Modern Women’s Rights, Atheism, and Ideological Warfare – The Good Men Project (blog)

Marie Alena Castle is the communications director for Atheists for Human Rights. Raised Roman Catholic she became an atheist later in life. She has since been an important figure in the atheistmovement through her involvement with Minnesota Atheists, The Moral Atheist,National Organization for Women, andwrote Culture Wars: The Threat to Your Family and Your Freedom (2013). She has a lifetime of knowledge and activist experience, explored and crystallized in an educational series. The first part of this series can be found here Session 1and Session 2.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Even with groups such as NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood, the onslaught against womens rights, reproductive rights and so on, continue to take place. The most vulnerable poor and minority women tend to be the main victims, and so their children and the associated families and so communities. In a sequence, I see attacks on womens reproductive rights as attacks on women, children, so families, and so communities, and therefore ordinary American citizens. What can be some buffers, or defenses, against these direct attacks on the new media and communications technologies, e.g. to educate and inoculate new generations?

Marie Alena Castle:

Jacobsen: Who are the unknown womens rights heroes, men and women, that people should more into to self-educate?

Castle:They are the people who work at abortion clinics. They all have stories to tell. One of my friends managed a clinic and she was constantly threatened with violence and pickets at her house. I went there a few times to help in case the picketers got violent. One August I suggested she hook up her garden hose to a bottle of sugar water and set it to spray on the picketers and attract hordes of hornets. She wouldnt do it but I would have. The leader of the picketers was the local fire department chief (with expert knowledge of how to set her house on fire). She wanted to move but dared not for fear the fire chief would send a potential buyer to case the house for fire-setting purposes. She needed some carpentry done but feared getting someone she didnt know who would have a violent anti-abortion agenda. I got an atheist carpenter friend for her who was reliably safe.

Jacobsen: Once the shoe bites, people then become active, politically and socially, typically. These people can rise and protest in an organized and constructive way. Do you think this era of yes, alternative facts, but at the same time mass accessibility of information can hasten people realizing their shoe is being bitten, even when they werent aware before?

Castle:Lotsa luck on this. Most people really do assume that, as child bearers, women really are something of a public utility and in need of regulation. Why else would there be any discussion about how Roe v. Wade should be interpreted? What we need are new court challenges to Roe v. Wade that say it should be repealed and replaced with a ruling that says abortion is a medical matter to be handled by a woman and her doctor and is not the governments business. Lets have a major public discussion about womens bodily autonomy and why their bodies need government oversight.

(While Im at it, let me note that I am also opposed to men being drafted into the military. The government does not own their bodies any more than it owns womens bodies. You get men to voluntarily agree to kill people and you get women to voluntarily agree to give birth or you do without.)

Jacobsen: For centuries, and now with mild pushback over decades, the religiously-based, often, bigotry and chauvinism against women, and ethnic and sexual minorities is more in the open, and so more possible to change. Because people know about it, and cant deny it. And when and if they do, the reasons seem paper thin and comical, at times. What expedites this process of everyone, finally, earning that coveted equality?

Castle:The mild pushback has come because more people are losing interest in religion, and religion has always been the driver of bigotry and prejudice. The loss of interest has come from Internet sources that expose the absurdities and failings of religion.

To expedite the process you change the laws. You change the laws by organizing for and electing legislators who support civil rights. Then you elect a President who will appoint judges who support those rights. Nothing changes if the laws dont change. The laws helped bring civil rights to the South because it gave pro-civil rights citizens the protection they needed to treat people with respect. We started getting civil rights by public agitation that led to legislation that led to court review and rulings that did or did not affirm those rights. One exception: We got women covered by the Civil Rights Act when sex was introduced into the language in the expectation that it would be seen as such a joke that the Act would be voted down, but it passed.

To get women out of the public utility category, we need to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. That failed the first time precisely because opponents said it would give women the right to have abortions. What isabout abortion that sets some people off so violently? None of them show any real practical interest in born babies. Why this obsession with controlling women? Something about species survival? So many men with so many zillions of sperm and frustrated by womens limited ability to accommodate all that paternal potential? Who knows?

The only thing holding up equal rights for all is the Catholic and Protestant fundamentalist religions (and maybe also misogynistic Islam but we have to see how that immigrant population votes after being exposed to the relatively civilizing effect of living here). Its always those religions that protest against womens rights, gay rights, and that so ferociously supported slavery.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time, Marie.

Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. He works as an Associate Editor and Contributor for Conatus News, Editor and Contributor to The Good Men Project, a Board Member, Executive International Committee (International Research and Project Management) Member, and as the Chair of Social Media for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, Executive Administrator and Writer for Trusted Clothes, and Councillor in the Athabasca University Students Union. He contributes to the Basic Income Earth Network, The Beam, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Check Your Head, Conatus News, Humanist Voices, The Voice Magazine, and Trusted Clothes. If you want to contact Scott: [emailprotected]; website: http://www.in-sightjournal.com; Twitter: https://twitter.com/InSight_Journal.

Go here to read the rest:

Modern Women's Rights, Atheism, and Ideological Warfare - The Good Men Project (blog)

Atheist Deconversion Story Series #1: Anthony Toohey – Patheos (blog)

Image by Pexels [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

***

Introduction: Deconversion stories are accounts of an atheist or agnosticsodyssey from some form of Christianity to atheism or agnosticism. Since these are public (else I wouldnt know about them in the first place), its reasonable to assume that they are more than merely subjective / personal matters, that have no bearing on anyone else. No; it is assumed (it seems to me) that these stories are thought to offer rationales of various sorts for others to also become atheists or to be more confirmed in their own atheism. This being the case, since they are public critiques of Christianity (hence, fair game for public criticism), as a Christian (Catholic) apologist, I have a few thoughts in counter-reply.

I am not questioning the sincerity of these persons or the truthfulness of their self-reports, or any anguish that they went through. I accept their words at face value. Im not arguing that they are terrible, evil people (thats a childs game). My sole interest is in showing if and where certain portions of these deconversion stories contain fallacious or non-factual elements: where they fail to make a point against Christianity (what Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga calls defeating the defeaters), or misrepresent (usually unwittingly) Christianity as a whole, or the Bible, etc.

As always, feedback on my blog (especially from the persons critiqued) is highly encouraged, and I will contact, out of basic courtesy, everyone whose story I have critiqued. All atheists are treated with courtesy and respect on my blog. If someone doesnt do so, I reprimand them, and ban them if they persist in their insults.

When I cite the stories themselves, the words will be in blue.

*****

Today, I am responding to Real Deconversion Story #14 Anthony Toohey (12-5-16), hosted on Jonathan MS Pearces A Tippling Philosopher web page at Patheos (where my blog is also hosted).

With . . . Duanes promise that all of the confusing stuff Id heard about salvation and redemption in my Catholic upbringing was wrong, that it all came down to Believe and Be Saved Well that was enough for me. I did, and as far as I knew, I was.

Anthony stated that he went to after-school catechism. This created a fascination in me for the bible and for the mystical/spiritual aspects of Christianity. But we dont know how much he actually knew about Catholicism . . . seemingly not all that much, if he could forsake it merely because ofa Bible trivia game and the usual ignorant Chick Tract-like anti-Catholic sermonizing. Hence, he appears to have been like many millions of insufficiently catechized Catholics: almost to a person unfamiliar with apologetics, or the reasons why Catholics believe as they do. This is a common theme running through deconversion stories: either relative or profound ignorance of ones own Christian affiliations. If we dont know why we believe whatever have no reasons for it , then obviously we are easy targets of those who would dissuade us from our shallow, non-rational beliefs.

He talks about how the Santa Cruz Christian Church (I tried to find it on Google and was unsuccessful) gave him and his fiancee advice, causing him to call off their engagement. But this is hardly grounds to blame Christianity, because one church practiced what he rightlydescribes as spiritual abuse. As so often in these stories, one extreme sect is universalized to all of Christianity, as if it is representative of that whole. Atheists reading such gory details sit there lamenting, see what rascals and morons those damned Christians are! So glad I came to my senses and left it. Best thing I ever did . . . They never seem to realize that one extreme and twisted version of Christianity is not the whole ball of wax. Basic category errors and logical fallacies, in other words . . . These things usually arent stated outright, but I would contend that they are the underlying strongly implied assumption.

Former Christian atheists often refer back to the years of abuse (real or alleged) that they went through. Hence, Anthony writes: It was not until after I left the faith and went back to examine my Christian life in light of my new viewpoint, that the gravity of what I had allowed to be done to us hit me. In this case, it was real abuse, but only from an extremist fringe sector of Christianity, which is no disproof of Christianity per se.

I bought the first pieces of my spiritual library. He and Theresa had already bought me a study bible. That day I bought a comprehensive concordance, a bible dictionary, an exhaustive cross-reference, a bible atlas, and, finally, Gleason ArchersEncyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

What?

I took Duane at his word, but inside, the title of that book put a cold shaft of fear inside me. How could Gods word have difficulties? What on earth was difficult about Gods revelation to mankind. I mean, hes God, right? And we have the spirit of God.

This is shallow, unreflective thinking. I can think of a number of sound, logical reasons why such a book would exist:

1. The Bible is a very lengthy, multi-faceted book by many authors, from long ago, with many literary genres, and cultural assumptions that are foreign to us.

2. The Bible purports to be revelation from an infinitely intelligent God. Thus (even though God simplifies it as much as possible), for us to think that it is an easy thing to immediately grasp and figure out, and would not have any number of difficulties for mere human beings to work through, is naive. The Bible itself teaches that authoritative teachers are necessary to properly understand it.

3. All grand theories have components (anomalies / difficulties) that need to be worked out and explained. For example, scientific theories do not purport to perfectly explain everything. They often have large mysterious areas that have to be resolved. Think of, for example, the missing links in evolution. That didnt stop people from believing in it. Folks believed in gradual Darwinian evolution even though prominent paleontologist and philosopher of science Stephen Jay Gould famously noted that gradualism was never read from the rocks. Even Einsteins theories werent totally confirmed by scientific experiment at first (later they were). That a book like the Bible would have difficulties to work through is perfectly obvious and unsurprising to me.

4. Most of the rationale of explaining Bible difficulties is not from a perspective that they are real difficulties, but rather, to show that purported difficulties really arent such. They are usually based on illogical thinking or unfamiliarity with biblical genre, etc. Many alleged biblical contradictions simply arent so, by the rules of logic.

5. The Foreword of the book by Kenneth S. Kantzer explains its rationale: [T]he faith of some troubled souls is hindered by misunderstanding the Scripture. They are confused by what seems to them to be false statements or self-contradiction. We need, therefore, to clear away such false obstacles to faith. (p. 8)

For these reasons, as an apologist and avid Bible student, Ive done quite a bit of writing on alleged Bible difficulties myself: found in the final section of my Bible & Tradition web page, and have analyzed relentlessly shoddy, illogical, fact-challenged atheist attempts to run down the Bible, in a section of my Atheism & Agnosticism page.

When I got home, I looked through some of the topics. Ill confess that, even then, it seemed very equivocating sort of a wordy hand-waving.

What is plausible and what isnt, is a very complicated matter itself. In any event, Anthony has simply talked about the book, and has not given any concrete examples that readers can judge for themselves. As such, this is simply no argument against Archers book, or against Christianity. All we know is that Anthony found it unconvincing. So what? Granted, accounts like this (or Christian conversion stories) cant argue every jot and tittle. But still, its good to point out what is actually an argument or evidence, and what isnt, lest anyone become confused over the nature of evidence pro or con.

Not being comforted by what I read, I usually ignored this book. Instead, I started reading about all the wrong religions.

We are what we eat. It looks like Anthony didnt even read Archers book all the way through. He seems to have quickly judged it, and moved on. But why should anyone think that his negative judgment and dismissal is infallible?

Anthony then talks about his struggles in the Christian life. All of this is perfectly understood and familiar to Christians. St. Paul himself talks about it in Romans 7, and then gives the solution in Romans 8. But that we all fall short and fail many times, in many ways, is not some big bombshell. Nor is it any argument against Christianity, because the latter teaches us to expect this. Faith is a lifelong struggle.

Im going to focus on the building string of doubts that led me to examine, and ultimately abandon, my faith.

Great. Lets see if they are compelling for any reader to think likewise.

. . . my wife was determined to complete her education. After getting eligible to transfer, she decided to attend San Jose State to get an accounting degree. While she was there, she took a class in the Religious History, and possibly one more focused on Western religion. The professor was also a pastor who was, to me, very liberal. He taught about the history of the development of the doctrine of hell. He taught how the prophets were used to enable rulers to motivate their soldiers to commit atrocities they would otherwise not ever consider. He taught the very human side of religion.

. . . It brought her faith deeply into question.

And so this is the oft-heard story. Christians go to college, get confronted with skeptical or atheist professors, in a very lopsided scenario, and lose their faith, if they are insufficiently equipped (i.e., lacking in apologetics knowledge: my field) to take on skeptical challenges to it. Again, we are what we eat. If she sat there and took in all this rotgut from the professor, and never read a Christian refutation of it, then why should anyone be surprised that she goes the route of the professor? One must read the best proponents of both sides of major disputes: not one side only or the best proponents of one side vs. the worst on the other (which is the usual atheist game: they love to wrangle with ignorant, uninformed Christians). This is why I love to have dialogues on my blog. I present the other persons words for my readers to see: and if not all of them, I always provide a link and urge them to read the whole article, and then see my response.

We attended a bible study. By our second or third time, she was asking more questions. I dont remember the last question she asked, but it froze the room. You could have heard a pin drop. She got a soft-shoed answer and the pastor rushed past it as quickly as he could.

Unfortunately, many pastors and priests are as undereducated in apologetics as the laypeople.

She never went to church again. She announced she was agnostic and didnt believe what I believed.

All we know about her story is that she heard some skeptical stuff, started asking hard questions that were unanswered. We dont know whether she actually took the time to read good Christian apologetics or philosophy. Consequently, there is nothing there that should persuade any other Christian to cease being so.

It is a fact that people, to an overwhelming degree, adopt the religious tradition of their culture. To them it is accepted fact.

Sociologically, that is very true. The problem with making it an exclusively anti-Christianity argument, however, is that atheists act in largely the same way. Thats why kids lose their Christian faith in college. Theyre surrounded by liberal, skeptical or atheist professors who undermine their faith and dont give both sides of the story (i.e., they are immersed in a different culture, and so unsurprisingly adopt it). The smart people seem to be against Christianity in that environment, and the few informed Christians are too scared to speak out (and today are even shut up and shouted down). No one wants to be seen as the oddball or outsider, so they lose their faith: not usually because of objective intellectual inquiry and reading the best of both worldviews, but because of sheer peer pressure and being subjected to one view (propaganda) over and over. They become politically liberal for the same reason.

Atheists like to think that they arrive at their view solely through reason, while Christians soak in theirs from their mothers milk. But atheists are just as subject to peer pressure and environmental influence as anyone else. Most worldviews (whether Christian or atheist) are arrived at far more for social (and emotional) reasons than intellectual. I cant emphasize it enough: we are what we eat.

Because of this cultural indoctrination, the only way to objectively examine your faith is to take the position of an outsider from a different culture and examine your faith with the same level of skepticism you treat other religions.

Conversely,the only way to objectively examine ones atheism is to interact withan outsider from Christianity(someone like me, willing and able to do it) and examine your axioms and premiseswith the same level of skepticism that onetreats Christianity. I am offering Anthony and any other atheist the opportunity to do that in this very paper.

There was a point during my cycle of failure and repentance that I wondered why on earth I would rush to the writings of Paul (specifically Romans 5-8) to restore my spirit rather than to Jesus. One was an apostle, but one was actually God, as I understood it. The modern salvation transaction as were taught it was never all that clear in Pauls writings, and not at all in the words attributed to Jesus.

That is, the fundamentalist Protestant version of salvation, which is out of touch with even historic Protestantism, let alone Catholicism and Orthodoxy . . . I agree that this warped version is never taught by either Jesus or St. Paul.

So I began to spend more time with the words of Jesus, thinking that if I cant find what I need from the words of my god walking upon the earth, the words of an apostle would not help me. To shorten the story, reading the words attributed to Jesus turned me into a social liberal. The Jesus in the bible is compassionate to the poor, destitute, and irredeemable, in stark contrast to the modern Christian, who, if they follow the culture, would sooner tell the poor to get a job and wave the flag of meritocratic individualism.

Pitting Paul against Jesus is plain silly. There is no essential difference in what they taught (which is perhaps why Anthony never provides any example of such alleged divergence). They simply taught in different ways. Jesus was the storyteller: more like a pastor (therefore, much better understood by the common man), whereas Paul was systematic and more abstract: like a theologian or academic: more like philosophy. But making false dichotomies is very typical of the sort of Protestant milieu that Anthony was part of.

The next issue I faced was the issue of evolution. I was a Young Earther, but the more I read, the more I realized that the science wasnt a conspiracy, but rather an accurate representation of the way the world actually worked. But it didnt lead to my faith deserting me. All truth is Gods truth. I figured, therefore, that Genesis was an allegory. My theory was that as long as Christ rose from the dead, then Christianity was true. It wouldnt matter if Genesis was an allegory or literal. Jesus = salvation. The rest is interpretation.

In the same vein, I decided the flood of Noah was also allegory, as it was scientifically impossible. Australia itself stands as a testament to the unreality of it.

This is very typical of many deconversion stories, where the person came out of fundamentalism. Anthony was a young-earther. I never was that, nor was I ever a fundamentalist or anti-science in my evangelical days (1977-1990). But the solution to these errors is not to ditch any literalism in the Bible and go to an all-allegorical position. The solution is to recognize that the Bible contains many genres of literature, and to determine which is occurring in a particular place. Thats how normal language and literature work. The problem is that fundamentalists and skeptics alike start treating the Bible as if it isnt subject to the normal rules of interpretation of literature. And so Anthony was knee-jerk and simplistic regarding the Bible. He went from one extreme error to another on the opposite side of the spectrum.

There are, of course, many old-earth evolutionist Christians. They simply believe that God had some hand in the process of evolution. The choice isnt godless, materialistic atheism vs. young-earth creationism. I denied the universality of Noahs flood over 30 years ago, as a result of reading a Christian book about science (by Baptist scholar Bernard Ramm). Why should that cause anyone to lose their Christian faith, pray tell?

So being in this strange place, with only the resurrection of Jesus Christ to keep me in the fold, I came to a full on crisis of faith. I wont go heavily into it now, . . .

He can, of course, divulge whatever he wants, but the fact remains that we are given no solid, compelling, cogent reasons why he should have forsaken Christianity, or why anyone else should do so. Because he was a fundamentalist extremist, those who never were that (like myself) should also leave Christianity: even the forms of it vastly essentially different from Anthonys anti-intellectual fundamentalism?

I searched for the best apologetics book I could find, settling on Norman GeislersI Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

I commend him for at least reading one book from the Christian perspective, against atheism. Of course, different authors have different emphases, styles, and particular philosophies. So it may have simply been a case where Geisler (a fine apologist) wasnt a good fit for him.

I gave God first shot at me and read Geisler. I expected to be strengthened steeled for my encounter with the atheist, able to find a way to keep my faith and work on my anger. Instead I took 30 pages (steno pad) of notes. I could easily formulate my wifes answers to his arguments without even trying. I was disappointed and borderline devastated. I read Loftuss book. Another 20 pages of notes later I set down his book and realized that 1) I didnt know what I did believe, and 2) I was sure it wasnt the god of the bible.

So John Loftus did the trick.

I was unmoored. I tried another apologist, thinking that maybe Geisler wasnt the best to read. Loftus had referenced William Lane Craig, so I started reading one of his books. About 40% of the way through, I gave up. It was over.I sat at my desk and said to myself, Im an atheist. And here I am today.

Craig is also a fine Christian thinker and debater. But it also depends what particular place we are at in our thinking: how much we will be influenced.

I do wonder why if John Loftus atheist polemics are so compelling , he is so extremely hyper-sensitive (and I do not exaggerate at all, believe me) to any critique of them? I have examinedhis outsider test of faith argument (ten years ago), some of his irrational criticisms of the Bible, and his story, and he went ballistic. This hardly suggests a confident atheism, willing to take on all critiques:

*

*

*

Loftus is very much like the preacher that is often maligned in atheist deconversion accounts: the guy who loves to hear himself talk, unopposed, who wilts at the first counter-challenge. That has always been what John Loftus does, in my experience. And he has a colorful set of epithets and insults, too, that he sent my way for having the audacity to challenge him in his infallible wisdom. If his atheist apologetic is so unvanquishable, let him stand up and defend it like a man and honest thinker. But (at least with me) he has never done so. Thus, I am utterly unimpressed by his thinking (and demeanor). I have atheist friends who are embarrassed by him, because he conducts himself like such a rude and pompous ass. Hes not exactly a good representative or figurehead for atheism.

In conclusion, I dont see anything here in this deconversion story that would compel anyone else to forsake Christianity. At best it is an account that raises serious questions about extreme fundamentalist Christianity, which I fully agree with. But since that is merely one fringe element of Christianity, it is irrelevant as to the truthfulness of larger Christianity, let alone atheism as a supposedly superior and more rational and cogent alternative worldview.

Excerpt from:

Atheist Deconversion Story Series #1: Anthony Toohey - Patheos (blog)

Study finds Lee Hood’s ‘scientific wellness’ approach can make people healthier – GeekWire

Genomics pioneer Lee Hood, left, and Maverons Clayton Lewis, the CEO of Arivale.

Scientific wellness is a straightforward idea: use data about a persons genes, proteins and other biology, along with behavioral coaching, to keep them healthy, even preventing health problems before they arise.The approach is championed by genomics pioneer Lee Hood, and its being pursued his latest startup, Seattle-basedArivale.

Its such a new and evolving concept that it isnt in thedictionary yet. Or Merriam Websters open-source dictionary. Its not even in that vanguard of the internet, Urban Dictionary.

But a new study, to be published in the journal Nature Biotechnology, is putting the concept on the map with hard data that points to the effectiveness of the scientific wellness approach. The nine-month study by Hoods Institute for Systems Biology led to the founding of Arivale.

In the study, known as the Pioneer 100 Wellness Project, researchers and health coaches tried out the approach, which would later evolve into the Arivale program, on 108 individuals. At the core of the program are what they call personal dynamic, dense data clouds about peoples health and biology.

The clouds were built using troves of data: genetics tests, digital monitoring of physical activity and blood, urine, stool, and saliva samples collected every three months. Using that data, personal health coaches helped participants change their lifestyle to meet health goals.

That coaching could include making changes todiet, exercise, stress management, dietary supplements, or referring people to specific healthcare resources, as needed. And it can focus on a number of health goals, like managing or preventing Type 2 diabetes or improving cardiovascular health.

The bottom line of the study is: Researchers successfully found biological markers that helped them tailor wellness treatment to each patient. In other words, they were able to help people meet health goals using personal data clouds, and they gathered data that will help them do so even more effectively in the future.

Just as the Hubble Telescope provided a new view into the universe, these data sets have been transformational in providing new insights into both human biology and disease, Hood said in a statement. We have termed this quantitative and transformational approach Scientific Wellness, which enables individuals to improve their health and wellbeing, while generating the data necessary to optimize wellness as well as avoid or slow down the transition into certain disease states.

The study was conducted more than two years ago at Hoods Institute for Systems Biology. Hoodfounded Arivale with the companys CEO, Clayton Lewis, and many of the researchers behind the original study.

The company now offers its scientific wellness program to anyone with$3,499 in their pocket, and Arivale is collecting more data to refine and further study the scientific wellness approach. In the paper, researchers said theyre aiming to recruit 100,000 people to a new study by 2020.

See the original post here:

Study finds Lee Hood's 'scientific wellness' approach can make people healthier - GeekWire

Denmark to train NATO soldiers to combat Russian misinformation – Reuters

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Danish troops will get training in how to deal with Russian misinformation before being sent to join a NATO military build-up in Estonia in January, Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said on Monday.

"It is a whole new world. The Danish soldiers need to be extremely aware of that. Therefore I have arranged with the armed forces that the soldiers being sent out in January are informed and educated in how to protect themselves," Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster DR.

"It is easy to imagine they will become exposed to intimidation and fake rumors," he said of the 200 Danish soldiers being deployed.

In February, Lithuanian prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into a false report of a 15-year-old girl being raped by German NATO soldiers which spread quickly on social media.

NATO accused Russia of being behind the false report and said it expected more propaganda of this sort in the future.

Both NATO and the European Union are concerned by Russia's ability to use television and the internet to project what they say is deliberate misinformation. Russia has denied being involved in any cyber warfare targeting Western governments or institutions.

Reporting by Julie Astrid Thomsen; Editing by Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen and Robin Pomeroy

See the rest here:

Denmark to train NATO soldiers to combat Russian misinformation - Reuters

NATO’s Blind Spot: Getting to Honest Defense – War on the Rocks

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the West won the Cold War. And with the end of this struggle eventually came new European NATO member states among them, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, the three Baltics States, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and some of the republics that emerged out of Yugoslavia. But how well can NATOs new allies contribute to their own national defense, let alone contribute to collective defense? Relatedly, how effective have old NATO members been in assisting their former adversaries to create modern reliable capabilities? The United States alone has spent billions for training and modernization , as well as assisting in building modern civil ministries of defense. Yet universally, since the end of the Cold War all of NATOs newer members continue to struggle to create, let alone sustain, reliable modern capabilities.

Instead of tackling these problems head on, Western officials have leaned on the old trope that nations need to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. The alliance declared in 2014 that those nations not meeting this goal would endeavor to do within a decade in order to meet alliance commitments and goals. This aim, wittingly or otherwise, is premised on a number of questionable assumptions, not least of which is that increased spending by newer member states will translate into new or more capabilities.

I have been intimately involved in planning, directing, and delivering advice and assistance to every country in the region (save Lithuania) for almost 20 years. The results of this experience and loads of hard thinking about the problem can be found in a book published last month. And on the basis of this experience, I am confident that more spending wont do the job. Indeed, many important issues related to capacity, capability, readiness, and training are being overlooked by the alliance.

Unfortunately, Western officials have long lacked a full appreciation of the actual state of reform of new members armed forces. After all, any likely aggression by Russia would almost certainly fall on Central or Eastern Europe. It is therefore incumbent on these armed forces to be capable of responding in a coherent fashion. In reality, the reform of new NATO allies armed forces, and indeed their entire defense institutions, remains a work in progress. Newer member states continue to struggle to adopt the most basic Western democratic defense governance concepts. But due to a lack of commitment by governments in the region to reform and inconsistent political pressure from leading Western nations, ministries in the region plan and manage ineffectually all the while their armed forces are literally rusting away. This can be observed in their airfields, ship docks, and vehicle parks. Worst of all, this equipment is not being modernized and/or replaced. An easy and objective example can be found in the low number of flight hours combat pilots get per annum in relation to their old NATO counterparts.

How did the alliance get to this point? There are a number of possible explanations. First, in making troop contributions to Afghanistan and particularly Iraq, the armed forces of these countries have avoided objective scrutiny of their actual state of reform from Washington and other leading NATO capitals. A pernicious habit has developed of Western military officials in particular offering insincere compliments on how well reform is going when such praise is not warranted. Second, early on in these states transition to democracy, Western officials determined that their advice and assistance would be technical and delegated its management to their armed forces. Thus, Western support has been based on a trinity of being defined as technical, focused at the tactical level, and using training as the preferred tool. Western officials continue to hope without evidence that they can change public institutions through technical advice while ignoring that reform is fundamentally political in nature. Due to this inattention, these armed forces have failed to modernize, maintained hollow units, and forgone essential leadership, individual, and, particularly,collective training. It is little wonder that the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in the last Congress held hearings into the effectiveness of the Department of Defenses management of security cooperation programs. Lawmakers skepticism of current policies is clearly expressed in the latest National Defense Authorization Act.

In light of this situation, old and new NATO members must fundamentally change their policies. The alliance needs an honest defense initiative. Senior Western officials need to take a harder line in their interactions with their allied counterparts on NATOs eastern flank and start demanding painful political decisions in order to adopt Western democratic defense governance concepts. As Western and legacy concepts are antithetical to each other, the latter should be retired in order to adopt the former. Specifically, political capital will need to be spent to develop non-complex and effective defense planning methods, stop practices that preclude their armed forces from training and developing military leaders in accordance with Western practices, and radically transform their ineffectual legacy logistics organizations. Equally, newer allies and partners must insist Western officials end the corrosive practice of offering false compliments and become brutally honest with their failures and weaknesses. In essence, these officials need to demand Western officials take them seriously and deal with them on the basis of equality and honesty.

Thus, the long-standing canard, articulated particularly by U.S. officials, that members must simply increase their defense budgets is in urgent need of refinement. On its own, encouraging new members to spend more on defense in no way guarantees new funding actually will produce new and needed capabilities. An honest defense initiative could encourage deep reforms and provide appropriate advice and assistance to enable legacy defense institutions to prepare to contribute effective capabilities as quickly as possible. Ominously, Russian aggression against Ukraine demonstrates that weak defense capabilities all but invite Russian mischief-making. The alliance has allowed this disquieting situation to go unaddressed for some 25 years. It is doubtful the West can count on President Vladimir Putin allowing NATO another 25 years to complete the reform of these legacy defense institutions.

Thomas-Durell Young is Program Manger Europe at the Center for Civil-Military Relations of the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. He is the author of Anatomy of Post-Communist European Defense Institutions: Mirage of Military Modernity (Bloomsbury, 2017). The views expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the policy or views of the Naval Postgraduate School, Department of the Navy, or the Department of Defense.

Image: NATO

Go here to see the original:

NATO's Blind Spot: Getting to Honest Defense - War on the Rocks

Russian, NATO Pilots Test Wills In Skies Above Eastern Europe – Task & Purpose

NATO and Russian aircraft and ships have drawn ever closer in the skies and seas around Eastern Europe in recent years, engaging in a kind ofcat-and-mouse game that has led to many near misses.

A significant number of these encounters have taken place above the Baltics, where NATO members border a Russia they see asgrowing increasingly aggressive in its near abroad.

June alone saw several such incidents, including a Russian jetinterceptinga US B-52 over the Baltic Sea early in the month, another Russian jet flyingwithin a few feetof a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance jet over the Baltic Sea in mid-June, and a NATO F-16buzzingthe Russian defense ministers jet later in the month.

Western officials and the research and advocacy group Global Zero which analyzed 97 mid-air confrontations between Russian and Western aircraft over the Baltic between March 2014 and April 2017 have saidthat Russian pilots are more often responsible for unsafe interceptions; some of which arise from negligence or are accidents, while some are deliberate shows of force.

What we see in the Baltic Sea is increased military activity we see it on land, at sea, and in the air, and that just underlines the importance of transparency and predictability to prevent incidents and accidents, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenbergtold The Wall Street Journal. And if they happen, it is important to make sure they dont spiral out of control and create dangerous situations.

Western officials and analysts believe Moscow is using such incidents as geopolitical tactics, responding to events in Europe and elsewhere, such as in Syria. Russia has denied this and said that recent reports about its abilities and activity in the region are total Russophobia.

Both sides are working toward risk reduction policies for the Baltics. But the uptick in aerial encounters comes amid increased military activity by both sides on the ground in Eastern Europe.

Some 25,000 troops from the U.S. and 23 other countries are taking part in the Saber Guardian military exercise in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romaniathis month the drills are designed as adeterrentand are larger in both scale and scope than previous exercises, U.S. European Commandsaidin June.U.S. bombers alsotraveledto the UK in June in preparation for two separate multilateral exercises in the Baltics and elsewhere in Europe that month.

Those military exercises come ahead of war games planned for September by Russia and Belarus. Those exercises could involve up to 100,000 troops and include nuclear-weapons training.

Neighboring countries haveexpressed concernthat those war games could leave a permanent Russian presence in Belarus the U.S. plans tostation paratroopersin Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania during them andwill adjustits fighter-jet rotation to put more experienced pilots in the area to better manage any encounters with Russian forces.

The U.S. and NATO have increased troop deployments to Eastern Europe. UK and Canadianforces are headedto Poland, Latvia, and Estonia, and NATO personnel are already in Lithuania. The latter country has called for a permanent US military presence there as a game changer to counter Moscow.

In the wake of this months G20 summit in Germany, several countries in Eastern Europe are moving to boost their air-defense capabilities, with the US aiding the effort.

In early July, Poland and the U.S. signed a memorandum of understanding for an$8 billion saleof U.S.-made Patriot missiles.

This week, the State Department gave tentative approval toa $3.9 billion saleof Patriot missiles and related equipment, like radars, to Romania.

Patriot missiles have also beenstationedin Lithuania for the first time, albeit temporarily, as part of military exercises focused on air defense and involving five NATO countries.

Russian President Vladimir Putinhas said several timesthat the deployment of defensive missile systems by NATO allies would be a great danger, and he has threatened to respond by boosting Russias own missile systems.

The way I view the Patriots deployment is that it also forms part of a broader U.S. response in the region to the upcoming Russian exercise nearby, Magnus Nordenman, a Nordic security expert at the Atlantic Council,told AFP.

Air defense has not been a priority for the last 15 years when NATO was busy in Afghanistan, dealing with piracy and peacekeeping, he said. There was not much of an air threat but now that Russia is building up air forces, it is different.

More from Business Insider:

WATCH NEXT:

More here:

Russian, NATO Pilots Test Wills In Skies Above Eastern Europe - Task & Purpose

NATO urges Turkey, Germany to settle air base row – Reuters

BRUSSELS/BERLIN (Reuters) - NATO's Secretary General has urged the Turkish and German foreign ministers to resolve their differences over visits to Turkish air bases, part of a wider row between the two allies.

Germany has refused to extradite asylum seekers Turkey says were involved in a coup attempt last year, Berlin is demanding the release of a Turkish-German journalist, and Ankara has refused to let German lawmakers visit soldiers at two air bases.

German soldiers contribute to a NATO air surveillance mission at Konya, 250 km (150 miles) south of the Turkish capital Ankara, and its troops stationed at another air base, in Incirlik, have already been moved to Jordan.

NATO said Jens Stoltenberg had called Sigmar Gabriel and Mevlut Cavusoglu on Friday to ask them to settle the dispute.

"We hope that Germany and Turkey are able to find a mutually acceptable date for a visit," a NATO spokesman said.

Germany's armed forces are under parliamentary control and Berlin says the lawmakers must have access to its soldiers.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted in a television interview on Sunday that German lawmakers should be allowed to visit the Bundeswehr soldiers at the NATO air base in Konya.

"This whole issue is unfortunate, very unfortunate," Merkel told public broadcaster ARD, adding that more talks were needed to find a solution, also with the help of NATO.

On whether Ankara had asked Berlin to extradite asylum seekers in exchange for granting lawmakers access to the air base, Merkel said she was not aware of any such a request.

"If this was the case..., we would reject this entirely," Merkel said.

There could be no negotiations with Ankara about the extradition of Turkish asylum seekers and granting German lawmakers access to the soldiers at Konya air base because both issues were completely unrelated, she added.

Reporting by Robert-Jan Bartunek in Brussels and Michael Nienaber in Berlin; Editing by Louise Ireland and Giles Elgood

Read the original:

NATO urges Turkey, Germany to settle air base row - Reuters

US to create the independent US Cyber Command, split off from NSA – PBS NewsHour

An undated aerial handout photo shows the National Security Agency headquarters building in Fort Meade, Maryland. Photo by NSA via Reuters

WASHINGTON After months of delay, the Trump administration is finalizing plans to revamp the nations military command for defensive and offensive cyber operations in hopes of intensifying Americas ability to wage cyberwar against the Islamic State group and other foes, according to U.S. officials.

Under the plans, U.S. Cyber Command would eventually be split off from the intelligence-focused National Security Agency.

Details are still being worked out, but officials say they expect a decision and announcement in the coming weeks. The officials werent authorized to speak publicly on the matter so requested anonymity.

The goal, they said, is to give U.S. Cyber Command more autonomy, freeing it from any constraints that stem from working alongside the NSA, which is responsible for monitoring and collecting telephone, internet and other intelligence data from around the world a responsibility that can sometimes clash with military operations against enemy forces.

Making cyber an independent military command will put the fight in digital space on the same footing as more traditional realms of battle on land, in the air, at sea and in space. The move reflects the escalating threat of cyberattacks and intrusions from other nation states, terrorist groups and hackers, and comes as the U.S. faces ever-widening fears about Russian hacking following Moscows efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election.

The U.S. has long operated quietly in cyberspace, using it to collect information, disrupt enemy networks and aid conventional military missions. But as other nations and foes expand their use of cyberspying and attacks, the U.S. is determined to improve its ability to incorporate cyber operations into its everyday warfighting.

Experts said the command will need time to find its footing.

Right now I think its inevitable, but its on a very slow glide path, said Jim Lewis, a cybersecurity expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But, he added, A new entity is not going to be able to duplicate NSAs capabilities.

The NSA, for examples, has 300 of the countrys leading mathematicians and a gigantic super computer, Lewis said. Things like this are hard to duplicate.

He added, however, that over time, the U.S. has increasingly used cyber as a tactical weapon, bolstering the argument for separating it from the NSA.

The two highly secretive organizations, based at Fort Meade, Maryland, have been under the same four-star commander since Cyber Commands creation in 2009.

But the Defense Department has been agitating for a separation, perceiving the NSA and intelligence community as resistant to more aggressive cyberwarfare, particularly after the Islamic States transformation in recent years from an obscure insurgent force into an organization holding significant territory across Iraq and Syria and with a worldwide recruiting network.

While the military wanted to attack IS networks, intelligence objectives prioritized gathering information from them, according to U.S. officials familiar with the debate. They werent authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly and requested anonymity.

Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter sent a plan to President Barack Obama last year to make Cyber Command an independent military headquarters and break it away from the NSA, believing that the agencys desire to collect intelligence was at times preventing the military from eliminating IS ability to raise money, inspire attacks and command its widely dispersed network of fighters.

Carter, at the time, also pushed for the ouster of Adm. Mike Rogers, who still heads both bodies. The Pentagon, he warned, was losing the war in the cyber domain, focusing on cyberthreats from nations such as Iran, Russia and China, rather than on countering the communications and propaganda campaigns of internet-savvy insurgents.

Officials also grew alarmed by the growing number of cyberattacks against the U.S. government, including several serious, high-level Defense Department breaches that occurred under Rogers watch.

NSA is truly an intelligence-collection organization, said Lauren Fish, a research associate with the Center for a New American Security. It should be collecting information, writing reports on it. Cyber Command is meant to be an organization that uses tools to have military operational effect.

After President Donald Trumps inauguration, officials said Defense Secretary Jim Mattis endorsed much of the plan. But debate over details has dragged on for months.

Its unclear how fast the Cyber Command will break off on its own. Some officials believe the new command isnt battle-ready, given its current reliance on the NSAs expertise, staff and equipment. That effort will require the department to continue to attract and retain cyber experts.

Cyber Command was created in 2009 by the Obama administration to address threats of cyber espionage and other attacks. It was set up as a sub-unit under U.S. Strategic Command to coordinate the Pentagons ability to conduct cyberwarfare and to defend its own networks, including those that are used by combat forces in battle.

Officials originally said the new cyber effort would likely involve hundreds, rather than thousands, of new employees.

Since then, the command has grown to more than 700 military and civilian employees. The military services also have their own cyber units, with a goal of having 133 fully operational teams with as many as 6,200 personnel.

Its proposed budget for next year is $647 million. Rogers told Congress in May that represents a 16 percent increase over this years budget to cover costs associated with building the cyber force, fighting IS and becoming an independent command.

Under the new plan being forwarded by the Pentagon to the White House, officials said Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville would be nominated to lead Cyber Command. Leadership of the NSA could be turned over to a civilian.

Mayville is currently the director of the militarys joint staff and has extensive experience as a combat-hardened commander. He deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, leading the 173rd Airborne Brigade when it made its assault into Iraq in March 2003 and later heading coalition operations in eastern Afghanistan.

More here:

US to create the independent US Cyber Command, split off from NSA - PBS NewsHour

Posted in NSA

Rate Regulation By Any Other Name – Broadcasting & Cable (blog)

While much of the debate to date has revolved around the threshold legal question of whether the commission has the authority to reclassify in the first instance, few have focused on perhaps the more substantive (yet notably neglected) legal problemthe commissions actual implementation of Title II, in particular the ratemaking provisions of Sections 201 and 202 and its forbearance authority in Section 10.

Why are these statutory provisions important? Because at bottom, net neutrality is nothing more than good old-fashioned rate regulation. Accordingly, if you are going to impose rate regulation, then Title II prescribes certain rules you must adhere to in order to ensure that the regulated firms Fifth Amendment due process rights are not violated.

Unfortunately for the FCC, these rules got in the way of what it wanted to do in its 2015 Open Internet Orderin particular, (1) to force BSPs to give edge providers terminating access without compensation (i.e., a regulated price of zero) in direct contradiction of the just and reasonable standard of Section 201; (2) to impose a blanket ban on reasonable discrimination in direct contradiction to Section 202; but yet (3) to give the patina of a light touch approach even though the agency wasdirectly dictating a confiscatory rate of zero, to use its Section 10 forbearance authority to eliminate the tariffing requirements of Section 203 even though the agency found BSPs to be gatekeepers. A proper reading of the Communications Act and the case law requires the exact opposite result.

The commissions solution to its legal pickle? As it proudly admitted in its 2015 Open Internet Order, it would simply ignore the vast majority of rules adopted under Title II (along with the years of case law and its own precedent) by selectively picking and choosing whatever provisions of Title II it found convenient to achieve a results-driven outcome, so that it could tailor [Title II] ... for the 21st century. In effect, since the statute prohibited the rules the com-mission wished to impose, the agency simply rewrote the statute.

What is important to understand is that the ratemaking and forbearance provisions of Title II are not solely designed to govern the conduct of the regulated firm (the commissions rules serve that function), but to govern the conduct of the regulator. The FCCs 2015 Open Internet Order therefore raises an important question about the nature of the regulatory statethat is, should an administrative agency be permitted on its own initiative to expand its power beyond its statutory mandate at the expense of private actors Fifth Amendment due process protections?If an administrative agency, by its own admission, is free to interpret selectively its own enabling statute to fit the times, then what is the role of Congress? At stake, in other words, is whether an administrative agency should be permitted to re-write the lawespecially when it does so simply to fit a political agenda.

According to the D.C. Circuit in United States Telecom v. FCC, the answer appears to be yes. Citing the Supreme Courts seminal case in Brand X, the D.C. Circuit found in USTelecom that the FCC had widenearly unboundedlatitude to interpret the Communications Act and not only upheld the agencys decision to reclassify but also upheld the agencys ability to tailor how it chose to implement Title II. In so doing, the D.C. Circuitrather by design or by omissionhas taken Chevron deference to the extreme.

USTelecom has greatly expanded the commissions authority to set the rates, terms and conditions of private actors well beyond its statutory mandate. Accordingly, the statutory construct of Title II now has no meaning; it is some bizarre legal hybrid that the FCC has made up and the D.C. Circuit has sanctioned. For those who care deeply about due process and the rule of law, the precedent set by the D.C. Circuit in USTelecom is deeply troubling and is a case that we will likely have to deal with its aftermath for years to come.

If anything, USTelecom proves the old adage that bad facts make bad law. While the commission certainly has great latitude to interpret the Communications Act, as the Supreme Court has held, an administrative agency must nonetheless operate within the bounds of reasonable interpretation and it is not at liberty to pick-and-choose select provisions of the statute to govern for the sake of expediency.

Or does it? With the D.C. Circuits decision in USTelecom, the FCC apparently now has carte blanche to tailor its enabling statute to fit a results-driven outcome and trample on key due process concerns so long as it can sprinkle some pixie dust about promoting broadband deployment.

And if that unbridled expansion of regulatory power doesnt scare you, then it damn well should.

Lawrence J. Spiwak is president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies.

See the original post here:

Rate Regulation By Any Other Name - Broadcasting & Cable (blog)

Byron York: What campaign wouldn’t seek motherlode of Clinton emails? – Washington Examiner

The public learned on March 10, 2015 that Hillary Clinton had more than 60,000 emails on her private email system, and that she had turned over "about half" of them to the State Department and destroyed the rest, which she said were "personal" and "not in any way related" to her work as Secretary of State.

The public learned later the lengths to which Clinton went to make sure the "personal" emails were completely and permanently deleted. Her team used a commercial-strength program called BleachBit to erase all traces of the emails, and they used hammers to physically destroy mobile devices that might have had the emails on them. The person who did the actual deleting later cited legal privileges and the Fifth Amendment to avoid talking to the FBI and Congress.

Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, told Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Benghazi Committee, that investigators could forget about finding any of those emails, whether on a device or a server or anywhere. Sorry, Trey, he said; they're all gone.

It was, as the New York Times' Mark Landler said in August 2016, the "original sin" of the Clinton email affair that Clinton herself, and no independent body, unilaterally decided which emails she would hand over to the State Department and which she would delete.

Still, there were people who did not believe that Clinton's deleted emails, all 30,000-plus of them, were truly gone. What is ever truly gone on the Internet? And what if Clinton were not telling the truth? What if she deleted emails covering more than just personal matters? In that event, recovering the emails would have rocked the 2016 presidential campaign.

So, if there were an enormous trove of information potentially harmful to a presidential candidate just sitting out there what opposing campaign wouldn't want to find it?

There have been recent reports that last summer a Republican named Peter W. Smith made some sort of effort to find the missing Clinton emails, apparently getting in touch with hackers, some of whom may have been Russian. But nothing came of it, and no evidence has emerged that Smith was connected to the Trump campaign. (The 81-year-old Smith later committed suicide, apparently distraught over failing health.)

In a phone conversation Friday, Corey Lewandowski, the Trump campaign manager who was fired on June 20, 2016, said he never heard of or communicated with Smith, and wasn't aware of any effort to find the missing Clinton emails. "I never solicited, or asked anybody to solicit or find a way to get these potential emails," Lewandowski said. "And to the best of my knowledge, nobody [in the campaign] did either."

Still, Lewandowski added that, "In the world of cybersecurity, it's fairly well known that when you delete emails, they're not gone."

Another former top Trump aide said that was a common view in the campaign. "The feeling was that they [the emails] must exist somewhere," the former aide said, "because once something is digital, it's never truly gone."

"Trump believes that," the aide added.

Still, the aide also said he had never heard of Peter W. Smith, and didn't know of any effort to find the emails. "There was never a thought of who might have them," the aide said. "Nobody at the campaign was trying to find them."

Both Lewandowski and the other former aide stressed the greatest political value of the missing emails, as far as Trump was concerned, was that they gave Trump a way to "poke" and "troll" his Democratic opponent. The Clinton team was BleachBitting and swinging hammers to smash devices and she says everything was on the up and up, that she has nothing to hide? Candidate Trump could riff on that all day. It was as if Clinton were trying her best to look guilty, to Trump's political benefit.

But at least one high-ranking Trump team member apparently did believe the missing Clinton emails still existed. In August 2016, Gen. Michael Flynn, then the Trump campaign's top national security adviser, discussed the emails with a conservative radio host named John B. Wells. "The big question is, does somebody have more emails?" Flynn began:

Does somebody have the 30,000? The likelihood of that ... the likelihood somebody has all of those emails, at a nation-state level, meaning Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or even other countries, or some other large hacktivist group, like the WikiLeaks group that we know exists the likelihood is very high, and I'm talking like better than 95 percent. I would actually bet a paycheck on it, that somebody has it.

Flynn, of course, was a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, so he should know something about that. Flynn also had Trump's ear on national security and other matters. And he was saying the emails are out there, somewhere.

Which leads to a question. Would it have been appropriate for the Trump campaign to try to find the emails? After all, the emails were under congressional subpoena, under FBI investigation, of intense public interest, and a potentially explosive issue in the presidential campaign. What opposing campaign wouldn't want to know what was in them?

Look at a few possible scenarios. What if a member of the Clinton team defected and offered them to the Trump campaign? Would it have been appropriate for Trump to accept?

Or: What if a rogue hacker "a 400-pound person sitting in bed," as Trump once said got the emails and offered them to the campaign? Would accepting under those circumstances have been appropriate?

What if an intelligence operative from a friendly country got them and offered them? And what about an unfriendly country?

Would there be a scale, from standard oppo research on one end to treason on the other, depending on how the emails were acquired?

I posed those hypotheticals at least I think they are hypotheticals to three veteran Republican operatives: Tim Miller, who served as spokesman for Jeb Bush's 2016 campaign; David Carney, a New Hampshire-based strategist who's been involved in dozens of campaigns; and Barry Bennett, who ran Ben Carson's 2016 campaign and also served briefly as an adviser to the Trump effort.

Miller, a vocal critic of the president, stressed via email the question comes in the context of Russia's hacking of DNC and John Podesta emails. "So I would say that it would be unacceptable in opposition research to do that hack Podesta/DNC in any situation," Miller said.

"Where Hillary's deleted emails from her time as Secretary of State are concerned, many of those may have actually been public records," Miller continued. "So if they were acquired through a whistleblower or a lucky break scraping Internet archives, that would of course be fair game. That said, under no circumstance would enlisting a hostile government's help be acceptable for a myriad of reasons: legal, ethical, practical (how can you govern when you are in debt to a hostile government)."

For his part, Carney, writing via email, offered ways a campaign might have handled such a situation, had it arisen. "If the emails did show up, most serious campaigns would not touch them directly legalities and all. But friends of the campaign would strongly encourage the turncoat to dump them to reporters. Easier not to have fingerprints on questionable documents."

"Foreign governments would always use high-level U.S. third parties, not any direct campaign contacts, and most likely they would end up in the media," Carney continued. "So YES campaigns would seek the emails, but not directly if they were not legally available or the sources were questionable."

Bennett began by noting that the Trump campaign would have had "no ability to find [the missing Clinton emails] all by themselves. There was no tech operation until late summer, and even then it was basic."

"If someone I didn't know reached out and said, 'I have them,' I would have immediately called the committee and said this person says he has them," Bennett continued, via email. "I wouldn't want to touch them. But I would very much want them out there in the public.

"It is still hard for me to believe that copies of them aren't out there somewhere," Bennett added, going on to provide advice for a campaign facing a scandal-plagued opponent.

"Even during the Carson campaign I didn't meet with anyone I didn't know," Bennett said. "How do you know you're not being set up? I had people come to me and say they had dirt on [Ted] Cruz. I passed."

"Information can only be as trusted as the source that gives it to you. You can get easily burned with bad info or even looking like you want dirt. This is why everyone outsources research. No one in their right mind would want to touch documents under subpoena. No lawyer would ever let you."

"All of this being said, of course you want them to go public," Bennett concluded. "If the Russians had them, the last thing they would do is call a goofy record promoter in England and set up a meeting with a lawyer that can't even get a visa. Instead, DHL them from Asia to the New York Times."

Bennett alluded to the odd circumstances of Donald Trump Jr.'s June 9, 2016, meeting with Russians offering some sort of dirt on Hillary Clinton (not, as far as we know, the missing Clinton emails). In the days since the meeting was first reported, several political operatives of both parties have claimed they would never have taken part in such a meeting. While that might indeed be true, some would certainly have tried to find a hands-off way to get damaging material about their opponent into public view.

In the 2016 campaign, everyone knew Clinton had a huge secret those 30,000-plus "personal" emails and that she had gone to extraordinary lengths to keep that secret. Many people, and not just partisan warriors, suspected she had something to hide. And now, it should not be a surprise if there were some shenanigans as political operatives tried to learn the real Clinton email story.

Read more:

Byron York: What campaign wouldn't seek motherlode of Clinton emails? - Washington Examiner

DOJ gets delay in Marion County immigration case – Indiana Lawyer

An agreement that would have prevented the Marion County Sheriffs Department from detaining immigrants for the U.S. government is on hold after a federal judge gave the U.S. Department of Justice time to consider whether it wants to intervene in the case.

The city of Indianapolis and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana were waiting for Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to approve their stipulated agreement. Instead, she granted a request on July 14 from the Justice Department, giving the federal office 21 days to review the settlement.

The agreement was part of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Indiana on behalf of Allen County resident Antonio Lopez-Aguilar. Although the civil liberties organization and the city disagree on how Lopez-Aguilar was taken into custody and how long he was detained, their stipulated agreement declares that seizing a defendant solely on the request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or on removal orders from an immigration court violate Fourth Amendment protections.

In its request to the court, the Department of Justice said such a stipulation may raise questions about the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. Specifically, the department noted, Congress allows the U.S. Attorney General to issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of an immigrant and to enlist help from any officer or employee of a state or local municipality in identifying, apprehending, detaining or removing any individuals who do not have legal residency.

The case is Antonio Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion County Sheriffs Department, Sheriff John R. Layton and Sergeant Davis, 1:16-cv-2457.

Excerpt from:

DOJ gets delay in Marion County immigration case - Indiana Lawyer

FISA reform is needed, and conservatives should lead the way – Washington Examiner

Congress is getting ready to debate reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set to expire at the end of the year. Liberty-minded voters and lawmakers should support reform of this provision, to insure that the federal government's power is kept in check.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have abused warrantless surveillance authorities when in power, to sweep up communications of American citizens in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 702 passed in 2008, when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. The original bill was supported strongly by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. With Republicans in control of Congress and the White House, they now have the power to reform the same surveillance overreach they have previously criticized.

The fight has become an internal struggle between the old establishment guard of the Republican Party and newer, more liberty-minded members who are concerned about privacy and government overreach. The future of the Republican Party includes support for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the leadership in the House, where this bill is expected to start, should be responsive to the members who are leaders of the privacy movement. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has voiced support for Section 702 reform, and hopefully will lead the charge to bring together divergent elements of the Republican Party, to support a common sense compromise on the bill.

The Bush administration engaged in widespread warrantless wiretapping without any congressional authorization. Likewise, the Obama adminisration used Section 702 to engage in similarly unconstitutional practices.

The provision has been used in a way that violates the Constitution and does not enhance national security. A Washington Post analyzed documents released by Edward Snowden and reported on July 5, 2014 that, "Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency" under Section 702. The Washington Post reviewed 160,000 intercepted email and instant messaging conversations and reported on widespread monitoring of Americans' data that should have required a warrant based on probable cause for the government to collect. This massive data collection is a problem unto itself because the government amasses a giant database of information that they keep.

These abuses are evidence enough that Section 702 needs to be reformed or allowed to expire.

Congress must insist on closing the so-called backdoor search loophole. This loophole allows the government to target Americans under Section 702, under the pretense that they are really targeting foreign nationals. The FBI routinely performs these types of searches, even in cases where they lack the evidence necessary even to open a formal investigation.

There are currently no prohibitions on the use of this information in prosecutions against Americans for alleged offenses unrelated to terrorism. That Section 702 can be used to wiretap Americans without a warrant, and in investigations that have nothing to do with terrorism, demonstrates the amount of mission creep that this anti-terrorism provision has permitted.

Another critical reform that should be imposed on the program would be to limit the scope of Section 702 to only allow targets to be foreign powers or agents, and exclude individuals who are not associated with terrorism and may merely be businessmen or journalists. Furthermore, the upstream surveillance program that has been used to search emails and text messaging on a massive scale should be ended.

Real transparency and oversight of FISA programs needs to be part of any compromise, and any retained data needs to be purged on a regular basis. Finally, private citizens need to have a way to challenge unconstitutional surveillance in court if they believe their rights have been violated.

The law has been implemented in a way that violates the Bill of Rights. This should lead constitutional conservatives in the Senate to filibuster any reauthorization that does not include substantial reform.

Brian Darling is former Senior Communications Director and Counsel for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). He can be followed on Twitter: @BrianHDarling.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.

Go here to see the original:

FISA reform is needed, and conservatives should lead the way - Washington Examiner

Recording police gets OK from Third District Court of Appeals – Buffalo Business First


Buffalo Business First
Recording police gets OK from Third District Court of Appeals
Buffalo Business First
A federal judge previously ruled that citizens did not automatically have a First Amendment right to film police activity. In that case, U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney ruled that citizens filming police had to announce their intention to film the ...
Whitehead: First Amendment won in courtOneNewsNow

all 2 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:

Recording police gets OK from Third District Court of Appeals - Buffalo Business First

Trump’s Twitter vs. The First Amendment – MediaFile – MediaFile

On Tuesday, July 11, the Knight First Amendment Institute filed a lawsuit in federal court against President Donald Trump over blocking individuals on his Twitter account.

The institute, a nonprofit affiliated with Columbia University, argues that Trumps Twitter account is a public forum under the First Amendment because the president and his staff use it to communicate.

According to Bloomberg Politics, the institute requested that the court deem viewpoint-based blocking by the presidents account unconstitutional, unblock the plaintiffs and pay the plaintiffs attorneys fees.

Regardless of your opinions on Trumps online behavior, the Tuesday lawsuit could have many social, corporate and journalistic implications.

Harassment vs. Freedom of Speech

According to a Pew Research Center survey, 41 percent of Americans have been personally subjected to online harassment, with as many as 18 percent of respondents claiming that they have been subject to more severe treatment, like sexual harassment, stalking or physical threats.

At a time when so many Americans claim to be so negatively affected by cyberbullying, it may be counterintuitive to set legal precedents that could take away users abilities to block harassers online in the future.

Although the lawsuit specifies that Trump should be penalized for viewpoint-based blocking as opposed to blocking in general, if these platforms are deemed as public forums, the precedent could easily be interpreted to protect users hateful speech in the future.

On the other hand, trying to curb viewpoint-based blocking may force users to interact with more diverse perspectives than usual, which could cultivate more interesting, productive discourse on the platform. Forcing opposing opinions to coexist in the same place could also help the general public better understand different political ideas.

Preventing people from censoring the opinions they do not want to see on their timeline could break ideological echo chambers that are currently prevalent on all social media platforms.

Impact on Private Companies

The decision could also affect how social media platforms monitor their users behavior and are allowed to conduct business in general.

Currently, social media applications are considered private institutions. Unlike public institutions, private institutions are not expected to uphold First Amendment protections.

However, if courts can treat Twitter as a public forum, social media companies could be forced to overhaul their terms of service to comply with government policy at the expense of their autonomy.

Is Social Media News?

In the lawsuit, the Knight First Amendment Institute considers Trumps personal Twitter account a public forum because of how the administration uses the social media site to spread news directly to followers.

In an interview with Fox and Friends, Trump defended his decision not to attend the White House Correspondents Dinner and said that he used Twitter so frequently because he feels that the media purposefully misrepresents him.

It allows me to give a message without necessarily having to go through people where Im giving them a message and theyre putting it down differently from what I mean, he said.

Despite this defense, Trumps Twitter use at times serves more as an excuse to take jabs at the media establishment rather than the president relaying substantive, unbiased policy accomplishments to the American people.

And although many famous political pundits and networks cited this in their defense of negative Trump coverage, the presidents comments on news networks reflect how many American conservatives feel.

It seems like common knowledge that the publics trust in media is at an all-time low, but according to a new Politico poll, people only marginally trust CNN (54 percent) more than the White House (52 percent) and Trump (46 percent).

The survey claims that significant percentages of voters mostly Republicans think many outlets are either not too credible or not credible at all, whereas left-leaning voters are more skeptical of the Trump administration and Congress.

Because of the tendency for right-leaning Americans to distrust them, many journalists publicly acknowledge that they should be trying to appeal more to conservatives. But reporting patterns speak louder than words.

Many conservatives cite what they perceive as abnormally critical coverage of the current administration when dismissing mainstream media coverage. According to a Shorenstein survey, 80 percent of Trump coverage was negative during his first 100 days of office.

This extreme amount of negative coverage may explain why many Americans are skeptical of the mainstream media, rendering the press intent meaningless. It also provides a rationalization for why many Americans are willing to accept the presidents social media statements as more legitimate than mainstream news coverage.

If a politicians posts on social media can legitimately be considered news, should the platform monitor content for accuracy, just like a news publication would? And if this is the case, it seems that social medias potential responsibility to purge false information falsifies the lawsuits assertion that social media sites ought not to allow viewpoint-based blocking.

No matter your opinions on the validity of the lawsuit, it most certainly brings up important debates central to the journalistic and social media communities in the Trump administration.

Read more:

Trump's Twitter vs. The First Amendment - MediaFile - MediaFile

Acosta’s reminder: Journalists must advocate for First Amendment … – San Antonio Express-News (subscription)

Acosta's reminder: Journalists must advocate for First Amendment ...
San Antonio Express-News (subscription)
One of the first lessons journalists learn is that the story any story isn't about us. It shouldn't be. It's ingrained in us, and we carry it in every notebook, ...

and more »

See the rest here:

Acosta's reminder: Journalists must advocate for First Amendment ... - San Antonio Express-News (subscription)

Apple users warned of dangerous new Mac malware that steals banking credentials – ThaiVisa News

Apple users are being warned about a newly discovered form of Mac malware which is spread via a phishing attack and steals banking credentials.

The malware, dubbed OSX/Dox, was discovered by researchers from Check Point Security and mirrors the websites of some of the worlds leading banks to steal attempt to steal money from users.

The malware is being spread via a combination of phishing and so called Man in the Middle attacks.

Security experts say the Mac malware is extremely difficult to detect as it is able to bypass Apples stringent security measures and spy on all communications from the victim.

Check Point said they have seen a recent surge in the malware being used by hackers who are currently playing a game of cat and mouse with Apple.

Check Point say the hackers are purchasing dozens of Apple certificates to sign on the application bundle and bypass GateKeeper. As soon as Apple revokes one of the certificates the hackers switch to another, with new certificates being used on a daily basis.

They are aiming at the victims banking credentials by mimicking major bank sites. The fake sites prompt the victim to install an application on their mobile devices, which could potentially lead to further infection and data leakage from the mobile platform as well, Check Point said in a blog post.

Once the malware has been installed on a device it downloads the Tor browser and starts to communicate with servers controlled by the hackers. It then records the location of the infected device and customises the fake banking page depending on the location of the victim, making the attack even more convincing.

Image: Check Point. The very convincing but fake banking page by use by OSX/Dox

The malware then asks victims to login into the fake banking page with their banking credentials and also asks for their mobile number to setup SMS authentication.

Victims are then tricked into downloading a malicious app and the Stack encrypted messaging app.

It is not known why victims are made to download Stack but Check Point researchers speculate that it could be used by the hackers to commit more fraud at later date.

Whatever the goal may be, Signal will possibly make it harder for law enforcement to trace the attacker.

Alternatively, the perpetrator might be using Signal temporarily, to acquire install rate statistics and prove the method is working, while planning to install a malicious mobile application with future victims at a later time.

Unfortunately, the OSX/Dok malware is still on the loose and its owners continue to invest more and more in its obfuscation by using legitimate Apple certificates, Check Point researchers wrote.

The fact that the OSX/Dok is ported from Windows may point to a tendency. We believe more Windows malware will be ported to macOS, either due to the lower number of quality security products for macOS compared to the ones for Windows, or the rising popularity of Apple computers.

Jonathan is our Google Nexus and Android enthusiast. He is also fanatical about football which makes it all the more strange that he should support Stockport County. In addition to writing about tech, Jonathan has a passion for fitness and nutrition and has previously written for one the UKs leading watch and horology websites.

Read more here:

Apple users warned of dangerous new Mac malware that steals banking credentials - ThaiVisa News

Cryptocurrencies are crashing, but bitcoin isn’t falling as badly as the rest – Quartz

Cryptocurrency markets are crashing. Bitcoins price has fallen by about 20% in the last seven days, wiping out $7 billion of market value. But its doing better than other major cryptocurrencies like ether and ripple, which have lost 30% or more.

Bitcoins relative resilience in the current crash bolsters its status as the reserve currency of the cryptocurrency markets. Some $29.5 billion worth of bitcoin has been traded on global exchanges in the last month, compared to $26.3 billion worth of ethereum, according to data site Coin Marketcap. Not all traders are cashing out of ether into bitcoin, of course, the ether-Korean won currency pair is among the most actively traded in the last 24 hours, Coin Marketcaps data shows.

One indicator of bitcoins health relative to other cryptocurrencies is the so-called Bitcoin Dominance Index maintained by Coin Marketcap. It shows the total value of all bitcoin in circulation as a proportion of the value of all cryptocurrencies in circulation. As cryptos in general rallied this year, bitcoins dominance has fallen. But as markets have corrected in recent weeks, bitcoins dominance rose.

Bitcoin is still more than twice as valuable as ethereum, and about six times as valuable as Ripple. That gap could grow if the cryptomarket correction continues.

Read next: The strange mix of reasons why bitcoin has soared to all-time records

Visit link:

Cryptocurrencies are crashing, but bitcoin isn't falling as badly as the rest - Quartz

Bitcoin slides below $2000 as cryptocurrency selloff continues – MarketWatch

The price of the digital currency bitcoin fell over the weekend, dropping below $2,000 and farther away from its June highs, part of a broad selloff in dozens of cryptocurrencies, including ether.

Bitcoin on Sunday traded as low as $1,836, according to news and research site CoinDesk, down about 8% on the day, and almost 40% from its high of $3,018 on June 11. Meanwhile, ether, the currency used on the Ethereum network, traded as low as $155 on Sunday, down about 60% from its high of $395 on June 13.

Prices were lower across the board on Sunday, most notably for the tokens created via the so-called initial coin offering, or ICO, process.

The selloffs are yet another stark reminder that for all the potential and promise in these new kinds of digital assets, they remain highly speculative trading vehicles. The markets around them are still relatively immature and illiquid, resulting in extremely volatile trading.

An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.

Also popular on WSJ.com:

Can the most expensive indie move ever break even?

Elon Musk lays out worst-case scenario for AI threat.

Follow this link:

Bitcoin slides below $2000 as cryptocurrency selloff continues - MarketWatch

Steep decline in cryptocurrency market has miners dumping their GPUs on Ebay – PC Gamer

Ethereum, one of the most popular cryptocurrencies, is becoming more difficult to mine. At the same time, volatility is rearing its welcome head, and the value of Ethereum is now less than half of what it was around a month ago. As a result, profitability is way down, and some miners are putting their GPUs up for sale on second-hand sites such as Ebay, CoinDesk reports.

While it is difficult to predict anything when it comes to cryptocurrencies, we are cautiously optimistic that GPU pricing should start trending back to normal in the coming weeks. That could change at the drop of the hat, of course, but with the way things are now, miners are less motivated to stock up on GPUs and mine Ethereum.

That was not the case a month ago when Ethereum reached an all-time high of $300 before recording another high of more than $400 a short while later. More and more miners jumped on the crytpocurrency bandwagon in hopes of making some extra dough, and maybe even eventually striking it rich, as some early adopters of Bitcoin did. But since then, Ethereum has fallen in value, declining to a low of $133 over the weekend. It's currently trading at around $170-$180.

It has also become more difficult to mine over the past month. Have a look at the steep trend line from the beginning of June until now:

From our vantage point, the difficulty in mining has caused about a 10 percent drop in profitability, while the falling price has made Ethereum mining 50 percent (or more) less profitable. Power costs remain constant, so where an RX 580 might have grossed up to $5 per day next last month, it will now only gross around $1.70. That means instead of a net profit of $4, it's now down to a net gain only $1.25 (at a power cost of $0.10 per kWh). Generally speaking, it looks like a typical miner might have to wait six months or more to pay for a GPU hardware investment, compared to two or three months.

This is a good thing for gamers. While crytpocurrencies like Bitcoin (SHA256) are far more easily mined on ASIC hardware, othere's like Ethereum (Dagger-Hashimoto) and ZCash (Equihash) use algorithms that are resistant to ASIC hardware. Combined with Ethereum's spiking value, miners went running for the hills with as many GPUs as they could carry in what became a modern day gold rush.

This resulted in a shortage of many desirable graphics cards from both AMD and Nvidia. The best bang-for-buck options for gaming are also great options for mining, but there just aren't enough parts to meet the demand of both markets. Cards like the Radeon RX 570 have been out of stock or grossly overpriced by third-party vendors, such as this Gigabyte Aorus Radeon RX 570 going for $550. And that's not even the most expensive RX 570 SKU out there. PowerColor's Red Devil variant is listed on Newegg (through a third-party) for $639.

It's a crazy situation, but here's hoping that recent events restore some sanity to the graphics card market. There's an RX 580 8GB currently in stock at Newegg for 'only' $310, which is still way over MSRP, but the coming weeks should see inventories and prices start to return to normal. If you'd rather not wait for inventory levels to even out, you can also check second-hand sites for deals.

Read the original post:

Steep decline in cryptocurrency market has miners dumping their GPUs on Ebay - PC Gamer

Are Cryptocurrencies Recovering or is This a Dead cat Bounce? – The Merkle

No one can say there is such a thing as a boring day in the world of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. After the onslaught of price declines throughout the weekend, we kick off this Monday on a positive note. All currencies are seemingly recovering their losses. The Bitcoin price surpassed US$2,000 again, but it looks like Ethereum is the winner of the day so far. Other currencies all doing quite well too, for now.

Even though we are not a big fan of the term dead cat bounce, it accurately describes what is going on in the cryptocurrency world right now, by the look of things. The markets are showing signs of positive momentum, but there is no reason to get overly excited just yet. After all, the gains made today can easily be wiped out in an hour or two of bearish trading. This is especially true for the currencies showing large gains compared to yesterday.

Taking a closer look at the charts, we can see there is only one coin in the top 50 without a green number next to it right now. Overall, that is a positive sign for cryptocurrency as a whole. At the same time, people have to keep in mind these positive changes are a direct result of the Bitcoin price going up slowly. Should Bitcoin drop in value again, these short-term gains for all altcoins will be wiped out pretty quickly.

While it is good to see the Bitcoin price bounce back to above US$2,000, maintaining that position will be quite challenging. There is a lot of negative pressure on the market, which may push the price back to to the US$1,900 range in the coming hours. Such a retrace will effectively prove to be a tough time for any altcoin struggling as of late, including the likes of Ethereum and Dash.

Speaking of those two particular altcoins, Dash has seen its value climb by 13.52% over the past 24 hours. This is despite a trading volume of under US$50m, mind you. Ethereum, on the other hand, notes an 18.02% gain over the past 24 hours, thanks to a trading volume which even surpasses Bitcoins. Many people still hope to see ETH return to US$400, but for now, it is a struggle to remain above US$160.

Seeing the Ethereum trading volume surpass Bitcoins is not entirely surprising. Korea and China are trying to push the ETH price back up, yet their efforts are not wildly successful so far. In fact, the price on Bithumb denominated in US Dollars- is below the ETH/BTC price on Poloniex when converting it to USD. That is somewhat surprising, considering Korean exchanges often depict higher values for cryptocurrencies compared to Western markets.

It is still too early to tell if the cryptocurrency markets are effectively recovering. For all we know, this is just a temporary blip on the radar, which will be nullified before the day is over. It seems plausible to assume Bitcoin will have a tough time remaining above US$2,000 for an extended period of time. The markets remain volatile for quite some time to come, but there is always sunshine beyond the dip. No one needs to panic right now, as things will be alright in the end.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Originally posted here:

Are Cryptocurrencies Recovering or is This a Dead cat Bounce? - The Merkle