Select Page ::

Russian defence minister’s plane ‘buzzed’ by Nato jet over Baltic Sea – The Independent

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Smoke rises following a reported air strike on a rebel-held area in the southern Syrian city of Daraa, on June 22, 2017

AFP/Getty Images

Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) stands under pouring rain during a wreath-laying ceremony marking the 76th anniversary of the Nazi German invasion, by the Kremlin walls in Moscow, on June 22, 2017

AFP/Getty Images

Iraqis flee from the Old City of Mosul on June 22, 2017, during the ongoing offensive by Iraqi forces to retake the last district still held by the Islamic State (IS) group

AFP/Getty Images

Girls stand in monsoon rains beside an open laundry in New Delhi, India

Reuters

People take part in the 15th annual Times Square yoga event celebrating the Summer Solstice, the longest day of the year, during classes in the middle of Times Square in New York. The event marked the international day of yoga.

Reuters

Faroe Islanders turn the sea red after slaughtering hundreds of whales as part of annual tradition

Rex

A firefighting plane tackles a blaze in Cadafaz, near Goes, Portugal

Reuters

A person participates in a journalists' protest asking for justice in recent attacks on journalists in Mexico City, Mexico, 15 June 2017

EPA

Poland's Piotr Lobodzinski starts in front of the Messeturm, Fairground Tower, in Frankfurt Germany. More than 1,000 runners climbed the 1202 stairs, and 222 meters of height in the Frankfurt Messeturm skyscraper run

A runner lies on the ground after arriving at the finish line in Frankfurt Germany. More than 1,000 runners climbed the 1202 stairs, and 222 meters of height in the Frankfurt Messeturm skyscraper run

A troupe of Ukrainian dancers perform at Boryspil airport in Kiev, on the first day of visa-free travel for Ukrainian nationals to the European Union

Getty Images

A troupe of Ukrainian dancers perform on the tarmac at Boryspil airport in Kiev, on the first day of visa-free travel for Ukrainian nationals to the European Union

Getty Images

French President Emmanuel Macron with his wife Brigitte Trogneux cast their ballot at their polling station in the first round of the French legislatives elections in Le Touquet, northern France

EPA

A Thai worker paints on a large statue of the Goddess of Mercy, known as Guan Yin at a Chinese temple in Ratchaburi province, Thailand. Guan Yin is one of the most popular and well known Chinese Goddess in Asia and in the world. Guan Yin is the Bodhisattva of Great Compassion in Mahayana Buddhism and also worshiped by Taoist

EPA

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairs a weekly cabinet meeting at his office in Jerusalem. An Israeli court has ordered a journalist to pay more than $25,000 in damages to Netanyahu and his wife Sara for libeling them. The magistrate court in Tel Aviv ruled Sunday that Igal Sarna libeled the couple for writing a Facebook post that claimed the prime minister's wife kicked the Israeli leader out of their car during a fight

Parkour enthusiasts train on Ipanema beach in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Originally developed in France, the training discipline is gaining popularity in Brazil

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Volunteers spread mozzarella cheese toppings on the Guinness World Record attempt for the Longest Pizza in Fontana, California, USA. The pizza was planned to be 7000 feet (2.13 km) to break the previous record of 6082 feet (1.8 km) set in Naples, Italy in 2016

EPA

Jamaica's Olympic champion Usain Bolt gestures after winning his final 100 metres sprint at the 2nd Racers Grand Prix at the National Stadium in Kingston, Jamaica

REUTERS/Gilbert Bellamy

Usain Bolt of Jamaica salutes the crowd after winning 100m 'Salute to a Legend' race during the Racers Grand Prix at the national stadium in Kingston, Jamaica. Bolt partied with his devoted fans in an emotional farewell at the National Stadium on June 10 as he ran his final race on Jamaican soil. Bolt is retiring in August following the London World Championships

Getty Images

Police officers investigate at the Amsterdam Centraal station in Amsterdam, Netherlands. A car ploughed into pedestrians and injured at least five people outside the station. The background of the incident was not immediately known, though police state they have 'no indication whatsoever' the incident was an attack

EPA

Protesters stand off before police during a demonstration against corruption, repression and unemployment in Al Hoseima, Morocco. The neglected Rif region has been rocked by social unrest since the death in October of a fishmonger. Mouhcine Fikri, 31, was crushed in a rubbish truck as he protested against the seizure of swordfish caught out of season and his death has sparked fury and triggered nationwide protests

Getty Images

A man looks on at a migrant and refugee makeshift camp set up under the highway near Porte de la Chapelle, northern Paris

Getty Images

Damaged cars are seen stacked in the middle of a road in western Mosul's Zanjili neighbourhood during ongoing battles to try to take the city from Islamic State (IS) group fighters

Getty

Smoke billows following a reported air strike on a rebel-held area in the southern Syrian city of Daraa

Getty Images

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel gestures next to Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto during a welcome ceremony at the National Palace in Mexico City, Mexico

REUTERS/Carlos Jasso

Soldiers and residents carry the body of a Muslim boy who was hit by a stray bullet while praying inside a mosque, as government troops continue their assault against insurgents from the Maute group, who has taken over large parts of the Marawi City, Philippines

REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco

Opposition demonstrators protest for the death on the eve of young activist Neomar Lander during clashes with riot police, in Caracas

Getty Images

Neomar Lander, a 17-year-old boy was killed during a march in the Chacao district in eastern Caracas on Wednesday, taking the overall death toll since the beginning of April to 66, according to prosecutors

Getty Images

Former FBI director James Comey is sworn in during a hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC

Getty Images

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies during a US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC

Getty Images

Usain Bolt of Jamaica trains at the University of West Indies in Kingston. Bolt says he is looking forward to having a party as he launches his final season on June 10 with what will be his last race on Jamaican soil. The 30-year-old world's fasted man plans to retire from track and field after the 2017 London World Championships in August

Getty Images

Acquanetta Warren, Mayor of Fontana, California, reacts after US President Donald Trump introduced himself before the Infrastructure Summit with Governors and Mayors at the White House in Washington, US

REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

Frenchman Alain Castany, sentenced to 20 years on charges of drug trafficking in the 'Air Cocaine' affair, leaves the prison in Santo Domingo, on his way to France, where he is being transferred for medical reason

Getty Images

A woman reacts at the place where 17-year-old demonstrator Neomar Lander died during riots at a rally against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's government in Caracas, Venezuela, June 8, 2017. The sign reads: 'Neomar, entertainer for ever'

REUTERS/Ivan Alvarado

Getty Images

Queen Maxima of The Netherlands visits Tobroco Machines in Oisterwijk, Netherlands. The company is a manufacturer of machines for use in agriculture, road construction and field maintenance. Tobroco is winner of the 2016 Koning Willem 1 Award for entrepreneurship

Getty Images

A family member of an inmate tries to stop a truck used to transfer prisoners, outside a prison where a riot took place on Tuesday, in Ciudad Victoria, Mexico

REUTERS/Josue Gonzalez

An unconscious person is taken away on a motorcycle by fellow demonstrators after they clashed with riot police during a protest in Caracas, Venezuela

Getty Images

Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt's elementary teacher Sheron Seivwright poses with her students during a break at the Waldensia elementary school in Sherwood Content. Usain Bolt, the greatest sprinter in history with eight Olympic golds, 11 world titles and three world records, will retire from international competition after the IAAF world championships in August

Getty Images

This 1916 photo provided by the Archdiocese of Denver shows Julia Greeley with Marjorie Ann Urquhart in McDonough Park in Denver. Greeley, a former slave, is being considered for possible sainthood. In a step toward possible sainthood, the remains of Greeley were moved to a Catholic cathedral in Denver

Archdiocese of Denver via AP

US President Donald Trump, flanked by the families of business people he says were harmed by Obamacare, high-fives a young boy as he arrives to deliver remarks on the US healthcare system at Cincinnati Municipal Lunken Airport in Cincinnati, Ohio

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Russian defence minister's plane 'buzzed' by Nato jet over Baltic Sea - The Independent

Disunity in Purpose: NATO’s Fatal Flaw – HuffPost

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

In perpetually lamenting the inordinate burden placed on the United States to provide for NATOs budget, President Trump echoes a recurrent criticism of the organizations structure that casts its primary weakness as pecuniary. But this obscures a more significant weakness, one that plays a contributing factor to underspending on NATO expenditures. NATOs validity is undermined not by an overburdened United States weighed down by the strain of high defense spending for ungrateful allies. Rather, it is the unshared security interests of its member states, exacerbated by a ceaseless drive towards membership expansion, that continues to hinder NATO in the absence of recalibration.

The impetus for a staunch, anti-Communist mutual defense pact disappeared with the Soviet state. However, the United States began the process of further expansion, accumulating members with different security interests even as the organizations initial unifying purpose ceased to exist. Instead of states bound in solemn defense against a specific, shared threat, what emerged was an agglomeration of states with varying interests bound together by a vague purpose of defending democracy. This transition, lacking a definitive attempt at providing direction to its overall purpose, has resulted in fragility and confusion. This is demonstrated by the different ways in which NATO members have reacted to various geopolitical flashpoints over the past decade.

Contradictory security interests and threat perceptions often stymie effective NATO policy. Within Europe, the view of Russia as a threat diminishes the further west the member in question lies. NATO members also view the global effort against terrorism, including the threat from groups such as ISIL, from differing perspectives. Turkeys unilateral decision in 2015 to shoot down a Russian jet that violated its airspace sent tensions soaring at a time when the United States and other NATO members were coordinating military action with Russia against ISIL. The decision by the United States to aid Syrian Kurds in Raqqa in the fight against ISIL put it at odds with Turkey. Ankara views the Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG), which make up a significant component of the US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces, as a terrorist group. Coherent, concerted action in the pursuit of these foreign policy goals becomes a languorous task as a result of divergences in member state perceptions.

NATO was never designed to handle every threat facing its members, but rather the primary threat on which they could all agree. A multi-tiered defense system within NATO would be more complicated than the current status quo, but it would be more adaptable to the realities of the post-Cold War era. Those under the overarching umbrella of the alliance would continue to enjoy the right to defense cooperation as the status quo provides. However, both the Article 5 collective defense trigger and deeper military coordination need to be parceled out pending specific agreements between individual member states. The Baltic States, Poland, the United States, and the United Kingdom, for example, could devise a defense pact that explicitly addresses the appropriate collective response to a Russian military attack against any one of these members. As a general rule, if a country is unwilling to come to the aid of another in the event of a certain threat, it should not benefit from protection against that threat. This is less controversial than it seems. Russias absorption of Crimea exposed existent fissures in the willingness of members to come to the defense of one another as mandated by Article 5.

The issue of membership must be considered carefully in concert with determining threats viewed by members as existential. Expansion for its own sake should cease unless new members share the same unwavering commitment to the specifically stated causes for which NATO stands. Increased membership does not equal greater strength, as the validity of an alliance is built upon a willingness to come to the mutual defense of one another. A multi-tier system would allow for the resolution of outstanding conflicts of interest resulting from the addition of its newer members.

In the interim period between the two World Wars, the collapse of the collective security arrangement provided by the League of Nations in the face of fascism and imperialism showed why principle alone is not a basis upon which mutual defense can be practiced. A similar collapse is possible in the event that NATO faces a serious existential threat. The focus on increasing defense contributions as a panacea to NATOs woes is misguided. More defense spending will not make Turkey come to the defense of Estonia in the event of a Russian military invasion of the Baltics. Neither will an increase in Germanys defense budget make it willing to use extra funds to provide lethal military aid to the Ukrainian army in its conflict against Russia. What is needed to clarify NATOs purpose is a framework that accommodates the varied interests of its members, rather than an expectation to throw money at a threat that some may not view as existent or important.

Zach Dickens is a Fellowship Editor at Young Professionals in Foreign Policy (YPFP). Zach received a Master's degree in Diplomacy with a concentration in International Terrorism from Norwich University.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See the original post here:

Disunity in Purpose: NATO's Fatal Flaw - HuffPost

Why Russia’s Armata Tank May Never Be a Threat to NATO – The National Interest Online (blog)

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Even if theArmatawas as dangerous as the British report claims, Russia is not likely to be able to afford the expensive new machine in the huge quantities. Using the British reports own numbers120Armatatanks produced per yearCNA Corporation research scientist MikeKofman, a prominent Russian military affairs expert in Washington, noted it would take nearly 21 years to replace Russias 2500 operational tanks withT-14s. Thats if the Kremlin has the financial wherewithal to buy that manyArmatatankswhich is somewhat dubious.

A British Army intelligence report offers an alarmist assessment of Russias new T-14Armatamain battle tank. Most U.S. defense analysts, however, are much more measured in their analysis of the new Russian machines. While the T-14 will likely be an excellent tank when it becomes operational, it is not quite the revolution that the British claim it to be. Moreover, it is far too expensive to produce in mass numbers.

Without hyperbole,Armatarepresents the most revolutionary step change in tank design in the last half century, states a British Army intelligencereport cited by The Telegraph.

(This first appeared last November.)

But most U.S. assessments suggest thats exactly what the British report is: hyperbole. AsThe Telegraphnotes, the British intelligence document questions the U.K. Ministry of Defenses current defense strategy, which does not call for Great Britain to plan for a new combat vehicle to replace its Challenger 2 main battle tank. Are we on the cusp of a new technological arms race? Has an understandable focus on defeating the single threat ofIEDsdistracted Western military vehicle designers? Challenger 2 [the British tank], with life extensionprogrammes, is currently due to remain in service until 2035. Is it time to rethink? the report asks.

To be sure, the report does have some valid points. The T-14 does have some very impressive features. As a complete package,Armatacertainly deserves its billing as the most revolutionary tank in a generation, the intelligence brief states according toThe Telegraph. For the first time, a fully automated, digitised, unmanned turret has been incorporated into a main battle tank. And for the first time a tank crew is embedded within an armoured capsule in the hull front.

While the report excerpts inThe Telegraphdont mention it, U.S. analysts note that many of the Armatas advanced survivability features are drawn from the Israeli Merkava series. Nonetheless, the Russian seem to have advanced the state-of-the-art in terms of reactive armor and active protection. Indeed, if theRussian Afghanit active protection system worksas advertised, the Armata could prove to be a serious problem for the West if it were ever produced in numbers. However, most Western analystsgovernment and private sectorare dubious about Russian claims that their APS can defeat kinetic energy rounds.

However, even if the Armata was as dangerous as the British report claims, Russia is not likely to be able to afford the expensive new machine in the huge quantities. Using the British reports own numbers120 Armata tanks produced per yearCNA Corporation research scientist Mike Kofman, a prominent Russian military affairs expert in Washington, noted it would take nearly 21 years to replace Russias 2500 operational tanks with T-14s. Thats if the Kremlin has the financial wherewithal to buy that many Armata tankswhich is somewhat dubious.

Kofman noted that the Russians simply do not have the money to afford a huge fleet of T-14 tanks nor has the Armata family completed development. There is an irony to the British report, and similar such publications by military establishments bemoaning their land forces, in that the Russian Ministry of Defense can no more afford to replace its armor fleet with Armatas than anyone else, Kofman said.

Most analysts tracking the Kremlins military developments agree that the principal tank used by the Russian Ground Forces through the 2020s will be the relatively cost effective T-72B3. Even the T-90A is too expensive. In the coming years the principal battle tank that NATO will have to face in Europe is not even the T-90A, it is the T-72B3, which Western counterparts can handle, Kofman said. There are still years of field trials ahead for the Armatatinkering, and changes, with lingering questions on the final version and what the Russian military will ultimately be able to afford in quantity versus for arms expo shows.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor of The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter@DaveMajumdar.

Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Read the original here:

Why Russia's Armata Tank May Never Be a Threat to NATO - The National Interest Online (blog)

NATO to help build security institutions in Libya: Stoltenberg – Premium Times

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Thursday said a team of NATO experts would help the Libyan government build defence and security institutions.

Mr. Stoltenberg made the remarks after meeting with Libyan Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

He said NATO was engaged in preparing a programme to help build defence institutions in Libya in 2011, but added that, the security situation made it impossible to continue.

Now we have agreed in a way to restart those efforts. An expert team from NATO met with experts from the government of national accord, in Tunisia, some weeks ago, he said.

The main purpose of the meeting today was to make sure our experts will sit down as soon as possible, Mr. Stoltenberg added.

He noted that NATO experts would address issues such as how to develop a modern ministry of defence, build joint chiefs of staff, and also to develop intelligence services in Libya.

NAN reports that Libya has been in a state of near anarchy since the 2011 uprising that toppled long-time dictator Moamer Gaddafi.

In March 2016, a UN-backed unity government led by Serraj took over in Tripoli amid international hopes it would re-establish stability in the country.

It has been unable to gain recognition from the elected parliament based in the eastern city of Tobruk, which supports army commander Khalifa Haftar, who is aligned with the Tobruk government in the east.

(Xinhua/NAN)

Originally posted here:

NATO to help build security institutions in Libya: Stoltenberg - Premium Times

Cryptocurrency Miner Digging Into PCs Based On NSA Exploit – Security Intelligence (blog)

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Its been a tough year for the National Security Agency (NSA), and hacking group Shadow Brokers is responsible for much of the trouble. Over the past few months, theyve leaked more than a few implants the NSA term for malware code developed by the agency.

Recently, the agencys DOUBLEPULSAR tool was used to help spread the massive malware attack WannaCry. Bleeping Computer noted that its now on the hunt again, this time digging in with a Monero cryptocurrency miner on PCs running unsecured Server Message Block (SMB) devices.

According to the International Business Times, the new malware strain goes by the unassuming name Trojan.BtcMine.1259. First detected by Russian antivirus firm Dr. Web, the attack targets computers running unsecured SMB protocols and downloads a malware loader onto the machine. It then scans for minimal kernel threads. If PCs have enough resource room to spare, the download grabs the cryptocurrency miner and goes to work.

Based on current infection data, according to the International Business Times, researchers believe the new malware strain leverages DOUBLEPULSAR to gain access, parts of the Ghost RAT library to communicate with its command-and-control (C&C) server and other malware variants to carry out its attack. Once compromised, victim PCs mine Monero currency in the background and send the proceeds back to cybercriminals.

Why Monero? As Live Bitcoin News explained, this cryptocurrency is among the fastest-growing in the digital money market. It presents an ideal opportunity for fraudsters looking to avoid the scrutiny that comes with more traditional bitcoin transactions.

Updating to the latest Windows version should protect corporate devices from this newest attack. While DOUBLEPULSAR infections peaked at 100,000 in early April, the number fell to just 16,000 this month thanks to the MS17-010 patch, Bleeping Computer reported.

DOUBLEPULSAR isnt the first NSA tool leaked by the Shadow Brokers. In April, the group also released the EternalBlue exploit, which was used to carry out surveillance activities, according to ZDNet. It was subsequently adopted by fraudsters to attack targets in Singapore using the Ghost RAT Trojan and other parts of South Asia using Backdoor.Nitol.

This exploit also leveraged SMB vulnerabilities and is rendered useless by proper Windows patching. Since many PCs arent regularly updated or run older versions of the OS no longer covered by Windows support, however, CyberScoop argued that the tool will be used for years to come by both sophisticated cybercriminals and amateurs.

As Bob Wandell, former information assurance chief of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), explained to CyberScoop, The payloads that can be loaded onto EtnernalBlue are boundless and uniformly malicious.

Even government-built malware isnt safe from theft and compromise. Exploits such as EternalBlue give cybercriminals long-term access options, while backdoors such as DOUBLEPULSAR provide ways for attackers to jump on the newest malware bandwagon: background cryptocurrency mining.

Fraudsters will take what they can get. Theyll innovate if needed, but they prefer to leverage tools from other sources that can quickly compromise thousands of machines.

Its another case study for regular security updates and continual monitoring of network services. Supposed IT safety only lasts until attackers discover how to break down the door, steal the key or dig a tunnel.

See the original post here:

Cryptocurrency Miner Digging Into PCs Based On NSA Exploit - Security Intelligence (blog)

NSA ‘DoubleStar’ Backdoor Blamed for Cryptocurrency Mining Malware – CoinDesk

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

A type of cryptocurrency mining malwarehas spread due to an exploitdeveloped by the US National Security Agency,cybersecurity researchers say.

According to Dr.Web, a Russian anti-virus vendor, the NSA's "DoublePulsar" backdoor whichwas leaked earlier this year by a group called the Shadow Brokers allows the entry of a Trojan program that installs software to secretly mine the privacy-oriented digital currency monero.

In a 15th Juneblog post, Dr.Web laid out the nuts and bolts of the malware, noting:

"This malicious program, designed for mining the Monero (XMR) cryptocurrency, was dubbed Trojan.BtcMine.1259. Trojan.DownLoader24.64313 downloads the miner to a computer. This loader Trojan is distributed via the backdoor DoublePulsar."

It's not immediatelyclear how many machines have been infected with the malware due to the NSA exploit, and a representative for the company wasn't immediately available to comment when reached.

Wiredreported in April that tens of thousands of machine were impacted following the exploit's release.

DoublePulsar has also been identified as a factor in the recent "WannaCry" ransomware attacks, which impacted hundreds of thousands of computers across the globe.

Image via Shutterstock

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

NSA 'DoubleStar' Backdoor Blamed for Cryptocurrency Mining Malware - CoinDesk

NSA-Backed OpenC2.org Aims to Defend Systems at Machine Speed – Threatpost

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

NEW YORKThe dynamics of a cyberattack often include speed, automation and adaptive tradecraft. Mounting an effective defense, however, isnt always fast enough. To help even the score, a group led by the National Security Agency called OpenC2.org is developing an open, standardized computer language for the command and control of computer defenses.

The attackers are attacking at the speed of light, and the defenders are defending at the speed of lawyers. We have to change that, said Duncan Sparrell, OpenC2.org member and consultant with SFractal Consulting.

Speaking at the Borderless Cyber conference today, Sparrell said attackers have the upper hand as security experts, vendors and businesses struggle to coordinate and streamline fast defenses.

OpenC2.org is advocating automated command and control. It is the single biggest thing missing in the industry today, he said.

OpenC2 is a language that enables the coordination and execution of command and control of defense components between domains and within a domain. OpenC2.org is the organization promoting the idea. The group has 88 members, representing 50 companies and government agencies including Bank of America, Cisco and Zepko, a UK-based managed security provider.

While two open standards, STIX and TAXII, already exist, Sparrell points out with those the focus is on identifying threats, and not on taking action.

STIX and TAXII compliment what we are doing, he said. Industry coordination on identifying threats is the easy part. Sparrell said, in an industry dominated by vendors selling defensive solutions, an open-platform that automates actions is harder to achieve than across-the-board industry buy-ins.

Sparrell explains OpenC2 allows companies to move at machine speed. It compliments vendor solutions. This is a limited language that only conveys an action that is part of a vendor cybersecurity process. Its about which action to take, based on what the event trigger is.

The goal is working with the cybersecurity industry to standardize interfaces and protocols that enable interoperability of different tools, he said.

Despite the fact the OpenC2 is still under development, it has a few flagship users such as Zepko and Phantom Cyber. Sparrell said OpenC2 helped Phantom Cyber save a $1 million on stopping phishing attacks.

Yes its being deployed, yes its being adopted, but no its not fully standardized and its still in development, he said.

This month the OpenC2.org took an important step toward becoming an industry standard and is now under the umbrella of the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, or OASIS a nonprofit international consortium that develops open IT standards. OASIS is hosting this weeks Borderless Cyber conference.

View original post here:

NSA-Backed OpenC2.org Aims to Defend Systems at Machine Speed - Threatpost

Report: DNI, NSA chief told Mueller that Trump asked them to say publicly that there was no collusion with Russia – Hot Air

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

CNNs claiming Democratic and Republican sources for this, but even if its gospel truth, I cant imagine itll do Trump any (further) damage on Russiagate. WaPo first reported a few weeks ago that he asked DNI Dan Coats and NSA chief Mike Rogers to intervene with Comey to try to get the FBI to back off its Russia investigation. The idea that the president might have tried to enlist one part of the intelligence community to slow down a federal probe being conducted by another part is a serious charge.

But CNN doesnt repeat that charge. They claim that Coats and Rogers told Bob Mueller and the Senate Intel Committee behind closed doors (after their famous public testimony) that Trump asked them only to speak up publicly and affirm that theres no evidence that he personally colluded with Russia. If you strain hard, you can try to stretch that into some sort of obstruction ploy Comey had refused to clear Trump publicly, after all, because the FBI investigation was still ongoing but no average voter is going to fault Trump for feeling exasperated that his deputies wouldnt lift the cloud of suspicion over him if they had reason to believe hes been falsely accused. If they thought that he had colluded and then he asked him to lie and say that he hadnt, obviously that would be a different matter. But if all he was asking was for them to tell the exculpatory truth and if it really was a request, not a direct order then whats the red-letter scandal in his interactions with Coats and Rogers?

Coats and Rogers also met individually last week with the Senate intelligence committee in two closed briefings that were described to CNN by Democratic and Republican congressional sources. One source said that Trump wanted them to say publicly what then-FBI Director James Comey had told the President privately: that he was not under investigation for collusion. However, sources said that neither Coats nor Rogers raised concerns that Trump was pushing them to do something they did not want to do. They did not act on the Presidents alleged suggestion

One congressional source expressed frustration that Coats and Rogers didnt answer the questions in public, especially since what they ended up expressing in private was that they did not feel that the President pressured either of them to do anything improper.

Rogers interaction with the President is also documented in a memo written by his deputy at the NSA, Richard Ledgett.

Coats and Rogers each found Trumps request odd and uncomfortable, in CNNs words, but evidently neither believed he crossed a line. And theres no claim here that he ordered or even asked them to lean on Comey on his behalf. He wanted them to clear his name after having been told repeatedly by Comey that he wasnt personally a target of the FBI investigation. That may not have been proper protocol but everyone can sympathize with the impulse.

By the way, tomorrows the deadline for the White House to turn over any Oval Office recordings of Trump and Comey. If Trump ignores it, whats the House Intel Committees next move?

[E]ven with a subpoena, the panel stands little chance of actually compelling Trump to turn over anything he doesnt voluntarily want to produce, according to legal experts, setting lawmakers up for a high-stakes choice: Let it go, and look like they are giving the president a pass; or pursue the subpoena, and risk exposing the legislative branchs weakness in the midst of a historic probe of the president

There are exemptions for federal officials claiming executive privilege on behalf of the president and no figure in the White House is closer to the president than than the president himself. Congress can try to circumvent that hurdle by passing what is known as a contempt resolution ordering the matter to a court but against a Republican president, that is a tall order in a GOP-led Congress.

The best-case scenario for the Committee is that they somehow get Paul Ryan to go along with a contempt resolution and the court battle over whether executive privilege entitles Trump to withhold any recordings drags on for years. That is to say, this is less a matter of squeezing evidence out of Trump than it is a test of Republican loyalty to the president. Will they challenge him by issuing a subpoena, knowing that if they win in court, the audio could further damage Trumps presidency and their own electoral chances, or will they roll over by refusing to issue a subpoena, leaving potential evidence of obstruction untouched? Theres going to be a court fight over the tapes between Mueller and the White House eventually, I assume. Maybe thatll be the House GOPs out: If Muellers going to take this on, why do we have to get in the middle of it?

The likeliest outcome here, actually, will be the White House declaring tomorrow that there are no tapes of Trump and Comey. Newt Gingrich hinted to the AP in an interview that he thinks Trumps tweet about Oval Office tapes was a bluff, designed to rattle a political enemy much as Trumps foray into Birtherism was designed to rattle Obama. Well see.

Read the original:

Report: DNI, NSA chief told Mueller that Trump asked them to say publicly that there was no collusion with Russia - Hot Air

Alphabet says Travis Kalanick knew one of Uber’s acquisitions had taken Alphabet files – Recode

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Alphabet is asking a judge to find Uber in contempt for failing to notify the court that former CEO Travis Kalanick was aware one of his top executives had proprietary Alphabet information in his possession and that he ordered its destruction.

The executive, Anthony Levandowski, allegedly told Kalanick and two other employees in March 2016 that he had five discs containing Alphabet documents, several months before the ride-hail company acquired his startup, Otto.

Levandowski, who had previously led Alphabets self-driving car project, has been accused of stealing technology and taking it to Uber.

Judge William Alsup recently ordered Uber to produce documents and correspondence related to the case, including information showing whether any evidence had been destroyed. On Wednesday, Alphabet cited a June 5 Uber court filing that shows Kalanick asked Levandowski to destroy the documents in question. Uber had to present the information by March of this year but didnt report its findings until June.

Ubers June 8 filing reads:

On or about March 11, 2016, Mr. Levandowski reported to Mr. Kalanick, Nina Qi and Cameron Poetzscher at Uber as well as Lior Ron that he had identified five discs in his possession containing Google information. Mr. Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed the discs.

This was around the same time that Levandowski began consulting for Ubers self-driving arm, as we reported.

The ride-hail company maintains that none of these documents made it to Uber and that Kalanick did not encourage Levandowski to bring the files to the company, a condition that was also included in his employee agreement. On May 30, Uber fired Levandowski, who pleaded the Fifth Amendment earlier in the case, for not complying with the courts orders.

Uber was also directed by the court to produce a report from Stroz Friedberg, a forensic firm that Uber had hired to conduct a due diligence report on Otto before the acquisition. The report could reveal if Uber was made aware of any Alphabet technology Levandowski may be using within Otto.

Now Stroz is required to produce the report, the identities of the Otto employees that participated in the report and any documents those employees produced for the report.

Levandowski, who is not a party to the suit and is not represented by Ubers attorneys, previously argued that those documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. The judge disagreed and compelled Uber to produce the report.

Ubers attorneys did not hire Stroz on behalf of Levandowski and Uber; they hired Stroz to investigate Levandowski, the order reads.

It follows, then, that an order compelling Stroz to produce these materials does not violate Levandowskis Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

Uber is in the midst of navigating a major upheaval, with Tuesdays resignation of its CEO Travis Kalanick and the shuffling of key board members, but this lawsuit could prove to be the companys biggest threat. The embattled ride-hail player could face criminal charges over the possession of stolen documents, though the judge has previously chided Alphabet for lack of evidence that those files Levandowski allegedly downloaded made it to Uber.

Read the original post:

Alphabet says Travis Kalanick knew one of Uber's acquisitions had taken Alphabet files - Recode

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick may have known about stolen trade secrets, court filing indicates – CNBC

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Ousted Uber CEO Travis Kalanick may have known a star engineer possessed trade secrets stolen from Google, according to a recent court filing.

The court case centers on Waymo, the self-driving car unit of Google-parent Alphabet, and Anthony Levandowski, an engineer who left Waymo to start his own company, Otto, that was later acquired by Uber.

Waymo alleges Levandowski took 14,000 documents with him, including trade secrets. Waymo attorneys filings released this week suggest that Kalanick knew Levandowski possessed, and later destroyed, some of the information in question:

On or about March 11, 2016, Mr. Levandowski reported to [Travis] Kalanick, Nina Qi and Cameron Poetzscher at Uber as well as Lior Ron that he had identified five discs in his possession containing Google information. Mr. Kalanick conveyed to Mr. Levandowski in response that Mr. Levandowski should not bring any Google information into Uber and that Uber did not want any Google information. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Levandowski communicated to Uber that he had destroyed the discs.

Levandowski has exercised his Fifth Amendment rights and has largely been silent on what is in his possession. But a judge told Uber to use "the full extent of their corporate, employment, contractual and other authority" to compel Levandowski to return the documents by May 31. When Levandowski didn't deliver, he was fired.

New filings this week, though, indicate that Uber may have had access to those files earlier, and allowed them to be destroyed prior to the deadline. The information, previously unearthed by TechCrunch, sheds more doubt on the already murky relationship between Levandowski and his former employers at Uber.

"No statement of any destruction was provided pursuant to the Court's Order by the March 31 deadline," Waymo's lawyers wrote in a motion. "Yet, over two months later, Defendants Uber's and [Otto's] June 5 response to Waymo's expedited interrogatory revealed that documents were destroyed, allegedly at Uber's direction, back in March 2016."

The timeline of when Levandowski ended his tenure at Waymo and began negotiating with Uber has become central to the case.

Levandowski collected $120 million from Google, despite involvement with at least one start-up that would ultimately compete with the company, the case alleges. Waymo's lawyers said Levandowski was already trying to staff up his competing start-up, Otto, while he worked at Google but he waited until he got his payout to make the details of Otto public.

Kalanick and Levandowski's attorney did not immediately respond to CNBC requests for comment. Uber declined to comment.

It all comes amid a rocky time within Uber, after reports of sexual harassment and gender bias led to an internal investigation into workplace culture. The company is also without top leadership now that Kalanick has resigned in the face of an investor revolt.

"This is certainly a part of the workplace culture: toe stepping, don't be afraid to get in people's faces," Kate Bischoff of tHRive Law & Consulting told CNBC last week. "'Oh, we should hire the guy from Waymo' that's not something outside the realm of possibility when you've created a culture that wants to ride the line."

The dispute between Waymo and Uber is playing out in two different arenas: In addition to the civil court case, the case has also been referred to the U.S. attorney for investigation of the possible theft of trade secrets.

"There are a whole host of variables that the government takes into account," Phil Bezanson, white collar partner at Bracewell, said last week. "Corporate culture is one, tone at the top, pervasiveness of wrongdoing, how the company responded. Because we have so many different subject matter issues, an overall corporate culture assessment is a good thing. The DOJ will pay close attention to it."

The rest is here:

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick may have known about stolen trade secrets, court filing indicates - CNBC

The Slavery Debate and Our Evolving Constitution – The Weekly Standard

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Timothy S. Huebner has produced a valuable study of American constitutionalism, a study that could do enormous good if people read it. Gracefully written, it is also lengthy and scholarly, which means that readers must possess two qualitiespatience and intellectual candorto appreciate the magnitude of Huebners achievement.

Liberty and Union is remarkable for several reasons. It explores a wide range of themes in American history pertaining to the Civil War era, and it does so with a comprehensiveness that is almost encyclopedic. In the hands of a less capable author, this account might digress into meandering side trips. But that never happens here: Huebners mastery of the material and his synthesizing mind keep the book on track from start to finish.

The general theme is the way our constitutionalism evolved in accordance with the underlying struggle over slavery. Two opposite constitutional cultures were at war: a pro-slavery culture that extracted from the Constitution a set of principles protecting the right to own slaves, and a countervailing culture that construed the Constitution in ways that upheld the principle of freedomfreedom for all. Huebner calls the outcome of this long-term struggle, an outcome largely determined on the battlefield, a constitutional revolution. The preliminary achievement of that revolution was the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, overturned the Dred Scott decision, and made the Constitution an anti-slavery document. The revolution continued during Radical Reconstruction when Republicans drafted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to elevate the status of former slaves.

One of the most important issues raised by Liberty and Union is its challenge to key suppositions in the doctrine of originalism. The story Huebner tells about the nature of American constitutionalism is the story of a vigorous power struggle that validates some originalist notions while vitiating others. Our constitutional text was full of ambiguities from the beginning: It was, in many ways, a messy affair resulting from compromises whose coherence will always be open to challenge. And the draftsmanship of the Bill of Rightscomposed by James Madison and introduced in the First Federal Congressled to insoluble arguments regarding application.

It is telling to observe that the very same words in Madisons Fifth Amendment were invoked later by partisans on both sides of the slavery debate: employed on the one hand by people like John C. Calhoun and Roger Taney to defend the extension of slavery into federal territories, and on the other by people like Salmon P. Chase to oppose such extensions of slavery. When constitutional text is as ambiguous as that (or as manipulable) how can anyone believe that a perfect rendition of such text is floating just over the conceptual horizon in some realm of pristine and crystal-clear Ideas? Perhaps there is a good deal of sense in the wistful old Tory idea that we might, after all, be better off with an openly organic constitution of the sort that evolved in Great Britain than we are with a single, much-amended document whose words can be endlessly construed this way and that, according to whatever ideology dominates the Supreme Court.

Certainly the invocation of original intent will be relevant and cogent at times, but only power will deliver the results. In his 1860 Cooper Union speech, Abraham Lincoln developed a persuasive argument that the Dred Scott decision was laughable in light of the words and deeds of the Founders. But it was only the power of the Civil War Republicans to change the size and composition of the Supreme Court (along with the power to eventually push through the Thirteenth Amendment) that kept Chief Justice Taneys constitutionalism from corrupting our republic. And, of course, the power of Lincoln and his friends to win battlefield victories was handy as well.

In any case, if more jurists found the time to read books like Liberty and Union a great deal of posturing in jurisprudence might be avoided. And our disputes would be far more candid.

Richard Striner, professor of history at Washington College, is the author of Father Abraham: Lincolns Relentless Struggle to End Slavery.

Continued here:

The Slavery Debate and Our Evolving Constitution - The Weekly Standard

Scenes From Martin Shkreli’s Journey to Federal Court – New York Times

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Mr. Shkreli taunted his critics on television (dismissing Bernie Sanders on Fox Business Network: I dont think he understands pharmaceuticals at all), on Twitter (Haters, please tell me about the latest in apicomplexa genetic drift) and on hourslong YouTube live streams (combing his hair, playing chess and chatting with a female student at Hunter College High School).

During a live stream, Mr. Shkreli discussed rap, high school and a friend of his who is in jail.

Responding to the public outrage, Express Scripts, the largest prescription drug manager in the United States, said that it would back the production of an alternative to the $750-a-pill Daraprim that would cost only $1 a pill.

In December 2015, it was revealed that Mr. Shkreli was the buyer of a one-of-a-kind Wu Tang Clan album that was auctioned for $2 million. When RZA, a co-founder of the hip-hop group, criticized the sale, Mr. Shkreli responded with an expletive and told the rapper to show me some respect.

Nine days later, Mr. Shkreli was charged with securities fraud linked to his first pharmaceutical company, Retrophin. The government accuses Mr. Shkreli of using the company to pay back investors in MSB Capital, a hedge fund he founded. The investigation began long before his notoriety. He resigned from Turing shortly after being charged.

Those who know him describe Mr. Shkreli as charismatic and intelligent. Months before he became a drug industry pariah, Mr. Shkreli made a $1 million donation to Hunter College High School, the prestigious Upper East Side school that he attended before going to work on Wall Street at 17. Some alumni later pushed for the gift to be returned.

Martin is the smartest guy in the room at all times, someone who worked with him on Wall Street told The Times. One early investor said that if you give him a science textbook on chemistry, hed give it back to you in nine months and hed have it memorized.

Despite his penchant to speak his mind, Mr. Shkreli was notably quiet in a federal court in Brooklyn in February 2016 (in response to a question: yes, judge). The same was the case during a heated congressional hearing on drug prices (he smirked and took the Fifth Amendment). But after testifying, he tweeted: Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government.

Mr. Shkreli invoked his Fifth Amendment rights while Congress peppered him with questions about his company's increasing drug prices.

Mr. Shkreli eventually shared the spotlight with other drug industry executives portrayed as villains. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, a company that also bought patents and raised drug prices, saw its stock plummet. And Mylan, the maker of the lifesaving allergy injecting device EpiPen, was criticized for raising the price for a two-pen set to more than $600.

The outspoken Mr. Shkreli was finally forced into silence this year, but only on Twitter. He was kicked off the social media platform after harassing a female journalist, but he maintains his online presence on Facebook and YouTube.

His lead defense lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, appeared to channel some of President Trumps advisers when he said that his clients messages on social media should not be taken at face value. When people tweet, they dont always mean what they say, Mr. Brafman said.

Link:

Scenes From Martin Shkreli's Journey to Federal Court - New York Times

What is the future of privacy, surveillance and policing technologies under Trump? – CBS News

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

For weeks, President Trump cried foul, repeating unverified claims that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump Tower to spy on him, accusations that remain unsubstantiated.

But Mr. Trump, with the power of the presidency and executive branch as a whole at his fingertips, has said little of how he intends to approach the authority he now wields over the country's surveillance policies. As developing policing technologies continue to outpace laws restricting their use, and as Mr. Trump and top members of his administration like Attorney General Jeff Sessions take a hard line against illegal immigration, terrorism and crime, experts in constitutional law and civil liberties fear the lack of an accompanying conversation on privacy protections could contribute to the erosion of Fourth Amendment rights.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

"I think we will see a push from the Trump administration to expand surveillance powers, and that of course could directly implicate Fourth Amendment protections," said Christopher Slobogin, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School who has studied and written on Fourth Amendment, privacy and surveillance issues for years.

"And they're going to push I think also for greater militarization of the police, which could affect Fourth Amendment issues," Slobogin added.

The American Civil Liberties Union is currently taking the Department of Justice to court to determine when the government notifies people they are under surveillance.

In May 2015, before announcing his bid for the presidency, Mr. Trump said he supported legislation allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to hold bulk metadata, and later in the year reiterated he would tend to "err on the side of security." On the campaign trail, and after taking office, Mr. Trump has emphasized the importance of bulking up police forces and eradicating terrorism. Sessions fought against reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 2012, and against limits on the NSA's spying powers.

Play Video

FBI Director James Comey says there is no evidence to support President Donald Trump's tweet about a "wiretap" of Trump Tower during the 2016 ele...

"It's not as though this didn't exist before Trump, because it's all in this terrorism -- war on terrorism stuff," said Robert Bloom, a professor at Boston College Law School who focuses on criminal procedure and civil rights law. "We've loosened up on protections of individuals. But now you've really got an abusive executive. A president and attorney general who don't really give two whits about individual protection and about the Fourth Amendment."

The White House and Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Guaranteeing Fourth Amendment rights has become increasingly complicated in the digital age. One longstanding legal theory dating to the 1970s, known as the Third Party Doctrine, asserts that once a person gives personal information to a third party, for instance, to a cell service provider, he or she loses the expectation of privacy, and the information can be given to other entities without the person's explicit permission -- without violating the Fourth Amendment.

The Obama administration placed some limitations on surveillance technology, but mostly through policy. The Obama administration required the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to obtain warrants for the use of their 400 Stingrays or cell site simulators, devices that mimic cellphone towers, so all phones within a range connect to it instead of their cellphone provider's nearest tower, and the devices collect cellphone data. The IRS also acquired the technology in recent years.

"But that's the kind of thing that Jeff Sessions could do away with with the stroke of a pen," said Alvaro Bedoya, founding executive director for the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown University Law Center.

Play Video

Law enforcement uses tracking devices called "stingrays" to locate cellphones. But the technology also picks up personal information from other c...

Law enforcement agencies say Stingray technology helps them catch suspected criminals -- and it does. But privacy advocates fear the technology's ability to collect nearby cellphone owners' data without their permission or knowledge -- and often, without a warrant -- compromises Fourth Amendment rights.

Federal authorities have said the devices they use are not configured to collect the content of communications, but the capabilities of the technology aren't clear. That's partly because federal authorities have shrouded cell site simulators in mystery, sometimes dropping cases against criminal suspects rather than reveal their policing methods and agreements with private cell site simulator companies that swear the government to product secrecy in contracts.

The ability to put the warrant requirement "through the shredder" at any moment is why policy is an insufficient safeguard, said Matthew Feeney, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

"We're relying heavily on government policy rather than law, and that I think is a problem," Feeney said.

Many states also use automatic license plate readers, technology that can scan hundreds of plates per minute. In the 2008 election cycle, Virginia State Police used automatic license plate readers on attendees' cars at political rallies for Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, the ACLU revealed. Alone, license plates may not amount to much information, but police have the ability to check those plates against other records, and -- over time -- can observe patterns about a driver's habits, the ACLU argued.

Meanwhile, the federal government is quietly ramping up its surveillance approach at airports, using technology that was, "in most cases developed for the battlefield," Bedoya said.

Play Video

Delta and JetBlue are rolling out new ways to use the sophisticated technology on passengers, but not everyone is on board. Stacey Butler of CBS ...

U.S. Customs and Border Protection began testing facial recognition software -- called Biometric Exit -- at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C., in 2015, and pilot programs are expanding to other large airports. The software -- the concept of which was first required by Bill Clinton-era legislation in 1996 -- is intended to check visa holders entering or leaving the country through facial matching systems. That scan can be checked against a person's passport. As Mr. Trump looks to toughen immigration policies, it's a timely tool.

But Bedoya worries the technology's use won't stop there.

"There aren't many people talking about biometric exit, when it might fundamentally change the way we travel," Bedoya said.

It's unlikely the technology will only be used on foreign nationals, Bedoya said. Many airports mix international and domestic terminals, and it's more practical and realistic to use the technology at the main Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint, Bedoya said.

"That means you have a flow of both domestic and international travelers," Bedoya said.

Once it's in place, facial recognition software -- like other kinds of policing technology -- can be used to match other federal databases and tell a story.

"We shouldn't forget that all of these tools can be put together," Feeney said.

"Drones can be used to mount a license plate reader," Feeney said. "Body cam footage could be linked to drone footage."

Congress has made some efforts to strengthen privacy in recent months. In February, the House passed the Email Privacy Act, which would require a warrant for any access to stored digital communications. But the Senate has yet to take any action on it, and threats of terrorism may easily quash any momentum on similar legislation, Slobogin said.

"If we have an event like Manchester in the United States -- or Manchester itself -- that might push Congress in the other direction," Slobogin said.

Absent much guidance from Congress in the way of laws, the courts are deciding the future of surveillance as it pertains to the Fourth Amendment, Slobogin said.

"Some of the lower courts have looked at warrants and searches and things of that nature, but the Supreme Court really hasn't weighed in on those kinds of issues," Bloom said.

Slowly, that's changing, as cases work their way up to the highest court in the land.

This year, the Supreme Court will decide United States v. Carpenter, on whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing location and movements of a person over the course of months is constitutional.

"That is arguably going to be the most significant Fourth Amendment case in decades," Feeney said.

The Third Party Doctrine theory "needs to be grappled with significantly," and could be reviewed in that case, Bloom said.

The lack of legal protection against an expanding availability of policing technologies may not concern law-abiding citizens, but it should, Feeney said.

"At the moment, we seem to be mostly concerned about radical Islamic terrorism," Feeney said.

"Maybe in 15 years it's progressives, or libertarians, pro-life people or pro-choice people," he added.

This, Feeney said, is the fundamental question people should ask themselves: "Would I be happy with the state of the Fourth Amendment if my enemy is in charge?"

Read the original here:

What is the future of privacy, surveillance and policing technologies under Trump? - CBS News

Appeals Court Strikes Down California’s 30-Day Impound Law – FOX40

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Law enforcement must provide a valid reason to hold peoples vehicles and cannot automatically impound them for a set period, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a California law that requires police to hold impounded vehicles for 30 days.

Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the panel, said the law violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable seizures.

A seizure is justified under the Fourth Amendment only to the extent that the governments justification holds force, he said. Thereafter, the government must cease the seizure or secure a new justification.

The decision revived a lawsuit against Los Angeles by a woman whose car was held by police for 30 days. The Los Angeles City Attorneys Office did not immediately have comment.

Lamya Brewster loaned her vehicle to Yonnie Percy, her brother-in-law, according to the 9th Circuit ruling. Los Angeles police stopped Percy and seized the vehicle when they learned Percy had a suspended drivers license.

The 9th Circuit said there was agreement that the initial seizure did not pose any problems under an exception to the Fourth Amendment that allows police to impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety.

But the court said police provided no new justification to continue holding the vehicle after Brewster showed up with proof of ownership and a valid drivers license three days later.

A lower court had thrown Percys lawsuit out, finding that the 30-day impoundment period was aimed at deterring unlicensed drivers or drivers with suspended licenses from driving and was a lawful penalty.

36.778261 -119.417932

View original post here:

Appeals Court Strikes Down California's 30-Day Impound Law - FOX40

Luther Strange introduces bill to close Obama-era 2nd Amendment loophole – Alabama Today

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Taking action to protect Second Amendment rights from unwarranted executive intrusion, Alabama Senator Luther Strangeon Wednesday introduced the Protecting the Second Amendment Act.

The bill would amend the Gun Control Act to nullify generalized, routine, or ongoing reporting requirement on lawful gun owners based on geographic location or sales records of multiple long guns, and prohibit future executive action against them.

The Obama administration demonstrated time and again a disturbing willingness to bypass the separation of powers and disregard Congress as a Constitutional watchdog, explainedStrange. Had the restrictions faced by lawful gun dealers in border states been applied to Alabama, many sportsmen, myself included, would have a difficult time practicing our hobby, and exercising our Constitutional rights. With this bill, I am proud to stand up against existing and future threats to the rights of lawful gun owners, and restore respect for the rule of law.

Under an Obama-era executive order claiming to target the flow of firearms to Mexican drug cartels, gun owners and dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were subjected to additional reporting requirements on firearms above .22 caliber.

The Protecting the Second Amendment Act has already received support from originalSenate cosponsors, Texas-RepublicansJohn Cornynand Ted Cruz, and is being praised by the National Rifle Association as an important step in rolling back the full extent of Obama administrationsactions against guns.

On behalf of the NRAs five million members, we would like to thank Senator Strange for introducing this important bill that would roll back the Obama administrations defacto gun registration scheme, said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox. Senator Strange continues to be a champion for our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Senate.

For eight long years the Second Amendment was constantly under threat by an Administration hostile to the fundamental right of Americans to defend themselves, addedCornyn. This bill will help roll back unilateral regulations from the last Administration targeting law-abiding gun owners, and Im proud to join Senator Strange in this fight.

Read the original:

Luther Strange introduces bill to close Obama-era 2nd Amendment loophole - Alabama Today

Triple Homicide Collides with Second Amendment – Santa Barbara Independent

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Over the years, Ive developed an insufferable tic that I insist on fobbing off as a bad joke. Upon encountering someone going through seriously bad timescancer diagnosis, dead dog, divorce, child gone crazyI invariably blurt out, Well other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? In all these years, this has yet to inject a lick of levity. The punchline does not derive from the hilariously improbable notion that Mary Todd Lincolnafflicted with migraines, debilitating depression, racking physical pains, and what was likely a bipolar conditionmight actually have enjoyed anything. The play in question was Our American Cousin, which Mary Todd and her husband, Abraham Lincoln, were watching at Fords Theatre in Washington, D.C., when actor John Wilkes Booth shot and killed the president. Booth waited for the line that always got the loudest laughswhen a lovably loutish American proto-bro type calls a sniffy British dowager a sockdologizing old man-trapbefore aiming at Lincolns head and pulling the trigger. Bootha supporter of the Southern causedid notmiss.

Had Booth had at his disposal a sound suppressor for his pistol at the time, he would not have had to wait for the laughter. And Lincolns widow would not have had to ponder what a sockdologizing old man-trap was. More misogyny hiding behind humor, perhaps? If Booth had a silencer, he no doubt could have escaped. More than 150 years after the fact, another son of the SouthRepublican Congressmember Jeff Duncan from South Carolinahas introduced a bill that would have vastly improved Booths odds. Duncan is the proud author of the Hearing Protection Act, which would expedite and accelerate the sale of gun suppressorsalso known as silencersby exempting them from the additional layer of time-consuming background checks required by the National Firearms Act passed in 1934. According to Duncan, silencers are needed because shooting is notoriously hard on the hearing of those who shoot a lot. He also cites a study showing the number of violent crimes committed by people wielding silenced firearms can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Im sure theyre right about that. Theyre also right when they point outas they like to dothat more Americans are killed with hammers than by rifles. Its also beside thepoint.

Two weeks ago in Judge Brian Hills courtroom, I saw the real point during the triple-homicide trial of a man accused of killing noted Chinese herbalist Dr. Henry Han; his wife, Jennie Yu; and their 5-year-old child, Emily. Eight muffled bullets had been shot into the head of Emily and three each into the heads of her parents. Gruesome forensic photosshowing all 14 bullet entry woundswere splashed bigger than life up on the courtroom wall. This was one of those rare instances in which a silencer had, in fact, been used. The point was to help the killer get away withmurder.

Heres my point: Wearing earplugs and earmuffs significantly reduces hearing damage inflicted by shooting. It does not, however, help killers get away withmurder.

As usual, theres no shortage of grim ironies surrounding this legislation, which was supposed to have had its first committee hearing this past week. From the outset, the timing was awkward, coming on the first-year anniversary of the one-way shootout at the Orlando gay nightclub Pulse, which left 49 dead and 58 seriously wounded. The hearing was only postponed after a rage-addled Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, lit up a baseball field in Arlington, Virginia, last weekshooting rapid fire at members of the Republican congressional baseball team practicing for the big game the following night against their Democratic rivals. Just before the 66-year-old Hodgkinson began his rampage, he met none other than South Carolina Congressmember Duncan, author of the Hearing Protection Act, walking off the field. As Duncan and the shooter passed each other, Hodgkinson asked him, Excuse me, sir, whos practicing today? Democrats or Republicans? As Duncan recounted, I said, This is a Republican team, and he said, K, thanks. By the time Hodgkinson was done spraying the field, five people had been seriously wounded, including House Majority Whip SteveScalise.

The shooting has not shaken Duncans belief in the silencer bill. The gunman, Duncan observed blandly, did not use a silencer. Duncan added that Illinois, where Hodkinson is from, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, yet even they failed to stop the allegedshooter.

Should the Hearing Protection Act be approved, it would repeal the outright silencer bans independently enacted by 11 states, most notably California and New York. So much for Southern conservatives passionate belief in states rights. It turns out there are roughly 1.3 million legally registered silencer owners in the United States. Should Duncans bill pass, all records of who own silencers will bedestroyed.

The Hearing Protection Act is part of a broader legislative package known euphoniously as the SHARE Actwhich stands for Sportsmens Heritage and Recreational Enhancement. Duncan is also the author of that. Included in SHARE are provisions to revoke bans on the sale of armor-piercing bullets. SHARE abolishes existing bans on the importation of elephant and polar bear body parts as big-game hunting trophies. It also contains unprecedented new protections for transporting guns and ammo across state lines. Should any law enforcement officer seek to enforce local prohibitions against certain guns or ammo being shipped through their jurisdiction, the officer could be personally sued for so doing. Thats radicalstuff.

The good news? No new date has yet been set for a hearing on the silencerbill.

So other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

See more here:

Triple Homicide Collides with Second Amendment - Santa Barbara Independent

Sullum: The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr – The Ledger

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

By Jacob Sullum Creators Syndicate

Philando Castile did what you are supposed to do if you have a concealed-carry permit and get pulled over by police: He let the officer know he had a gun.

Had Castile been less forthcoming, he would still be alive.

Last Friday, a Minnesota jury acquitted the cop who killed Castile of second-degree manslaughter, demonstrating once again how hard it is to hold police accountable when they use unnecessary force. The verdict also sends a chilling message to gun owners, since Castile is dead because he exercised his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Jeronimo Yanez, an officer employed by the St. Anthony, Minnesota, police department, stopped Castile around 9 p.m. on July 6 in Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The official reason was a nonfunctioning brake light.

The actual reason, according to Yanez, was that Castile resembled a suspect in a convenience store robbery that had happened four days before in the same neighborhood. The full extent of the resemblance was that Castile, like the suspect, was black, wore glasses and dreadlocks, and had a "wide-set nose."

Castile, a 32-year-old cafeteria manager, had nothing to do with the robbery. But in Yanez's mind, Castile posed a threat.

The traffic stop began politely but turned deadly within a minute. Audio and video of the encounter show that Yanez asked for Castile's proof of insurance and driver's license.

After Castile handed over his insurance card, he calmly informed Yanez, "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Yanez interrupted him, saying, "OK, don't reach for it, then."

Castile and his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, repeatedly assured the officer that Castile was not reaching for the weapon. But by now Yanez was in full panic mode.

"Don't pull it out!" he screamed, immediately drawing his weapon and firing seven rounds into the car, heedless of Reynolds and her 4-year-old daughter, who was in the backseat. Mortally wounded, Castile moaned and said, "I wasn't reaching for it."

Reynolds, who drew nationwide attention to the shooting by reporting it via Facebook Live immediately afterward, has consistently said Castile was reaching for his wallet to retrieve his driver's license, per Yanez's instructions. Yanez initially said he thought Castile was reaching for his gun; later he claimed to have seen Castile pulling out the pistol, which was found inside a front pocket on the right side of the dead man's shorts.

Yanez clearly acted out of fear. The question is whether that fear was reasonable in the circumstances and whether deadly force was the only way to address it.

Jeffrey Noble, an expert on police procedure, testified that Yanez's actions were "objectively unreasonable." The officer had "absolutely no reason" to view Castile as a robbery suspect, Noble said, and could have mitigated the threat he perceived by telling Castile to put his hands on the dashboard or stepping back from the car window.

If Castile planned to shoot Yanez, why would he announce that he had a firearm? That disclosure was obviously aimed at avoiding trouble but had the opposite effect because Yanez was not thinking clearly.

Officers like Yanez, who is leaving his department under a "voluntary separation agreement," pose a clear and present danger to law-abiding gun owners. Yet the National Rifle Association has been curiously reticent about the case.

The day after the shooting, the NRA said "the reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated." It promised "the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known."

The reports have been investigated, and the facts are known. Yet the NRA has not added anything to the bland, noncommittal statement it made a year ago. You'd think "the nation's largest and oldest civil rights organization" would have more to say about an innocent man who was killed for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Jacob Sullum (jsullum@reason.com) is a senior editor at Reason magazine. He writes for Creators Syndicate.

Visit link:

Sullum: The NRA shuns a Second Amendment martyr - The Ledger

National Ask Day unites Second Amendment supporters and groups calling for stricter gun laws – WTTV CBS4Indy

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

CARMEL, Ind. - Organizations calling for stricter gun laws and Second Amendment supporters united Wednesday for National Ask Day.

The day is put on by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Brady Organization and encourages parents to ask the caretakers of their children's friends if guns are stored safely in the home.

It may sound intrusive, but I think its totally appropriate to say, are there guns in the home? Are those guns locked up? Are they secure?'" gun advocate and founder of The Law Office of Guy A. Relford, Guy Relford, said. "And thats not an anti-gun message.Im the most ardent second amendment supporter there is, but I wouldnt hesitate to ask those questions. Just because I store my guns responsibly that doesnt mean everyone does, and if anyone is offended by that I dont think they are taking the safety of the child as their first priority.

Relford has taught gun safety for more than 20 years to children and adults. He said gun safety is a sometimes a difficult conversation for parents to have with their children, but it shouldn't be.

"I dont put gun safety in any different category than any other kind of safety whether youre talking about swimming pool safety or traffic safety," Relford said. "Your kids won't be under your belt all the time so those kids need to know how to react if they come across a gun."

The Pew Research Center said about a third of homes in America that have kids in them also have gun and a study recently published in the journal, "Pediatrics," found 1,300 children die from a gun-related injury each year.

Read this article:

National Ask Day unites Second Amendment supporters and groups calling for stricter gun laws - WTTV CBS4Indy

Supreme Court Declares First Amendment Interest in Access to Social Networks – Lexology (registration)

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

The internet has become so essential to American public discourse that saying so is almost trite now. Members of Congress regularly use social media to engage with constituents. The President has turned Twitter into one of his primary modes of communication. It was only a matter of time before the U.S. Supreme Court got its turn to sing the praises of social media.

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina criminal law that made it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social networking and other websites. In doing so, however, the Court took a stepperhaps a bigger step than some intendedtoward guaranteeing a constitutional right under the First Amendment to access the internet.

Packingham involved a 2008 North Carolina statute that made it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking website that is known to allow minors. The law defined a commercial social networking website with four requirements: (1) the operator of the website had to earn revenue through fees or advertisements; (2) the website had to allow for social introductions between people; (3) the website must allow users to create widely available personal profiles or pages; and (4) the site must give users a mechanism of communicating with each other, such as through a chat room or message board. Though the law carved out a few exceptions, it created a broad enough stick that the state of North Carolina had already prosecuted over a thousand people for violating it.

Nearly a decade after Packingham was convicted for a sex crime and registered as a sex offender, he posted on Facebook about how excited he was to have gotten a traffic ticket dismissed. A member of the local law enforcement noticed the post, and the state charged Packingham with violating the North Carolina law without alleging he had contacted a minor or committed any other illicit acts on the internet. The trial court denied Packinghams First Amendment challenge to the statute, and he was ultimately convicted for violating the statute. North Carolinas intermediate Court of Appeals agreed with Packingham and struck down the statute. But the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed, finding the law to be carefully tailored to avoid violating the freedom of speech.

In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court on June 19 reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court and struck down the North Carolina law as unconstitutional.

Writing for five justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy kicked off his opinion with an analogy. Within First Amendment law, there is a basic rule that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of speech. And what is the equivalent forum of today? The answer is clear, Justice Kennedy put forward: It is cyberspace. . . . and social media in particular.

The majority spent a good portion of its opinion highlighting the centrality of the internet to First Amendment activities and modern life. It noted that websites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter collectively have billions of users, each of whom engages in multiple First Amendment-protected activities: debating religion and politics, sharing photographs, advertising and finding jobs, and reaching out to elected officials. Justice Kennedy went on to describe the Cyber Age as a revolution of historic proportions, acknowledging what lawyers working in this field have taken to heart: courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow.

The majority held that the North Carolina statute impermissibly burdened more speech than necessary in order to further its purposethe protection of children against recidivist sexual predators. Even though the Packingham majority acknowledged that North Carolinas goal was extremely important, it also found that the laws prohibitions were unprecedented in scope and thus could not stand. Social media sites allow for the communication of ideas and knowledge; they are the modern public square. Cutting individuals off from these important spaces prevents them from exercising their First Amendment rights. Furthermore, convicted criminals might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives.

Writing for three members of the Court, Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the conclusion that the North Carolina law was overbroad and thus unconstitutional, but was hesitant to support the majoritys undisciplined . . . musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks. After all, Justice Alitos concurrence notes, there are clear distinctions between parks and cyberspace: from differences in the ability for parents to monitor their children, to differences in the amount of anonymity each space offers. And Justice Alito expressed concern that some may read the majoritys broad language as a prohibition on any and all attempts to pass laws addressing child sexual exploitation online or other efforts to regulate access to the internet.

At root, Justice Alitos concurrence took issue with the improper tailoring of the North Carolina law. Its vague language would prevent registered sex offenders from accessing, for example, Amazon, The Washington Post or WebMD. By categorically blocking access to these sites, the North Carolina law goes well beyond its intended means and runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The Courts Packingham decision is one of the first cases to seriously hint at the idea that access to online forums of expression is a protected right. Heavily relying on an amicus brief by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Justice Kennedys opinion highlights the importance of the internet as a marketplace of ideas, and its central role in promoting associational rights of persons in a free society. The Packingham decision casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of state and federal statutes, regulations and interpretations, which may impose broad limitations on access to the internet, particularly where the restriction is based on a persons continuing status or in the absence of an adjudication. Packingham may ultimately prove to be a powerful doctrinal weapon that internet-based companies can wield against laws and regulations that limit access to their services.

An important question that Packingham leaves unanswered, however, is what level of constitutional scrutiny applies to content-neutral regulations affecting access to the modern internet. All eight justices agreed that the North Caroline statute, given its overbreadth, would fail under any level of scrutiny under First Amendment jurisprudence. But the majoritys opinion gives little guidance for lawmakers that want to take steps to deter online predation on what type of statute would withstand a First Amendment challenge.

Go here to read the rest:

Supreme Court Declares First Amendment Interest in Access to Social Networks - Lexology (registration)

Remove Donald Trampo Ransomware | Updated – Virus Guides (blog)

Posted on June 22, 2017 by Danzig

I wrote this article to help you remove Donald Trampo Ransomware. This Donald Trampo Ransomware removal guide works for all Windows versions.

Donald Trampo ransomware is obviously named after the current US President. This is not the first virus of this type to be dedicated to this political figure. Another win-locker by the name of Donald Trump ransomware emerged a few months ago. Do not confuse the two infections with each other. There is no connection between them and their respective developers. The only characteristic they share is that they launch the same kind of attack. When Donald Trampo ransomware penetrates your system, it will start looking for vulnerable files and encrypt them.

To protect your computer from potential attacks, you need to know how they are purported. Donald Trampo ransomware uses spam emails to gain entry into users machines. The furtive program hides behind attachments. The message will state that the file is an important piece of documentation. The sender will urge you to open it. To make the email appear legitimate, he can address it after a genuine organization. Even if the letter contains the official logo and contacts of the entity in question, it can still be fake. It is easy to copy and paste the latter mentioned details. The only certain way to confirm that a given notification is truthful is by proofing the email account it was sent from. You can consult the official website of the stated organization for reference.

The purpose of win-lockers is to make money for their proprietors. Donald Trampo ransomware will encrypt your personal files. The insidious program targets documents, databases, archives, graphics, logs, audios, videos and other files. It marks the compromised objects with a custom appendix. The suffix is unique for every instance because it contains personalized information. It is generated using the following formula: .SN-[16 random digits]-webmafia@asia.com_donald@trampo.info. The SN abbreviation stands for serial number. It is comprised of 16 characters, listed after it. The other two details are the email accounts of the cyber criminals.

The developers of Donald Trampo ransomware ask people to contact them before providing further information. They change the desktop background to a custom wallpaper. The image is a plain black graphic with white text written on it. It instructs the victim to contact the creators of the win-locker. You have to write an email to either of their accounts. When you do, they will respond by informing you how much you have to pay. Since Donald Trampo ransomware was discovered recently, the full details around the malevolent program are yet to be reported. We do know that the hackers instruct people to download and install the Tor browser. They require the amount to be paid in Bitcoins.

Ransomware vendors usually set the ransom in the range of $500 to $1,500 USD. Of course, there are cases where the amount is huge. On the other side of the fence, some developers are not greedy and only ask for a few dollars. As it stands, we cannot give an approximation as to how much the people behind Donald Trampo ransomware demand from their victims. While we wait for information, we should point out that some win-lockers determine a ransom for different victims. The amount can be calculated according to the total number of the encrypted files. Another criterion is the information contained in them. This happens when the win-locker has the ability to scan the encrypted files and determine how important the data stored in them is.

Malware experts are still working to determine what encryption algorithm the developers of Donald Trampo ransomware have used. It could take them a while to figure out the win-locker and devise a custom decrypter. In the meantime, users are advised not to meet the demands of the cyber thieves. There are no guarantees when dealing with hackers. They may not provide the decryption key after receiving the ransom money. Even if they do, they could launch another attack in time. It is best to recover your data on your own. For this purpose, you will require a backup.

Method 1: Restore your encrypted files using ShadowExplorer Usually, Donald Trampo Ransomware deletes all shadow copies, stored in your computer. Luckily, the ransomware is not always able to delete the shadow copies. So your first try should be restoring the original files from shadow copies.

Method 2: Restore your encrypted files by using System Restore

Method 3: Restore your files using File Recovery Software If none of the above method works, you should try to recover encrypted files by using File Recovery Software. Since Donald Trampo Ransomware first makes a copy of the original file, then encrypts it and deletes the original one, you can successfully restore the original, using a File Recovery Software. Here are a few free File Recovery Software programs:

Excerpt from:

Remove Donald Trampo Ransomware | Updated - Virus Guides (blog)

Select Page ::