analysis resistance. This method is often used to identify Tor users with relative ease. Stepping up countermeasure efforts should result in making it a lot more difficult to de-anonymize onion services in the future.

The Tor protocol will switch to a new cryptosystem using elliptic curve cryptography keys such as Ed25519. At present, the protocol continues torely on the first 80 bits of the SHA-1 of a 1024-bit RSA key. Althoughthis has worked quite well so far, the system hasgotten a bit outdated. Especially consideringthe progress made in quantum computing, the time is now to come up with improved solutions which guarantee additional privacy for all users. One always has to prepare for whatever the future may hold.

Further changes include making it more difficult to set up relays to target particular onion services. This will be done through an improved hidden service directory design functioning similarly toDNS for the regular internet. The current use of HSDir relays is too predictable in the mindsof the developers. Tackling this problem will not be an easy feat, but it should be feasible to improve upon this feature in the coming months and years.

Perhaps the most intriguing new features come in the form of different deployment models. Tor users can now sacrifice location privacy for performance and scalability if they wish to do so. This method hasbeen used by services such as Facebook already to improve load times and so forth, and it makes sense to integrate different deployment models. Making Tor the new standard among Internet browsers will not be easy, but all of these steps pave the way toward achieving that goal.

Excerpt from:

Major Improvements Are Coming Soon to the Tor Browser - The Merkle

Internet shutdown: Just beat it – Daily Nation

Posted on by

Monday August 7 2017

Every day, millions of Kenyans visit Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Internet shutdown would inconvenience many. PHOTO | FILE | AFP

Our Constitution basically allows the government to bend the rules by invoking the threat to national security clause for the citizens good.

Censorship can be enforced by ordering internet service providers to block access to certain or all IP addresses hence a partial and full censorship.

This kind of arm-twisting normally leaves ISPs with two options: comply or have their operating licence revoked.

On February 18, 2016, our neighbours to the west went to cast their ballots in a hotly contested election.

Shortly after voting started, the Ugandan government shut down access to major social media sites in the East African country.

Five months later, on July 15, a similar case of censorship hit Turkey after attempted overthrow of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

These two cases are not unique.

Governments around the world (at least 11 African countries in 2016) have been known to enforce some form of censorship on citizens.

Many see internet shutdown as a way of restoring order while a majority of the citizens see it as oppression and breach of their rights to access information.

But Kenya is a strong democracy, I hear you say, and that can't possibly happen here, or can it?

Although the government has stressed that it doesnt intend to shut down the internet on and after August 8, that doesn't mean it can't happen.

The Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC) recently denounced any attempts to shut down the internet, claiming that it would cripple its transmission of results and this raises concern.

Is the government considering an internet shutdown? Should we be worried?

Our Constitution basically allows the government to bend the rules by invoking the threat to national security clause for the citizens good.

Censorship can be enforced by ordering internet service providers to block access to certain or all IP addresses hence a partial and full censorship.

This kind of arm-twisting normally leaves ISPs with two options: comply or have their operating licence revoked.

So how can you tunnel your way around an internet shutdown? How can you regain access to your much loved source of news and gossip on social media sites in case of an internet curfew?

A virtual private network (VPN) would be your first line of offence due to its simplicity and ease of use.

This tool works by enabling you to access a site that you wouldn't ordinarily access due to the aforementioned curfew by making the site server think you are in a different country.

For example, if the domain facebook.com is blocked for users in Kenya, a VPN will enable you to browse as if you were in another country, say Britain, where the site isn't blocked.

The programme does this by reassigning your device an Internet Protocol (IP) address for the country where the blockade isn't in effect.

A variety of VPN programmes are available for all the common operating systems in premium or paid pricing and some are absolutely free.

Start with the commonly used VPNs, such as Tunnelbear, OpenVPN and ExpressVPN.

The second option would be using The Onion Router, famously known as TOR browser a free program that will enable you to surf the internet anonymously by bouncing your communications around a distributed network of relays all around the world.

TOR is a fairly easy programme, with easy tutorials available on its official website on how to install and run it.

Other methods include the use of Proxies and modification of Domain Name Servers (DNS).

These two options can seem a bit complicated but online tutorials can easily get you unstuck.

Therefore, in the unforeseen circumstance the government decides to shut down the internet during or after the elections, you can count on these methods to get you back online.

Just remember to observe the ethics. Dont mention me either.

He also told police to be impartial.

Chepng'etich grabbed gold in a thrilling race.

Read this article:

Internet shutdown: Just beat it - Daily Nation

Cryptocurrency skeptics warn of another dot-com bubble, but remember: That’s where Amazon and Google started – CNBC

Posted on by

Oaktree's Howard Marks sounded a general alarm last week about the state of stock markets, private equity, credit markets and for good measure new digital currencies like bitcoin and ethereum. Essentially, he wrote in his letter to investors that everything is overvalued.

On the cryptocurrencies, he went further. He stated several times that they're "not real." Furthermore, he said, they are "nothing but an unfounded fad (or perhaps even a pyramid scheme)."

Cryptocurrencies may indeed be in the biggest valuation bubble since the dot-com era.

At the same time, there is undeniable excitement about their potential today among the top tier of venture capital investors.

Former PayPal COO David Sacks, who was also an early investor in Airbnb, Facebook, Palantir, SpaceX and Uber, tweeted last week that cryptos are the best candidate we've had for the next big thing in Silicon Valley (Web 3.0):

When I read Marks' comments about bitcoin not being real, I thought back to an interview I did with the CEO of McEwen Mining four years ago:

Any currency exists only because at least two parties (a buyer and a seller) agree that it represents value. So, what constitutes money? On a South Pacific island, we might agree that chicken bones are a currency. In prison, we might agree that cigarettes are a currency. Today, while we all use fiat or paper currencies as money, a medium of exchange, there is a growing concern about the value of these pieces of paper.

I don't see why Bitcoin can't also grow and become another viable currency, an internet based currency. If enough people accept it, it will be used. It seems to have momentum behind it and it's intriguing how it's truly separate from any country or central banks' manipulation and control.

There will be growing pains, like the guy who lost money out of his electronic wallet because he left his computer on all night. Also, Bitcoin will spawn competitors, alternative digital currencies. I think it's a mistake to write off this currency as a bubble or fad.

Will it threaten gold? I don't think so. I think the two will grow in tandem as alternative currencies to fiat currencies.

In the dot-com era of the late '90s, there were many warning signs of a huge bubble that was about to pop including:

By contrast, few people are quitting their jobs to start cryptocurrency companies (yet). Day trading is rare. Taxi drivers aren't asking about bitcoin.

If cryptocurrencies are a bubble, we're still in the early innings.

But there are signs of frothiness:

Bitcoin in 2017 is as real as Amazon or Priceline was in 1999.

Both those great companies had their stocks get killed when the dot-com bubble burst, but they used the nuclear winter they faced in the next few years to make themselves more profitable and take market share that they would never give back.

Amazon dropped from $76 per share (in today's post-split share value) at the end of 1999 to less than $6 after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Amazon trades now over $1,000/share.

Priceline went from $283 a share at the end of 1999 to less than $8 three years later. Today, it trades above $2,000.

No doubt many of this year's batch of ICOs, as well as dozens of other existing cryptocurrencies, will disappear in the coming years as things settle out.

But if you listen to Marks' advice and tune out the crypto space, you'll miss the ICO equivalents of Amazon and Priceline. Will ethereum be the next Google? Or the next Lycos?

More importantly, what will be the magnitude of growth from here? Bitcoin has grown from nothing to nearly $3,000 today (after a big pullback when it first hit $1,000 a few years ago). But where will it be in five, 10 or 15 years from now? And will it pull back to below $1,000 again before it breaks out to new highs?

To discard all cryptocurrencies as Marks did in his letter would be a big mistake. There is real value in these digital currencies.

Commentary by Eric Jackson, sign up for Eric's monthly Tech & Media Email. You can follow Eric on Twitter @ericjackson .

Visit link:

Cryptocurrency skeptics warn of another dot-com bubble, but remember: That's where Amazon and Google started - CNBC

Controversial US Sanctions Bill Calls for Cryptocurrency Research – CoinDesk

Posted on by

A foreign sanctions bill signed into law by U.S. President Donald Trump included a little-noticed provision on cryptocurrencies.

The U.S. Congress cleared thebill late last month imposing sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It was a politically controversial development, given ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, and the stated opposition of the Trump administration to the legislation.

Trump ultimately signed the bill into law last week, though he sharply criticized the measure in an accompanying signing statement.

Notably for the blockchainindustry, however, is that the billincludes a mandate for the development of a national security strategy aimed at "combating the financing of terrorism and related forms of illicit finance."

One provision, which focuses on research into "illicit finance trends," mentions cryptocurrencies asan area of study.

The textcalls for:

"[A] discussion of and data regarding trends in illicit finance, including evolving forms of value transfer such as so-called cryptocurrencies, other methods that are computer, telecommunications, or internet-based, cybercrime, or any other threats that the Secretary may choose to identify."

The initial draft strategy is due to Congress within the next year, according to the bill's text, and is set to include input from US financial regulators, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, among others.

In some ways, the new billechoes anothersubmitted in May as part of a wider Department of Homeland Security legislative package.

That measure, as CoinDesk reported at the time, calls for research into the potential use of cryptocurrenciesby terrorists. Like the DHS bill, the new sanctions law doesn't constitute a shift in policy, but rather indicates that Congress is taking steps to explore the issue more closely.

Donald Trump imagevia Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Have breaking news or a story tip to send to our journalists? Contact us at [emailprotected].

Visit link:

Controversial US Sanctions Bill Calls for Cryptocurrency Research - CoinDesk

Hedge Funds Investing in Cryptocurrencies ‘Exploding’ 62 in Pipeline – Bitcoin News (press release)

Posted on by

With this years incredible gains in the price of bitcoin, the number of hedge funds with exposure to cryptocurrencies is exploding. Fund administrator MG Stover & Co, accounting firm Auther Bell, and law firm Cole-Frieman & Mallon alone have62 in the pipeline.

Also read:Hedge Funds Are Quietly Investing in Bitcoin

As the prices of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies skyrocket, a large number of traders are seeking to launch hedge funds investing in them. Hedge Fund Alert recently reported that the number of hedge funds investing in digital currencies is exploding. The publication quoted CPA Corey Mclaughlin, managing member at Auther Bell, who said:

Ive been in the hedge fund space since 1998, and Ive never seen anything like it in volume of launches in a particular area. Its just crazy.

Matt Stover, founder of MG Stover & Co,shared the sentiment. This is the first time I can remember where we have had a hard time keeping up with the sales calls, he said.

Institutional investors are surprisingly interested in cryptocurrencies, according to hedge fund lawyer Karl Cole-Frieman. I wasnt expecting so many institutional players to be interested in the asset class, he was quoted saying. Recently, news.Bitcoin.com reported that hedge funds are quietly investing in bitcoin. With this years explosive gains in the price of bitcoin, Hedge funds that offer cryptocurrency exposure are seeing windfall gains.

Among client funds administered by MG Stover & Co., 12 of them are running digital-currency strategies. The firm has also made agreements to service 25 more, the publication detailed. Arthur Bell is working with about 15 fund managers on cryptocurrency funds and expects to take on 20 more in the near future. Meanwhile, Cole-Frieman & Mallon has helped set up 7 cryptocurrency funds this year and has 17 more in the pipeline. Altogether, 62 new cryptocurrency hedge funds will be brought the market by these three firms alone.

Among the new entrants, there are both those simply taking long bets on bitcoinas well as those devising hedge fund-like strategies, such as capturing the arbitrage among various currencies, the publication conveyed. Bitcoins value has risen over 200% this year.

I think the majority of these cryptocurrency [funds] are trying to ride the opportunity du jour, noted Neal Berger, founder of investment advisory firm Eagles View Capital. Its an access point for people who cant buy it themselves or dont want to learn how to do it.Former Goldman Sachs executive Matthew Goetz, co-founder at Blocktower Capital, described:

Its a wildly inefficient market where alpha potential is abundant more than anything weve seen in our careers. We think its a rare opportunity for investors. Its not often theres a new capital market being born in front of you.

How do you think the many hedge funds entering the space will affect the price of bitcoin? Let us know in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

Need to calculate your bitcoin holdings? Check our tools section.

More:

Hedge Funds Investing in Cryptocurrencies 'Exploding' 62 in Pipeline - Bitcoin News (press release)

Bitcoin tops $3400 as investor confidence boosts it to record high – CNBC

Posted on by

Bitcoin climbed above $3,400 to trade at all-time highs on Monday as investors gained confidence in the future of the digital currency.

Its price rose nearly 5 percent, to $3,451.86, up almost $600 from Friday's $2,900 levels, according to CoinDesk. Bitcoin has more than tripled this year and has gained 18 percent in August.

"That's what supports the cryptocurrency right now, confidence," said Ronnie Moas, founder of financial research firm Standpoint Research.

"If there's something that shakes people's confidence in crypto then they will sell off. The further we get into this game the less likely you will get something like that," Moas said. He said he's "heavily invested" in digital currencies, and in late July he issued a report predicting bitcoin will reach $5,000 in 2018.

Bitcoin now has a market capitalization of about $56 billion. For comparison, General Motors has a market cap of $51 billion.

Bitcoin one-week performance

Source: CoinDesk

Most enthusiasts attributed the price gain to a relief rally after the relatively smooth split of the digital currency into bitcoin and "bitcoin cash."

The currency split, or "forked," on Aug. 1 after a minority of developers went ahead with their own upgrade proposal to improve transaction speed on the digital currency network. That upgrade, creating bitcoin cash, was incompatible with a more popular proposal called Segregated Witness, which the original bitcoin is set to lock in in the next few days.

"I think a lot of new investors were waiting on the sidelines until after the hard fork" into bitcoin and bitcoin cash, said Benjamin Roberts, co-founder and CEO of Citizen Hex, an ethereum-focused start-up backed by three Canadian venture funds.

"Now that it has happened with a favorable outcome (Bitcoin + Bitcoin Cash > Bitcoin), new fiat money is entering into the space," Roberts said in an email. Fiat currencies include the dollar, the yen and the euro.

Bitcoin traded in yen accounted for nearly 42 percent of trade volume, up from about one-third in the last few days, according to CryptoCompare. About 26 percent of bitcoin traded in dollars, the site showed.

Bitcoin cash swung wildly in its first week from above $700 to below $300. As of Monday morning, the digital currency recovered from a weekend dip to near $200 to trade near $260, according to CoinMarketCap. That's less than one-tenth of the original bitcoin's record-high price.

Another digital currency, ethereum, edged up a quarter of a percent to near $269, according to CoinDesk.

The rest is here:

Bitcoin tops $3400 as investor confidence boosts it to record high - CNBC

Why is bitcoin surging? Ask ‘Spoofy,’ the trader who’s reportedly manipulating prices – MarketWatch

Posted on by

Bitcoin BTCUSD, +2.49% caught fire this weekend, taking out yet another record high and pushing above $50 billion in market capitalization for the first time ever. This after selling off in the wake of the split last week.

So whats triggering the latest push?

Apparently, a deep-pocketed trader (or group of traders), nicknamed Spoofy, is rumored to be manipulating the bitcoin market by employing his namesake tactic on the Bitfinex cryptocurrency exchange, according to Cointelegraph.

Read: 10 things you need to know about bitcoin.

Spoofing is when a trader makes a deceptive bid or offer with the intent of canceling it before execution, thus giving the illusion that somebody is getting ready to buy or sell and potentially triggering a notable move in price.

For example, if Spoofy places a large buy order that entices smaller traders to hop aboard, he can turn around and instead use the uptick to execute a sell order.

Weve seen it before in other markets, like when Navinder Sarao, the British trader accused of contributing to the 2010 stock market flash crash, pleaded guilty to using the shady tactic.

So yes, spoofing is illegal, but since bitcoin markets are mostly unregulated, its quite common, Cointelegraph reports. The difference in Spoofys case is that hes got a massive bankroll that allows him to regular place orders upward of $60 million.

The BitCryptoed blog described the impact hes had on bitcoin.

Spoofy makes the price go up when he wants it to go up, and Spoofy makes the price go down when he wants it to go down, the blogger wrote. And hes got the coin both USD, and bitcoin, of course, to pull it off, and with impunity on Bitfinex.

Read: It could get ugly soon for bitcoin if this chart is right.

Read the original here:

Why is bitcoin surging? Ask 'Spoofy,' the trader who's reportedly manipulating prices - MarketWatch

Bitcoin Cash: Is It Crashing? – Barron’s – Barron’s

Posted on by

Barron's

Visit link:

Bitcoin Cash: Is It Crashing? - Barron's - Barron's