Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don’t Delete ‘Bad’ Speech – Techdirt

Yeah, yeah, before you rush to the comments and start justifying this by saying that Europe doesn't respect free expression in the same way the US does, let's just say while that may be true, this is still bad: Germany has moved forward with a plan to fine internet companies which don't quickly censor the internet. Censor what, though? Three loosely defined (and easily abused) categories: hate speech, criminal material and fake news.

Social media companies face fines of up to 50m (43m) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content from their sites under a new law passed in Germany

The German parliament on Friday approved the bill aimed at cracking down on hate speech, criminal material and fake news on social networks but critics warn it could have drastic consequences for free speech online.

And, yes, again Europe has very different standards for free expression -- and Germany, in particular, has a long history of trying to suppress what it considers "bad" speech regarding some of its historical actions (Godwin'd!). Even so, this is dangerous and will be abused to stifle all sorts of important expression:

The German justice minister, Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill, said: Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins. Maas said official figures showed the number of hate crimes in Germany increased by more than 300% in the last two years.

Even accepting that free speech ends where criminal law begins, that doesn't justify fining the platforms. If people are posting "illegal" content, go after them for breaking the law. Don't go after the tools they use. By putting massive liability risks on platforms, those platforms will almost certainly overcompensate and over censor to avoid any risk of liability. That means a tremendous amount of what should be protected speech gets silence, just because these companies don't want to get fined. Even worse, the big platforms can maybe hire people to handle this. The littler platforms? They basically can't risk operating in Germany any more. Berlin is a hotbed of startups, but this is going to seriously harm many of them.

The new law also has an even weirder provision, putting liability not just on the platforms, but on individual employees at online platforms who are designated the Chief Censors for that platform:

Aside from the hefty fine for companies, the law also provides for fines of up to 5m for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesnt meet requirements.

Who the hell is going to want that job? Make one mistake in failing to censor something, and you may be bankrupted.

Just a little while ago we wrote about how difficult it can be for a platform to be calling the shots on what's worth censoring and what's not. Since there's so much content, the analysis of each piece of content needs to be standardized in a manner that tends to be absurd. It appears that those supporting this law don't have any interest in the realities involved, but think that by passing this legislation, they've waved a magic wand. Yes, putting liability onto platforms (and employees) will likely lead to greater suppression of speech people dislike -- but also of important and necessary speech. There appears to have been no effort to consider how dangerous that might turn out to be.

Go here to read the rest:

Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech - Techdirt

State universities advance free speech | Opinion | morganton.com – Morganton News Herald

RALEIGH A couple of months ago, I wrote a column that outlined emerging threats to freedom of speech on college campuses and noted with alarm that few of North Carolinas public or private universities had taken the necessary steps to ensure even a basic level of protection for students, faculty, and visiting speakers.

I am pleased to report that the situation has improved significantly since I wrote that earlier piece. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) assesses the rules and procedures that protect, or fail to protect, free speech on campus. Just a few months ago, only one of the campuses in the University of North Carolina system Chapel Hill was given a green light in FIREs rating system. Most received yellow lights, while four campuses got red lights for failing to provide meaningful protections.

Several UNC campuses contacted FIRE to find out what they needed to do to address the problem, and then took action to remove their intrusive speech codes. As of late June, only one institution in the system, the School of the Arts in Winston-Salem, still has a red-light designation.

Five campuses UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, North Carolina Central, and East Carolina now have green lights. Thats fantastic! The other 10 universities are rated yellow, which in a couple of cases is still an improvement.

Among private campuses in North Carolina, the free-speech leader is Duke University, with a green light. On the other end of the spectrum, Wake Forest University and Davidson College are blinking red. While First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, press, and assembly dont apply to private campuses, they should champion such practices as forming the core element of a truly liberal education.

North Carolina now leads the nation in the number of higher education institutions receiving FIREs top rating. North Carolinians who treasure free expression should be proud of this progress even as we continue to press other institutions to follow suit.

Why pay so much attention to this issue? Unless you are a professor, a student, or a family member of either, you may not see free speech on campus as critical. But its related to a broader phenomenon that youve surely noticed and that may be affecting you more directly the decline of civil, constructive dialogue across political difference.

To recognize the right of some else to express a controversial point of view is not necessarily to endorse that view. To place a high value on the free exchange of ideas is not necessarily to place a high value on all of the ideas being exchanged, or to place a high level of trust or confidence in the individuals expressing those ideas.

There are at least two core arguments for freedom of speech. One is that we all have inherent rights as human beings to say (and do) whatever we please as long as we dont violate the equal rights of others to say (and do) the same. The other, more consequentialist, argument is that if we allow and foster an unencumbered exchange of views, the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out over time and provide us with better answers to important questions than we could ever get by constraining the debate.

The first argument only applies to government policy. That is, in a free society no politician or bureaucrat has the legitimate power to suppress the views of others through such means as fines or imprisonment. If you come on my property and start yelling at me about Medicaid expansion or whatnot, I can have you ejected. But if you stand on your own property and yell at me, or use private means to communicate your views through spoken or printed word, my only recourses are to answer or ignore you.

The consequentialist argument, however, applies even in non-governmental settings such as private universities where the search for truth is integral to their missions. However messy or uncomfortable it may be in some circumstances, free speech is better than the alternative.

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on the talk show NC SPIN. You can follow him @JohnHoodNC.

Continued here:

State universities advance free speech | Opinion | morganton.com - Morganton News Herald

Outline of transhumanism – Wikipedia

The following outline provides an overview of and a topical guide to transhumanism:

Transhumanism international intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.[1] Transhumanist thinkers study the potential benefits and dangers of emerging and hypothetical technologies that could overcome fundamental human limitations, as well as study the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.[1] They predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label "posthuman".[1]

Transhumanism can be described as all of the following:

Neophilia strong affinity for novelty and change. Transhumanist neophiliac values include:

Survival survival, or self-preservation, is behavior that ensures the survival of an organism.[5] It is almost universal among living organisms. Humans differ from other animals in that they use technology extensively to improve chances of survival and increase life expectancy.

Transhumanist politics

The term "transhumanism" was first coined in 1957 by Sir Julian Huxley, a zoologist and prominent humanist.[14]

Human enhancement technologies

Emerging technologies contemporary advances and innovation in various fields of technology, prior to or early in their diffusion. They are typically in the form of progressive developments intended to achieve a competitive advantage.[16] Transhumanists believe that humans can and should use technologies to become more than human. Emerging technologies offer the greatest potential in doing so. Examples of developing technologies that have become the focus of transhumanism include:

Technological evolution

Hypothetical technology technology that does not exist yet, but the development of which could potentially be achieved in the future. It is distinct from an emerging technology, which has achieved some developmental success. A hypothetical technology is typically not proven to be impossible. Many hypothetical technologies have been the subject of science fiction.

Transhumanism in fiction Many of the tropes of science fiction can be viewed as similar to the goals of transhumanism. Science fiction literature contains many positive depictions of technologically enhanced human life, occasionally set in utopian (especially techno-utopian) societies. However, science fiction's depictions of technologically enhanced humans or other posthuman beings frequently come with a cautionary twist. The more pessimistic scenarios include many dystopian tales of human bioengineering gone wrong.

Some people who have made a major impact on the advancement of transhumanism:

Here is the original post:

Outline of transhumanism - Wikipedia

Trump scolds NATO allies over defense spending …

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump board Air Force One on Saturday, May, 27, 2017, at Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy. They were headed back to the United States after a nine-day trip to the Middle East and Europe.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump greets people on May 27, after speaking to US troops at Naval Air Station Sigonella.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump addresses US troops and their families on May 27, at the Sigonella Naval Air Station.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump and first lady Melania Trump arrive on May 27, to address US military personnel and families at Naval Air Station Sigonella.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Leaders of the G-7 and some African nations pose for a photo on May 27, on the second day of the G-7 summit in Taormina, Italy.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump gestures on May 27, during a G-7 session.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, arrive for a concert of the La Scala Philharmonic Orchestra while in Taormina, Italy, on Friday, May 26. The Trumps are in Italy for a two-day G-7 summit.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump and other leaders pose for a group photo at the G-7 summit on May 26. From left are European Council President Donald Tusk, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Trump, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, British Prime Minister Theresa May and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump and Trudeau walk together after the group photo.

President Trump's first foreign trip

G-7 leaders congregate during a walking tour on May 26.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump embraces new French President Emmanuel Macron on May 26.

President Trump's first foreign trip

The leaders watch a French air squadron.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump stands with other world leaders during a NATO photo shoot on May 25.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump speaks with British Prime Minister Theresa May during a working dinner at NATO headquarters.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump stands next to German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the NATO summit.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Melania Trump visits the Magritte Museum in Brussels with Amelie Derbaudrenghien, partner of Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel.

President Trump's first foreign trip

A girl takes a selfie with Melania Trump at a children's hospital in Brussels on May 25.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump meets with Macron in Brussels.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump walks with European Council President Donald Tusk, center, and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, right, after they met at the European Council in Brussels on May 25.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump, third from right, attends a meeting with leaders at the European Council.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump speaks with King Philippe of Belgium as Queen Mathilde and Melania Trump chat during a reception at the Royal Palace in Brussels on Wednesday, May 24.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Tusk talks to Trump as he welcomes him in Brussels.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump stands with Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel while the national anthem is played during Trump's arrival in Belgium on May 24.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Protesters in Brussels demonstrate with effigies of Trump and Michel on May 24.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump shakes hands with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Rome on May 24.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump and the Pope exchange gifts. Trump presented the Pope with a first-edition set of Martin Luther King's writings. The Pope gave Trump an olive-tree medal that the Pope said symbolizes peace.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump and his wife look at the ceilings of the Sistine Chapel.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump speaks to reporters in Rome during a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, right, on May 24.

President Trump's first foreign trip

The first lady visits a pediatric hospital in Vatican City on May 24.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

People take pictures of the message Trump wrote at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, on May 23.

President Trump's first foreign trip

With the help of US Marines, Trump and his wife lay a wreath at Yad Vashem.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

A Palestinian security official takes position before the arrival of Trump's convoy in Bethlehem, West Bank.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Israeli and American activists hold signs Monday, May 22, during an anti-Trump protest next to the US embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Melania Trump and Israeli first lady Sara Netanyahu speak to children during their visit to the Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem on May 22.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump stands in the Western Wall plaza. To his left, in black, is Shmuel Rabinowitz, the rabbi of the Western Wall.

President Trump's first foreign trip

First lady Melania Trump, in white, visits the Western Wall. At far left is Ivanka Trump.

President Trump's first foreign trip

The President and first lady plant a tree in Jerusalem with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump is welcomed by Netanyahu upon arriving in Tel Aviv on May 22. Trump started his trip with two days in Saudi Arabia.

President Trump's first foreign trip

On the way to Tel Aviv, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaks with reporters aboard Air Force One.

President Trump's first foreign trip

While in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Trump attends the inauguration ceremony for the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology. Joining him here are Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, center, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, left.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump sits at the summit, which included leaders from 55 Muslim-majority countries. He urged them to do more to eradicate terrorist groups that claim the mantle of Islam. "We can only overcome this evil if the forces of good are united and strong and if everyone in this room does their fair share and fulfills their part of the burden," Trump said. "Muslim-majority countries must take the lead in stamping out radicalization."

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump poses with other leaders at the Arab Islamic American Summit.

President Trump's first foreign trip

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump meets with other heads of state in Riyadh on May 21.

President Trump's first foreign trip

Trump speaks with the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Gen. Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

President Trump's first foreign trip

First lady Melania Trump chats with children during a visit to the American International School in Riyadh on May 21.

See the rest here:

Trump scolds NATO allies over defense spending ...

NATO – News: NATO and EU discuss future cooperation at sea , 30 … – NATO HQ (press release)

Y{s_ag*kB#Kzqh $a}.@sN# <#7:4yr_j(` =_I2 7bF8!H)9F1k?Ilm<@[HaRY_kqVcgEptc"D,H,3fhqfWp& ;@ hY,[dP3T,fP5mtsGFtR+ >F$,q5RmG&uOP)aQ DAm >XY&%MrD')QZ=x]]CUT~l{YAx6!)6Q#])-m&L`cmc6s*(N_2Glho&4LKY032@fkB.i!"P&=/t7jX'|Ynv. ()~Q; ASwjq 1LQ/dv6DyM,s m9[jXE )NZl!%Pff3JJku3r3N5~-&CiNn5{7wo4T.wMUZPZIUFGW7]ob -K'[swcAI*}H}+?6@_|3$")w&Y_6Pla(Sf/ALXZ{I3=}`Q79FnE{EbKLK9m"5X[Z*4#/;124tCJxAel S,jp~.4vb f+w5="xL_NF4<"XnV5V[X%HE0_('Hcy=M}lHeFWV:?PTLbD![{6kpmElFF!-L+"*n MiO]7E52pXAi~>}NB8#O8~_7BgvZxU-R}>|Z4#hP-EO9[#2&b5v%T3Hczd >WE^.,ol82bjvDwN@(*R`P.@D $aL!`ZmZ-0{e<8WE/gK`sJ<{ ,R ~_lb|@9UdO Fsdo-jUH+4"XK70&1.=._4jdNk":$=b~V%y/`gTdlP" EGOmcaM$N1,4tu4Ntq$0u9@:cR(^s$`YRNjIUW'F5rK4)GJmQ3&QDqdl~eGs@>shCbEG]|c$>?('j* [&'pl"q%[7Nwosl6j{{Z:N(IFl`mqUd}zBqDStGR6"r7vp7i:@FJ2)bL$e6T)1g?J,6[W2+PT:oWF{ oN3}aOpSQ|srWI&qU1eE;if1DS0W*KHdW/Iz? UWQcxoR:<^1u} }]vH'Fhu0;`"g@##|o.+p<35d{T[qsz7h#T X5OPS;F7E^oZ ?PH9V0hQ=W91%rVPeMsRKqy3Vq;c.'L4V_gS<38u7Y"]VMyyyZJY83/w3Xk3Xk}d=>c*oR38 -v L~/ -ULi6YDx5A=4}7{XE4p|[OL?_gm+=y4.80s*5[[g c|)b--J!8,?t^W'/{)eY_n `)vJ h9qX>.^<^< LLDsKF2;qZ$IQGC$I ]0-%+ZCj21K*T/(sI o"uH)_A4$2Hu9x]N|rx2Yx89!00$Yb2 G i(]tMEf2e_[@TJ7}z5MWxi~ORik3.riiu Ks7'Lzgt}=F4z!5[X? A.< ;`5G5jW(U Ui]shr

Visit link:

NATO - News: NATO and EU discuss future cooperation at sea , 30 ... - NATO HQ (press release)

US Allies in NATO Ready to Stop Russia in Baltic – Newsweek

NATOs neweasternmost deployments, intended to deter Russia from striking U.S. allies in the Baltic, are now fully operational ahead of Russias mass drill in the region.

NATOs Secretary General Jens Stoltenbergannounced Thursday that the alliances enhanced forward presence is now fully operational in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland This sends a clear message to any possible aggressor: We are determined, we are united.

The measures include the rotation of 4,500 troops who have begun their tours of rotation through the countries, and the formation of command centers in Poland and Romania which have been activated. British Royal Air Force jets are deployed in support of a NATO brigade in Romania as well.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Read More: Worried by Putin, Lithuania and Latvia want a European Army to back them up

The measures form part of NATOs efforts to address concerns from allies bordering Russiain the aftermath of Moscows annexation of Crimea. The alliance first formed a communication structure and rapid response strategy on its eastern flank and then last summer announced the four battalion deployment in the northeast.

During the first summer of the troops being fully operational, they will have a Russian-led drill on their borders, which Lithuania has already labeled a simulated attack on NATO.

Part of the concern around the drill is that in previous instances, Russia has launched a snap drill at the same time as drills announced beforehand, thereby deploying a larger number of troops around a larger expanse of land than previously agreed with NATO. NATO has called on Russia to halt such initiatives as they violate theVienna Documentthe agreement on military exercise transparency.

Stoltenberg said the upcoming diplomatic forum, known as the NATO-Russia Council, would make a good opportunity to touch base with Moscow before its Zapad (West) drill in September.

We expect Russia to follow those obligations, they havent done that so far, he said. Russia has used different loopholes and not notified and not facilitated international inspections of their exercises for many, many years, he said.

We are not mirroring exactly what Russia is doing but we are responding to a more assertive Russia, he added

Read more:

US Allies in NATO Ready to Stop Russia in Baltic - Newsweek

Defense spending increased ‘significantly’ among NATO allies – DefenseNews.com

BRUSSELSDefense spending has increased significantly among NATO allies, a meeting of defense ministers from the Western alliance was told Thursday in Brussels. The meeting heard that, across European allies and Canada, there was a 4.3 percent real increase in defense spending, equivalent to about $12 billion. This means that over the last three years, NATO members spent almost $46 billion more on defense.

This is a significant increase, which means that we are moving in the right direction when it comes to burden-sharing and defense spending,"NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.We are making major progress. This will be the third consecutive year of accelerating defense investment across European allies and Canada.

Cyber defense

It was also confirmed at the meeting that a cyberattack, such as thoserecentlyobserved, can trigger Article 5NATOs mutual defense clauseof the North Atlantic treaty in the same way as a conventional military assault. It is believed the latest attack was designed to cause chaos rather than extort money. Ukrainian officials have pointed at Russia, which is fighting an undeclared war with Ukraine in the east of the country and has been blamed for previous cyberattacks on Kiev.

Anti-ISIS efforts

He also noted that NATOs presence in the Black Sea region is developing, adding: Earlier this week, the headquarters of our Multinational Brigade South East in Romania was activated as a NATO military body. The brigade is conducting exercises and U.K. jets are currently patrolling the regions skies.

Read the original post:

Defense spending increased 'significantly' among NATO allies - DefenseNews.com

Hutchison’s NATO appointment puts her in a whole new world – mySanAntonio.com

By Kevin Diaz, Washington Bureau

Photo: Houston Chronicle File Photo

For Kay Bailey Hutchison, coming out of political retirement after three terms in the Senate will put her in a whole new partisan sphere than the one she left when she decided not to run in 2012.

For Kay Bailey Hutchison, coming out of political retirement after three terms in the Senate will put her in a whole new partisan sphere than the one she left when she decided not to run in 2012.

Hutchisons NATO appointment puts her in a whole new world

WASHINGTON Former U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchisons selection as President Donald Trumps ambassador to NATO continues a run of high-profile Texans in the Trump administration, and one that may soften the edges of the presidents prickly relations with the outside world.

She will be joining former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, now Trumps energy secretary, and former Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson, now Trumps secretary of state. At the White House, she also will recognize former Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri, now deputy director of the office of public liaison in the Trump administration.

For Hutchison, 73, coming out of political retirement after three terms in the Senate will put her in a whole new partisan sphere than the one she left when she decided not to run in 2012.

Political observers will be watching to see how Hutchison, the most senior female Republican senator by the end of her tenure, will navigate Trumps well-known insistence on absolute loyalty, the more so since his messy twitter attack Thursday on MSNBC morning show host Mika Brzezinski.

In an MSNBC interview in April last year, Hutchison said Trump was wrong to attack Hillary Clinton on gender and needed to stay more focused on issues and experience.

The context that hes using, personal attacks on his opponents, both Republicans as well as Democrats, is just the wrong attack right now, Hutchison said. It is time for him to start talking substance, and I thought his foreign policy speech was a step in the right direction. And I think we dont need any more of these personal, little slights.

Hutchison, originally a backer of Jeb Bush for president in 2016, also said she wasnt sure at the time if she could support Trump if he won the GOP nomination.

As ambassador to NATO, Hutchison will become the face of Trumps uneasy relationship with the 28-nation military alliance, which he once called obsolete.

The president has pressed European members of the alliance to spend more money on defense, saying the U.S. was being shortchanged. It presumably will be up to Hutchison now to drive a harder bargain.

As a senator, Hutchison served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Defense and Military Construction appropriations subcommittees.

As she faces the Senate confirmation process, she has received the thumbs-up of both current Texas senators. With a proven track record of getting results, she has always done what she thought was in the best interest of Texas and our country, said Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.

Sen. Ted Cruz also weighed in on Friday, saying her past Senate committee posts give her an incredible insight into the issues facing Europe, her allies and the importance of NATO to serve in opposition to Russian aggression.

Read this article:

Hutchison's NATO appointment puts her in a whole new world - mySanAntonio.com

Pentagon Chief Says NATO Must ‘Finish The Job’ In Afghanistan – TOLOnews

Mattis said that after talks with NATO allies at least 70 percent of the new plan's requirements were in place and he looked forward to bridging the remaining gap.

The U.S defense secretary James Mattis on Thursday called on NATO allies to finish the job in Afghanistan or risk terrorist revenge as the alliance confirmed a troop increase to counter a resurgent Taliban.

Mattis however refused to give a firm number for how many troops U.S President Donald Trump would commit under a new strategy, the AFP reported.

"I don't put timelines on war, war is a fundamentally unpredictable phenomenon," Mattis told reporters after meeting his counterparts from the 29-nation alliance.

"The bottom line is that NATO has made a commitment to Afghanistan for freedom from fear and terror, and freedom from terror demands that you can't let this be undone, he added.

Citing both Afghanistan and "ungoverned spaces" in Syria and Iraq where the Islamic State group has flourished, the retired Marine general added: "You cannot say 'I am tired of it' and come home and then you get hit again."

He said that after talks with the allies about 70 percent of the new plan's requirements were in place and he looked forward to bridging the remaining gap.

On Thursday night, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO and its allies have reconfirmed their commitment to Afghanistan and that they will sustain Resolute Support Mission beyond 2017.

Speaking at a press conference after Thursdays defense ministers meeting in Brussels, he said: Our military authorities have requested a few thousand more troops for the mission and today, I can confirm that we will increase our presence in Afghanistan.

We have recently seen brutal attacks in Kabul. In recent months, hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed. This is exactly why our presence is so important. So today, we reconfirmed our enduring commitment to Afghanistan. We will sustain our Resolute Support Mission beyond 2017.

NATO currently has 13,500 troops in Afghanistan in the Resolute Support mission to "train, advise and assist" Afghan troops.

Reports indicate that an increase of up to 3,000 was under considerations, while U.S officials say it might be nearer 4,000.

The United States, which once had more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, is preparing a new strategy for a war which has dragged on for 16 years and which even US generals concede is a "stalemate" at best.

Follow this link:

Pentagon Chief Says NATO Must 'Finish The Job' In Afghanistan - TOLOnews

NATO says a ‘state actor’ was behind the massive ransomware attack and could trigger military response – CNBC

The implications of this mean that the cyberattack could be interpreted as an act of war, according to the organization. On Wednesday, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said a cyber attack could trigger Article 5, the principal of collective defense.

"As important government systems have been targeted, then in case the operation is attributed to a state this could count as a violation of sovereignty. Consequently, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures," Tom Minrik, researcher at NATO's CCD COE law branch, in the press release.

NATO investigators added that the cyberattack was a "declaration of power" and a demonstration of the culprit's ability to cause disruption.

More than 30 percent of affected firms were financials, according to analysis by Kaspersky Lab, while at least half of those targeted were industrial organizations, such as utilities, oil and gas, transportation, logistics, manufacturing and other companies.

"The nature of this malware is such that it could easily stop the operation of a production facility for a considerable amount of time", said Kirill Kruglov, security expert at Kaspersky Lab, in a press release published Thursday.

See the article here:

NATO says a 'state actor' was behind the massive ransomware attack and could trigger military response - CNBC

NATO’s Support Crucial For MoD’s Four-Year Plan: Waziri – TOLOnews

MoD spokesman Dawlat Waziri said NATOs decision to send a few thousand more troops to Afghanistan will help with the implementation of the security plan.

The Ministry of Defense (MoD) has commended the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for their commitment to support Afghanistan and to train the Afghan security and defense forces, saying that the organizations help is vital for the future of the country.

NATOs commitment to continue its support to Afghanistan and to our security forces is crucial for implementing the Defense Ministrys four-year security plan, the MoD's spokesman Major General Dawlat Waziri said at a press conference on Saturday.

Based on the plan, Waziri said the Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANDCOP) and the Border Police would be merged with the Ministry of Defense.

He went on to say that according to the plan, the size of the Afghan Commando Unit would be doubled and upgraded to Corps level.

The Afghan Air Force would be equipped and reinforced, Waziri said when giving details about the four-year security plan.

He stressed the need for NATOs help to train and equip the Afghan forces so they could put the plan into practice. NATOs recent commitment to send a few thousand additional troops to Afghanistan will help us in this respect, Waziri said.

Last week, the acting defense minister Tariq Shah Bahrami attended NATOs defense ministers meeting in Brussels, Belgium.

NATO allies reaffirmed their continued support to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) to ensure security in the country.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at the meeting that NATO and its allies have reconfirmed their commitment to Afghanistan and that they will sustain the Resolute Support Mission beyond 2017.

Our military authorities have requested a few thousand more troops for the mission and today, I can confirm that we will increase our presence in Afghanistan, Stoltenberg said at a press conference on Thursday.

See the article here:

NATO's Support Crucial For MoD's Four-Year Plan: Waziri - TOLOnews

The NSA’s inadvertent role in Petya, the cyberattack on Ukraine. – Slate Magazine

Should the NSA stop hacking computers out of concern that bad guys could steal its tools and use them for their own nefarious purposes?

Wikimedia Commons

Theres a moment in Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubricks dark Cold War comic masterpiece, when President Merkin Muffley (played by Peter Sellers) learns that an insane general has exploited a loophole in the militarys command-control system and launched a nuclear attack on Russia. Muffley turns angrily to Air Force Gen. Buck Turgidson (played by George C. Scott) and says, When you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring. Turgidson gulps and replies, I dont think its quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up.

The National Security Agency currently finds itself in a similar situation.

One of the NSAs beyondtop secret hacking tools has been stolen. And while the ensuing damage falls far short of an unauthorized nuclear strike, the thieves have wreaked cybermayhem around the world.

The mayhem was committed by a group called the Shadow Brokers, which in April announced that it had acquired the NSA tool (known as Eternal Blue) and published its exploit code online for any and all hackers to copy.* In May, some entitywidely believed to be North Koreansused the the exploit code to develop some malware, which became known as WannaCry, and launched a massive ransomware attack, which shut down 200,000 computers, including those of many hospitals and other critical facilities.

Then on June 27 came this latest attack, which was launched by the Shadow Brokers themselves. This struck some security analysts as odd, for two reasons. First, the Shadow Brokers are believed to be members ofor criminal hackers affiliated witha Russian intelligence agency, and Russians tend not to hack for mere cash. Second, the attack was slipshod: The ransoms were to be paid to a single email address, which security experts shut down in short order. If the Russians had decided to indulge in this mischief for money, it was a shock that they did it so poorly.

Now, however, several cybersecurity analysts are convinced that the ransomware was a brief ploy to distract attention from a devastating cyberattack on the infrastructure of Ukraine, through a prominent but vulnerable financial server.

Jake Williams, founder of Rendition InfoSec LLC (and a former NSA analyst), told me on Thursday, two days after the attack, The ransomware was a cover for disrupting Ukraine; we have very high confidence of that. This disruptive attack shut down computers running Ukrainian banks, metro systems, and government ministries. The virus then spread to factories, ports, and other facilities in 60 countriesthough Williams says its unclear whether this rippling effect was deliberate. (Because computers are connected to overlapping networks, malware sometimes infects systems far beyond a hackers intended targets.)

By the way, the attack left the ransomware victims, marginal as they were, completely screwed. Once the email address was disconnected, those who wanted to pay ransom had no place to send their bitcoins. Their computers remain frozen. Unless they had back-up drives, their files and data are irretrievable.

Its not yet clear how the Shadow Brokers obtained the hacking tool. One cybersecurity specialist involved in the probe told me that, at first, he and others figured that the theft had to be an inside job, committed by a second Snowden, but the forensics showed otherwise. One possibility, he now speculates, is that an unnamed NSA contractor, who was arrested last year for taking home files, either passed them onto the Russians or was hacked by the Russians himself. The other possibility is that the Russians hacked into classified NSA files. Its a toss-up which theory is more disturbing; the upshot of both is, it could happen again.

So should the NSA stop hacking computers out of concern that bad guys could steal its tools and use them for their own nefarious purposes? This remedy is probably unreasonable. After all, spy agencies spy, and the NSA spies by intercepting communications, including digital communications, and some of that involves hacking. In other words, the cyber equivalent of Gen. Turgidson would have a point if he told an angry superior its unfair to condemn a whole program for a single slip-up.

It may be time to view surfing the internet on computers as similar to the way we view driving cars on the highway.

Besides, the NSA doesnt do very many hacks of the sort that the Shadow Brokers stolehacks that involve zero-day exploits, the discovery and use of vulnerabilities (in software, hardware, servers, networks, and so forth) that no one has previously discovered. Zero-day exploits were once the crown jewels of the NSAs signals-intelligence shops. But theyre harder to come by now. Software companies continually test their products for security gaps and patch them right away. Hundreds of firms, many created by former intelligence analysts, specialize in finding zero-day vulnerabilities in commercial productsthen alerting the companies for handsome fees. Often, by the time the NSA develops an exploit for a zero-day vulnerability, someone in the private sector has also found it and already developed a patch.

More and more, in recent years, the NSA chooses to tell companies about a problem and even help them fix it. This trend accelerated in December 2013, when a five-member commission, appointed by President Obama in the wake of the Snowden revelations, wrote a 300-page report proposing 46 reforms for U.S. intelligence agencies. One proposal was to bar the government from doing anything to subvert, undermine, weaken, or make vulnerable generally available commercial software. Specifically, if NSA analysts found a zero-day exploit, they should be required to patch the hole at once, except in rare instances when the government could briefly authorize the exploit for high-priority intelligence collection, though, even then, only after approval not by the NSA directorwho, in the past, made such decisionsbut rather in a senior interagency review involving all appropriate departments.

Obama approved this recommendation, and as a result his White House cybersecurity chief, Michael Daniel, drafted a list of questions that this senior review panel must ask before letting the NSA exploit, rather than patch, the zero-day discovery. The questions: Would this vulnerability, if left unpatched, pose risks to our own societys infrastructure? If adversaries or crime groups knew about the vulnerability, how much harm could they inflict? How badly do we need the intelligence that the exploit would provide? Are there other ways to get this intelligence? Could we exploit the vulnerability for just a short period of time, then disclose and patch it?

A 2016 article in Bloomberg News reported that, due in part to this new review process, the NSA keepsand exploits for offensive purposesonly about two of the roughly 100 zero-day vulnerabilities it finds in the course of a year.

The vulnerability exploited in the May ransomware attack was one of those zero-days that the NSA kept for a while. (It is not known for how long or what adversaries it allowed us to hack.) The vulnerability was in a Microsoft operating system. In March, the government notified Microsoft of the security gap. Microsoft quickly devised a patch and alerted users to install the software upgrade. Some users did; others didnt. The North Koreans were able to hack into the systems of those who didnt. Thats how the vast majority of hacks happenthrough carelessness.

It may be time to view surfing the internet on computers as similar to the way we view driving cars on the highway. Both are necessary for modern life, and both advance freedoms, but they also carry responsibilities and can do great harm if misused. It would be excessive to require the equivalent of drivers licenses to go online; a government that can take away such licenses for poor digital hygiene could also take them away for impertinent political speech. But its not outrageous to impose regulations on product liability, holding vendors responsible for malware-infected devices, just as car companies are for malfunctioning brakes. Its not outrageous to force government agencies and companies engaged in critical infrastructure (transportation, energy, finance, and so forth) to meet minimal cybersecurity standards or to hit them with heavy fines if they dont. Its not outrageous to require companies to program their computers or software to shut down if users dont change or randomize their passwords or if they dont install software upgrades after a certain amount of time. Or if this goes too far, the government could require companies to program their computers or software to emit a loud noise or flash a bright light on the screen until the users take these precautionsin much the same way that drivers hear ding-ding-ding until they fasten their seatbelts.

Some of these ideas have been kicking around for decades, a few at high levels of government, but theyve been crushed by lobbyists and sometimes by senior economic advisers who warned that regulations would impede technical progress and harm the competitive status of American industries. Resistance came easy because many of these measures were expensive and the dangers they were meant to prevent seemed theoretical. They are no longer theoretical. The cyberattack scenarios laid out in government reports decades ago, dismissed by many as alarmist and science fiction, are now the stuff of front-page news stories.

Cyberthreats will never disappear; cybervulnerabilities will never be solved. They are embedded in the technology, as its developed in the 50 years since the invention of the internet. But the problems can be managed and mitigated. Either we take serious steps now, through a mix of regulations and market-driven incentivesor we wait until a cybercatastrophe, after which far more brutal solutions will be slammed down our throats at far greater cost by every measure.

*Correction, June 30, 2017: This article originally misstated that the NSA tool stolen by the Shadow Brokers was called WannaCry. It was called Eternal Blue, and its code was used to create WannaCry. (Return.)

Visit link:

The NSA's inadvertent role in Petya, the cyberattack on Ukraine. - Slate Magazine

Posted in NSA

John W. Whitehead column: A dangerous proposition: Making the NSA’s powers permanent – Richmond.com

The Trump administration wants to make some of the National Security Agencys vast spying powers permanent. Thats a dangerous proposition, and Ill tell you why.

Since 9/11, Americans have been asked to sacrifice their freedoms on the altar of national security. Weve had our phone calls monitored, our emails read, our movements tracked, and our transactions documented.

Every second of every day, the American people are being spied on by the U.S. governments vast network of digital Peeping Toms, electronic eavesdroppers and robotic snoops.

These government snoops are constantly combing through and harvesting vast quantities of our communications.

They are conducting this mass surveillance without a warrant, thus violating the core principles of the Fourth Amendment which protects the privacy of all Americans.

PRISM and Upstream, two of the spying programs conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, are set to expire at the end of this year.

Heres why they should be allowed to expire.

PRISM lets the NSA access emails, video chats, instant messages, and other content sent via Facebook, Google, Apple, and others.

Upstream lets the NSA worm its way into the internet backbone the cables and switches owned by private corporations like AT&T that make the internet into a global network and scan traffic for the communications of tens of thousands of individuals labeled targets.

Ask the NSA why its carrying out this warrantless surveillance on American citizens, and youll get the same Orwellian answer the government has been trotting out since 9/11 to justify its assaults on our civil liberties: to keep America safe.

Yet warrantless mass surveillance by the government and its corporate cohorts hasnt made America any safer. And it certainly isnt helping to preserve our freedoms.

Frankly, America will never be safe as long as the U.S. government is allowed to shred the Constitution.

Now the government wants us to believe that we have nothing to fear from its mass spying program because theyre only looking to get the bad guys who are overseas.

Dont believe it.

The governments definition of a bad guy is extraordinarily broad, and it results in the warrantless surveillance of innocent, law-abiding Americans on a staggering scale.

Under Section 702, the government collects and analyzes over 250 million internet communications every year. There are estimates that at least half of these contain information about U.S. residents, many of whom have done nothing wrong.

The government claims its spying on Americans is simply incidental, as though it were an accident but it fully intends to collect this information.

Indeed, this sensitive data is not destroyed after the NSA vacuums it up. Rather, the government has written its own internal rules called minimization procedures that allow spy agencies such as the NSA to retain Americans private communications for years.

Far from minimizing any invasion of privacy, the rules expressly allow government officials to read our emails and listen to our phone calls without a warrant the very kinds of violations that the Fourth Amendment was written to prohibit.

Finally, once this information collected illegally and without any probable cause is ingested into NSA servers, other government agencies can often search through the databases to make criminal cases against Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism or anything national security-related. One Justice Department lawyer called the database the FBIs Google.

In other words, the NSA, an unaccountable institution filled with unelected bureaucrats, operates a massive database that contains the intimate and personal communications of countless Americans.

Warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens is wrong, un-American, and unconstitutional.

Its time to let Section 702 expire or reform the law to ensure that millions and millions of Americans are not being victimized by a government that no longer respects its constitutional limits.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is the president of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties and human rights organization that is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging Upstream surveillance under Section 702. Contact Whitehead at johnw@rutherford.org.

Go here to read the rest:

John W. Whitehead column: A dangerous proposition: Making the NSA's powers permanent - Richmond.com

Posted in NSA

NotPetya developers may have obtained NSA exploits weeks before their public leak [Updated] – Ars Technica

Enlarge / A computer screen displaying Eternalromance, one of the NSA exploits used in Tuesday's NotPetya outbreak.

Update:This post was revised throughout to reflect changes F-Secure made to Thursday's blog post. The company now says that the NotPetya component was probably completed in February, and assuming that timeline is correct, it didn't have any definitive bearing on when the NSA exploits were obtained. F-Secure Security Advisor Sean Sullivan tells Ars that the component weaves in the NSA exploits so well that it's likely the developers had access to the NSA code. "It strongly hints at this possibility," he said. "We feel strongly that this is the best theory to debunk." This post has been revised to make clear that the early access is currently an unproven theory.

Original Story:The people behind Tuesday's massive malware outbreak might have had access to two National Security Agency-developed exploits several weeks before they were published on the Internet, according to clues researchers from antivirus F-Secure found in some of its code.

On Thursday, F-Secure researchers said that unconfirmed timestamps left in some of the NotPetya malware code suggested that the developers may have had access to EternalBlue and EternalRomance as early as February, when they finished work on the malware component that interacted with the stolen NSA exploits. The potential timeline is all the more significant considering the quality of the component, which proved surprisingly adept in spreading the malware from computer to computer inside infected networks. The elegance lay in the way the component combined the NSA exploits with three off-the-shelf tools including Mimikatz, PSExec, and WMIC. The result: NotPetya could infect both patched and unpatched computers quickly. Code that complex and effective likely required weeks of development and testing prior to completion.

"February is many weeks before the exploits EternalBlue and EternalRomance (both of which this module utilizes) were released to the public (in April) by the Shadow Brokers," F-Secure researcher Andy Patel wrote in a blog post. "And those exploits fit this component like a glove."

Whereas the two other main components of NotPetyaan encryption component and a component for attacking a computer's master boot recordwere "pretty shoddy and seem kinda cobbled together," Patel said the spreading component seems "very sophisticated and well-tested." It remains possible that the February timestamps found in some of the code was falsified. Assuming the stampsare correct, they suggest that developers may have had access, or at least knowledge of, the NSA exploits by then. By contrast, Patel added:

WannaCry clearly picked [the NSA] exploits up after the Shadow Brokers dumped them into the public domain in April. Also WannaCry didn't do the best job at implementing these exploits correctly.

By comparison, this "Petya" looks well-implemented, and seems to have seen plenty of testing. It's fully-baked.

The weeks leading up to the possible February completion of the NotPetya spreader was a particularly critical time for computer security. A month earlier, the Shadow Brokers advertised an auction that revealed some of the names of the exploits they had, including EternalBlue. NSA officials responded by warning Microsoft of the theft so that the company could patch the underlying vulnerabilities. In February, Microsoft abruptly canceled that month's Patch Tuesday. The unprecedented move was all the more odd because exploit code for an unpatched Windows 10 flaw was already in the wild, and Microsoft gave no explanation for the cancellation.

"Meanwhile, 'friends of the Shadow Brokers' were busy finishing up development of a rather nifty network propagation component, utilizing these exploits," Patel wrote.

When Patch Tuesday resumed in March, Microsoft released a critical security update that fixed EternalBlue. As the WCry outbreak would later demonstrate, large numbers of computersmainly running Windows 7failed to install the updates, allowing the worm to spread widely.

If the timeline is correct, it might mean the NotPetya developers had some sort of tie to the Shadow Brokers, possibly as customers, colleagues, acquaintances, or friends. It might also make NotPetya the first piece of in-the-wild malware that had known early access to the NSA exploits. Patel didn't speculate how the NotPetya developers might have gotten hold of EternalBlue and EternalRomance prior to their public release in April.

Early speculation was that Shadow Brokers members acquired a small number of hacking tools that NSA personnel stored on one or more staging servers used to carry out operations. The volume and sensitivity of the exploits and documents released over the next several months slowly painted a much grimmer picture. It's now clear that the group has capitalized on what is likely the worst breach in NSA history. There's no indication that the agency has identified how it lost control of such a large collection of advanced tools or that it knows much at all about the Shadow Brokers' membership. The group, meanwhile, continues to publish blog posts written in deliberately broken English, with the most recent one appearing on Wednesday.

The F-Secure theory adds a new, unsettling entry tothe Shadow Brokers' resume. The world already knew the group presided over a breach of unprecedented scope and leaked exploits to the world. Now, we know it also provided crucial private assistance in developing one of the most virulent worms in recent memory.

Read the original post:

NotPetya developers may have obtained NSA exploits weeks before their public leak [Updated] - Ars Technica

Posted in NSA

Recode Daily: Trump’s ‘travel ban’ goes into effect, and can the NSA control the cyber weapons it creates? – Recode

A pared-down version of President Trumps travel ban took effect Thursday night, barring immigrants and refugees from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States unless they can prove a relationship with a U.S. citizen or entity; late adjustments to the administrations rules included fiancs but not grandparents and other extended family. In an emergency filing, the state of Hawaii asked a federal court to clarify the scope of the ban, saying the governments latest restrictions go further than the Supreme Court allowed. [Tony Romm / Recode]

This weeks international malware attack has raised concerns that the National Security Agency has rushed to create digital weapons that it cannot keep safe or disable. [The New York Times]

Airbnb is launching a new service for luxury vacation rentals at mega-homes, mansions and penthouses. Airbnb Lux will begin testing in some markets at the end of the year. [Bloomberg]

Meal-kit delivery company Blue Apron raised $300 million in its first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange, opening at about $10 a share. The five-year-old New York City-based company slashed its IPO price amid questions about the long-term feasibility of its model. [Jason Del Rey / Recode]

Blue Apron CEO Matt Salzberg will join Bonobos CEO Andy Dunn and Williams-Sonoma CEO Laura Alber at Septembers Code Commerce event in New York City, where retail and commerce industry leaders will explore the convergence of digital and physical in the realm of buying and selling stuff. [Jason Del Rey / Recode]

No single device will have as much impact as the iPhone in the next 10 years. Heres a look at which products in the market today might have a comparable effect over the next decade. [Jan Dawson / Recode]

A former Binary Capital employee is suing Justin Caldbeck and the VC firm.

Ann Lai alleges defamation and other claims.

Facebooks internet-beaming drone completed its second test flight and landed perfectly.

Its first Aquila flight ended in a crash landing.

A new drone route is now open in Malawi.

Drones can soar over roads in the flood-prone region to help deliver supplies to remote areas.

This new movie about an Instagram stalker looks both hilarious and terrifying.

Remember: People can see your public social media posts.

Google is still mostly white and male.

Thats according to the latest diversity report.

Kids these days.

On the latest Too Embarassed to Ask, Kara Swisher and Lauren Goode talk with The Verges Casey Newton and Karas older son, Louie Swisher, about how teens are using (or not using) apps like Instagram, Snapchat, Musical.ly and more.

Nice day for a Crunchwrap Supreme wedding

This lucky couple won a glamorous, all-expenses-paid wedding at Taco Bells chic Las Vegas Cantina location, catered with Doubledillas, Gorditas and a hot-sauce-packet bouquet. They werent the first; the fast-food company is now offering anyone the chance to get married at the Vegas franchise for $600. [Eric Vilas-Boas / Thrillist]

View post:

Recode Daily: Trump's 'travel ban' goes into effect, and can the NSA control the cyber weapons it creates? - Recode

Posted in NSA

In aftermath of Petya, congressman asks NSA to stop the attack if it knows how – TechCrunch

Today Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu of California wrote to the NSA in an appeal for the agency to do anything in its power to stop the spread of the globalransomware (or potentially just disguised as ransomware) attack that began yesterday.

Lieu seeks to hold the NSA accountable for its leaked exploit, known as EternalBlue, which appears to have facilitated the malwares spread. Last month, the ransomware known as WannaCry also leveraged EternalBlue in order to spread between networked machines that have not been updated to protect them from the vulnerability, which Microsoft issued a patch for back in March (MS17-010).

Based on various reports, it appears these two global ransomware attacks likely occurred because the NSAs hacking tools were released to the public by an organization called the ShadowBrokers, Lieu wrote.

My first and urgent request is that if the NSA knows how to stop this global malware attack, or has information that can help stop the attack, then NSA should immediately disclose it. If the NSA has a kill switch for this new malware attack, the NSA should deploy it now.

Lieu went on to implore the spy agency to communicate more openly with major tech companies about the vulnerabilities that it discovers in their systems. In the case of EternalBlue, the NSA is believed to have known about the exploit for years. Naturally that makes one wonder what other massive exploits the agency has up its sleeve and how easily those could be exposed in a new Shadow Brokers leak.

Given the ongoing threat, I urge NSA to continue actively working with companies like Microsoft to notify them of software vulnerabilities of which the Agency is aware, Lieu said.I also urge the NSA to disclose to Microsoft and other entities what it knows that can help prevent future attacks based on malware created by the NSA.

Some things about yesterdays ransomware attack make it even nastier than its predecessor WannaCry. As IEEE Senior Member and Ulster University Cybersecurity Professor Kevin Curran explained to TechCrunch: One key difference from WannaCry is that Petya does not simply encrypt disk files but rather locks the entire disk so nothing can be executed. It does it by encrypting the filesystems master file table so the operating system cannot retrieve files.

The other big difference: WannaCry had a kill switch, even if it wasserendipitous.

It does seem to have the same deadly replication feature of WannaCry which enables it to spread quickly across an internal network infecting other machines, Curran said. It seems to also be finding passwords on each infected computer and using those to spread as well. There seems to be no kill switch on this occasion.

We reached out to the NSA with questions about its ability to stop the spread of the current ransomware and its perceived responsibility moving forward. You can read Lieus full letter, embedded below.

Here is the original post:

In aftermath of Petya, congressman asks NSA to stop the attack if it knows how - TechCrunch

Posted in NSA

Gang membership doesn’t color a crime, court says – Greensburg Daily News

INDIANAPOLIS -- While wearing gang colors may be suspicious, its not enough to justify a stop by police unless criminal activity is involved, the Indiana Supreme Court said this week.

As a result of the decision, Jordan Jacobs, Indianapolis, had his conviction reversed for Class A misdemeanor possession of a handgun. The state court ruled that a police search leading to Jacobs arrest in 2015 was not allowed under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

On Aug. 31, 2015, there had been numerous reports of gunshots fired on Indianapolis northeast side by youths wearing red clothing, indicating gang membership. The location near 30th Street and Keystone Avenue was known as a high crime area and police placed more attention on patrols.

Two days later during the afternoon, an Indianapolis police officer saw young men who looked like they should be in school at Beckwith Park, according to court records. Some of the teens were wearing red clothing. Jacobs, then 18, had been seen earlier carrying a red T-shirt.

When a park rangers car was in the area, Jacobs and another man walked away. They returned after the car left and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer Terry Smith, who is a gang detective, called for assistance. Smith ordered Jacobs to stop but he walked away. Another officer assisted in ordering Jacobs to the ground. Although handcuffed, Jacobs was told he was not under arrest but police saw a gun outlined in Jacobs pocket.

In Marion County court, Jacobs attorney objected to admitting the handgun into evidence on the grounds that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him under the Fourth Amendment. During a bench trial, Jacobs was found guilty and sentenced to one year probation.

In November, the Indiana Court of Appeals was split but found that Jacobs behavior in evading police in a high crime area provided enough suspicion that a crime was afoot.

The Indiana Supreme Court said that the officers belief that Jacobs was truant at 2 p.m. that day was enough for an investigatory stop. But the actual stop occurred after school had let out for the day.

The court also addressed Jacobs clothing. Membership in a gang, by itself, does not provide the basis for prosecution for criminal gang activity, Justice Mark S. Massa wrote. The State must prove that the individual was aware of the gangs criminal purpose.

He continued, Jacobs display of a red garment (which he was never wearing, and did not have at the time police approached), while standing among those clad in red, was thus insufficient to justify an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment.

The court said there was nothing to link Jacobs to the earlier gunfire.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment states, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read more from the original source:

Gang membership doesn't color a crime, court says - Greensburg Daily News

Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy – Story – OzarksFirst.com

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Many cherish their right to keep and bear arms.

But, Second Amendment rights are not without controversy.

The Second Amendment ruffles lots of political feathers.

Here's what the amendment says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Having just fought off the strongest military power in the world to gain independence, the founders were acutely aware that the ability of the people to access arms to keep government in check was vital.

But those today who argue for increased restrictions on gun ownership point to the amendment's use of the term "militia," and say that this refers to the modern day National Guard, not all citizens.

Gun proponents push back by saying that militias at the time of the Constitution's ratification included all able-bodied males over the age of 16, who could be pressed into defense of their land and rights.

For years, the Supreme Court refused to rule that the Second Amendment was incorporated-meaning that it applied to all the states. This is why states have historically had a patchwork of different rules for gun ownership and use.

But the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. The City of Chicago in 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated, and gun rights advocates were delighted since this seemed to mean that gun restrictions would be ruled unconstitutional.

But this ruling did little to quell the Second Amendment controversy since the amendment itself contains the term "well regulated." Regulation implies some set of rules or standards, and even if one believes that the people are the militia in this amendment - not the National Guard- it is hard to imagine that the government doesn't have an interest in regulating arms to some extent. Even the term "arms" raises questions. Does this mean simply guns, or can we add bazookas and drones to the list? After all, people can own both.

Even the court's most conservative justice of the 20th century, Antonin Scalia, seemed to agree with some regulations of arms, at least broadly defined. This is an issue that will likely never be settled, but it's important to know the constitutional basis for all the controversy.

(Brian Calfano)

Here is the original post:

Analysis: Second Amendment Rights Come with Controversy - Story - OzarksFirst.com

Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public – New York Times

The court has seldom addressed the scope of Second Amendment rights. In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Since then, the court has said little about what other laws may violate the Second Amendment. In the lower courts, few challenges to gun control laws since the Heller decision have succeeded.

But legal experts say it is only a matter of time before the court confronts the question of whether and how the Second Amendment applies outside the home.

The case, Peruta v. California, No. 16-894, concerned a state law that essentially bans carrying guns openly in public and allows carrying concealed weapons only if applicants can demonstrate good cause. The challengers, several individuals and gun-rights groups, sued San Diego and Yolo Counties, saying that officials there interpreted good cause so narrowly as to make it impossible to carry guns in public for self-defense.

San Diego, for instance, defined good cause to require proof that the applicant was in harms way, adding that simply fearing for ones personal safety alone is not considered good cause.

In a 7-to-4 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said there was no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon.

Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment whatever the scope of that protection may be simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

The court did not decide whether the Second Amendment allows leeway for states to ban carrying guns in public.

There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, Judge Fletcher wrote. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.

The Supreme Court also turned down a second case on gun rights, this one about the constitutionality of a law prohibiting people convicted of serious crimes from owning guns. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted that they would have granted review, but they gave no reasons.

The case concerned a federal law that prohibits possessing a gun after a conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The law has an exception for any state offense classified by the laws of the state as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

In separate cases, two Pennsylvania men said the law was unconstitutional as applied to them.

They were convicted of minor and nonviolent crimes decades ago, they said, and received no jail time. Though the laws under which they were convicted allowed for the theoretical possibility of sentences longer than two years, they argued, they should not have been stripped of a constitutional right for that reason.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled in their favor.

In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, Sessions v. Binderup, No. 16-847, the Justice Department said the appeals court had opened the courthouse doors to an untold number of future challenges by other individuals based on their own particular offenses, histories and personal circumstances.

The decision below, the governments brief said, threatens public safety and poses serious problems of judicial administration because it requires judges to make ad hoc assessments of the risks of allowing convicted felons to possess firearms a high-stakes task that Congress has already determined cannot be performed with sufficient reliability, and one for which the judiciary is particularly ill suited.

Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter @adamliptak.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A13 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Rejects Another Case on Guns.

View post:

Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Carrying Guns in Public - New York Times

Judge refuses to dismiss Lockport candidate’s First Amendment lawsuit – Buffalo News

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a $100,000 lawsuitfiled by apolitical candidatewho claims his free speech rights were violated during the 2013 election campaign.

David J. Mongielo, who has a long history of run-ins with the town government, ran for Lockport town supervisor as a Conservative in 2013. He lost to the Republican incumbent, Marc R. Smith, who is now the town's economic development director.

During the race, Mongielo self-published a free newspaper that accused Smith of "ballot manipulation."

The paper also carried an advertisement for a fundraising event to benefit the South Lockport Fire Company, of which Mongielo was then a member.

But not for long.

According to the lawsuit, the fire company's then-president, Peter Smith - no relation to Marc Smith - suspended Mongielo on Election Day 2013 after Marc Smith threatened to cut the fire company's aid from the town. Mongielo immediately resigned from the fire company and has never been reinstated.

The town did not reduce its funding for the fire company.

His lawsuit contends his resignation was forced and resulted from retaliation for Mongielo's exercise of freedom of speech.

"He was suspended. That's the retaliation," said James M. Ostrowski, who's Mongielo's attorney. "Whether they carry out a threat doesn't matter."

Mongielo filed suit in U.S. District Courtlast November, three years after the allegedincident,against Marc Smith, Peter Smith and the South Lockport Fire Co., seeking $100,000 plus punitive damages.

U.S.District Judge Michael A. Telescarejected the defendants' effort to have the case dismissed in a May 16 ruling.

The case may turn on a text message Peter Smith sent to Mongielo on Election Day 2013.

According to the lawsuit,the textsaid, "I hate to do this but I feel I need to suspend u until Friday when we have a special ex meeting. I ts over the articles/ad in the community news. Judt got off phone with marc smith and his council is all over this. If we dont act Im afraid the situstion will only worsen. So for now please stay away per your suspension. We will discuss it further on Friday."

Peter Smith's lawyer, Eric M. Gernant, acknowledged in his written answer to Mongielo's complaint that Peter Smith sent a text to Mongielo, but denied that Smith told Mongielo that the supervisor had threatened the fire company's town funding.

Daniel T. Cavarello, attorney for Marc Smith, denied in a court filing thatthe then-supervisorthreatened South Lockport's funding.He argued that Smithcouldn't have taken unilateral action against the fire company, and at any rate, the fire company had a binding contract with the town to receive its annual stipend.

"The legal relationship between the Fire Company, Marc Smith, and the Town Board may ultimately foreclose (Mongielo's) claim against Marc Smith," the judge noted.

The rest is here:

Judge refuses to dismiss Lockport candidate's First Amendment lawsuit - Buffalo News