NATO marks International Women’s Day – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

An organisation, society or country can only succeed if it uses the full potential of all of its members men and women, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, marking the occasion of International Womens Day on Wednesday (8 March 2017). He stressed that equal participation of men and women is a core security requirement, essential to the resilience of societies, to the effectiveness of NATO forces and to achieving and preserving peace.

NATO strongly supports the global women, peace and security agenda. The Alliance has integrated gender perspectives in its three core tasks collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security. NATO works to promote womens rights in training and operations, and in our assistance for partners, such as Jordan, Georgia and Ukraine. The appointment of NATOs Special Representative on Women, Peace and Security Ambassador Marriet Schuurman demonstrates the importance of these issues.

Today, NATO has more women in leadership positions than ever before as ministers, senior officials and military commanders. A quarter of NATO Defence Ministers are women, six of 28 NATO Ambassadors are women, and last year, the Alliance welcomed its first female Deputy Secretary General, Rose Gottemoeller. NATOs Joint Force Command in Naples is also led by US Admiral Michelle Howard, a four-star officer, and US Army Brigadier General Giselle Wilz is the first woman to head NATO HQ Sarajevo. Canadas most senior female military officer, Lt.-Gen. Christine Whitecross, is currently commandant of the NATO Defense College in Rome.

The Secretary General has highlighted that making the best potential of both men and women makes NATO stronger and better prepared to deal with current security challenges. I look forward to the day when not just a quarter but half of NATO ministers are women; I am sure that time will come, said the Secretary General.

Read the rest here:

NATO marks International Women's Day - NATO HQ (press release)

NATO Deputy Secretary General thanks Iceland for its contribution to European security – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

NATO Deputy Secretary General, Rose Gottemoeller, ended a two day visit to Iceland on Wednesday (8 March 2017) by addressing students at the University of Iceland on how NATO is adapting to a new security environment. Ms Gottemoeller explained how NATO represents the gold standard in multilateral security cooperation and how it is strengthening its collective defence in Europe and doing more to fight terrorism.

Iceland, a founding member of NATO, is a highly valued Ally and although the country has no standing army, it has made important financial and civilian contributions to NATO missions in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Ms Gottemoeller arrived in Iceland on Tuesday (7 March 2017) evening for talks with Icelands Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson. The two discussed the current security situation and Icelands contribution to NATO.

On Wednesday (8 March 2017), the Deputy Secretary General met with the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs. She also gave a speech at a NATO Resources Conference in Reykjavik, which has been discussing how the Alliance can best use its financial resources to adapt to the new security environment. Ms Gottemoeller stressed the importance of common funding, which enables Allies to join together to boost their defence capabilities, such as with NATOs fleet of AWACS surveillance aircraft.

See more here:

NATO Deputy Secretary General thanks Iceland for its contribution to European security - NATO HQ (press release)

International Women’s Day at NATO: #BeBoldForChange – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted on by

Various events took place at NATO Headquarters to celebrate International Womens Day (8 March) and to raise awareness of gender perspectives and the principles of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

Promotion of gender equality and inclusive security is our core business as a matter of both institutional excellence and operational effectiveness. Because it is not only the right thing to do, but also the smart thing to do, said Marrit Schuurman, the NATO Secretary Generals Special Representative for Women, Peace and Security. She was speaking at an event to launch registrations for the second edition of the solidarity run known as She runs, He runs, We run at NATO Headquarters.

Corporal Pellegrina Caputo was a guest speaker at the same event. Telling her inspirational life story as an active duty soldier of the Italian Armed Forces, a veteran, a survivor and also a Paralympic champion with many awards, she had a strong message in line with this years theme for International Womens Day, Be Bold for Change.

Women are part of the community and so the military. I always wanted to serve people and my country. That is why I returned after I recovered from my injuries back to active duty. I am happy I got the chance once again, she concluded. Corporal Caputo lost her left lower limb in a car accident during her deployment in the NATO-led Kosovo Force but returned to duty just two years later.

In the spirit of the motto of the day, Ambassador Schuurman later moderated an informal discussion on principles and personal stories of boldness and change. Civil society activists, who are also members of the Civil Society Advisory Panel on Women, Peace and Security, participated as did a representative of NATOs International Military Staff.

NATO ambassadors gathered the day before to discuss progress in implementing the action plan for the implementation of Resolution 1325 developed by NATO together with partner countries.

Diversity makes us stronger and more effective. We have made considerable progress, but further efforts have to be taken to sustain what has been already achieved but also ensure consistency, said NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

View original post here:

International Women's Day at NATO: #BeBoldForChange - NATO HQ (press release)

Trump’s rumored pick for NATO ambassador doesn’t seem to agree with him about NATO – Vox

Posted on by

Richard Grenell, a well-known conservative communications professional, will reportedly soon be announced as the Trump administrations ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Its an important job given the alliances mission of standing up to Russia and a tough one given President Trumps harsh criticism of the organization.

Which makes it interesting that Grenell, unlike his potential boss, is a strong supporter of maintaining the NATO alliance and using it as a counterweight to Russias efforts to expand its influence in Eastern Europe. Grenell, who served as a foreign policy spokesperson in the George W. Bush administration, seems more aligned with the moderate wing of the administration (represented by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis) than the radical revisionist one (represented by senior strategist Steve Bannon).

[Its] confusing, Steve Saideman, a professor at Carleton University who studies NATO, tells me. As far as I know, Grenell does not hate NATO or want to burn it down.

Grenell is also somewhat controversial in conservative circles, owing to the fact that hes openly gay and a supporter of same-sex marriage. The Romney campaign picked him to be its foreign policy spokesperson in 2012, but a social conservative backlash ended his tenure very quickly. This time around, Grenell is less likely to get into trouble for who he is than what hes tweeted: The tone of his comments about Trump during the primary, especially on Twitter, was highly critical.

If you think Trump knows foreign policy issues then absolutely yes, you are stupid, Grenell tweeted in March 2016.

He changed his tune during the general election, once referring to a Trump statement on NATO, where he said he refocused the alliance on terrorism, as fantastic. But past criticism of Trump has gotten potential administration nominees into trouble before. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly wanted former Bush administration official Elliott Abrams for his top deputy but Trump nixed the pick, reportedly because Abrams had written harshly about Trump in the past.

The Grenell pick is thus an interesting test for the Trump administration: How much internal dissent can it tolerate, and what kind of dissent is acceptable? Washingtons closest allies, and Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, will be waiting anxiously for the answers.

The US ambassador to NATO, also called the permanent representative, sits on the North Atlantic Council, the alliances decision-making body. The council is where NATO countries vote on key issues like whether to undertake collective military missions such as NATOs involvement in the Afghanistan war. The ambassador votes on behalf of the US, and also plays a role in negotiating the text of any NATO-wide agreement.

These are important tasks, but typically the person doing them doesnt have a lot of freedom. Historically, the ambassadors job is more to do what his bosses tell him than make independent decisions. The [ambassador] is both a very important position as the US representative in the room when big decisions are being made and also not so important since they are very closely guided/managed by DC, Saideman explains.

That may be less true in the Trump administration, given its deep internal divisions over foreign policy and well-earned reputation for disorganization. In this environment, clear guidance could be lacking, leaving the ambassador with a lot more discretion. That would make Grenells personal background and views, if hes confirmed by the Senate, a whole lot more important than those of previous NATO ambassadors.

Grenell does have a lot of experience in conservative foreign policy land. Prior to his job with Romney, he served as the spokesperson for the US mission to the United Nations under George W. Bush, holding that job longer than any other individual.

As you might expect from someone with this background, he holds fairly conventional conservative views on foreign policy including on issues relating to NATO, which he has called the worlds greatest alliance. When Russia invaded eastern Ukraine in July 2014, he called for an immediate and forceful response.

The US leads NATO ... they should have been on the ground in Ukraine immediately, he tweeted. We should sell Ukraine arms immediately.

In a March 2016 appearance on the Fox Business Channel, Grenell defended the alliance against the fact that its not spending enough on its own defense a charge that President Trump has made repeatedly. NATO countries are supposed to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense, but only five countries hit that target in 2016.

In Grenells view, the issue is that the Obama administration has been too disengaged from the alliance, weakening it as an institution.

You cant blame NATO, Grenell told host Charles Payne. I would say the reason why were having this debate about NATO right now ... is because you dont have US leadership.

Grenell had also been a tough critic of Putin, attacking his intervention in Ukraine and meddling with foreign elections in a number of op-eds and numerous tweets published in the past several years. Once again, Grenell saw this as a product of Obamas weakness.

If Grenell gets the NATO job, half the reporters in DC (including me) will have to unblock him

The Russian president has successfully used propaganda, natural gas, intimidation, money laundering, military hardware, corruption, and his opponents weaknesses to chip away at the Wests influence throughout Eastern Europe and the Baltic states, he wrote in the conservative tabloid Newsmax last year. Russia is calculating how best to continue its offense undeterred by the West and President Obama.

The point, then, is that Grenell seems to have broadly conventional foreign policy views: He sees NATO as a vital alliance and bulwark against an expansionist Russia. His critique of the Obama administration was that it was too withdrawn, too disengaged from allies and unwilling to come to their aid when theyre threatened.

Trump, by contrast, has cast doubt on Americas commitment to NATO and described Russia as a potential partner. His critique of the Obama administration was that it was too beholden to outdated international institutions like NATO and too willing to use force when Americas direct national security interests were not at stake.

This kind of tension is becoming fairly normal in the administration. Secretary Mattis, for example, more or less disavowed past Trump statements on NATO and Russia in his confirmation hearing. During a trip to Brussels for a NATO summit, Mattis openly ruled out Trumps proposal to cooperate with Russia on military matters. Vice President Mike Pence, during a speech in Germany, said that America strongly supports NATO and is unwavering in our commitment to our transatlantic alliance.

This kind of sub-presidential diplomacy can make it difficult to figure out what the administrations actual position is or would be in a crisis. Do Mattis and Pence speak for Trump, or will the president overrule them when their views come into direct conflict, especially over Russia?

Right now, its too soon to tell. But Grenell, if confirmed, will be thrown into the middle of this conflict on one of the most important points of internal tension, the NATO alliance, inside the administration.

Grenell is not shy about expressing his opinions. He appears on Fox News regularly, and has attacked a fairly large percentage of the Washington press corps on Twitter.

If Grenell gets the NATO job, half the reporters in DC (including me) will have to unblock him, New York Times political reporter Glenn Thrush tweeted when the news of Grenells nomination first broke.

So its no surprise that Grenell has had a lot of things to say about Donald Trump. Since roughly last summer, most of those things have been positive Grenell has vigorously defended Trumps record both on foreign policy and LGBTQ rights.

But prior to Trumps victory in the primary, Grenells Twitter tone was about as hostile to Trump as it was to reporters. He described candidate Trump as dangerously ignorant, and seemingly called on the Republican Party to block him from taking the nomination:

All of this raises the question of whether Grenell will go the way of Abrams, the Tillerson deputy who never was.

There is a key difference between Grenell and Abrams. Abrams was #NeverTrump, and never apologized or withdrew his attacks. Grenell, by contrast, appears to have recanted his anti-Trump faith after the primary, spending the past several months vocally defending the candidate and the new administration on Twitter and TV.

So what were about to see assuming the reports of Grenells nomination are true is a test of the loyalty component of a Trump nominee. How much criticism of the president and his policies is acceptable in a high-profile nominee? And is withdrawing the attacks enough to make things better?

If Grenell gets past the trial balloon stage, and is formally announced as the administrations NATO ambassador pick, then well have our answer. If he doesnt get picked well, then well have learned something too.

The rest is here:

Trump's rumored pick for NATO ambassador doesn't seem to agree with him about NATO - Vox

Trump Picks Hawkish Critic of Russia as NATO Ambassador, Veering From One Extreme to the Other – The Intercept

Posted on by

President Trump has reportedly tappedas his ambassador tothe North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) a hawkish critic of Russia who wants the U.S. to arm Ukraine. Its the latest sign that the administration isreacting to criticism that it is too soft on Russiabypivoting to the other extreme.

Richard Grennell is a former Bush-era U.S. spokesperson at the United Nations who also served as a foreign policy spokesperson forMitt Romneys presidential campaign. He frequently appears on Fox News and other conservative outlets saying President Obama appeased Russia.

Following Russias annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Obama resistedpolitical pressure from hawks in Congress to provide lethal arms to the Ukranian government, fearing that doing so would only cause Russia to escalate its own military involvement.

Writing in The New York Timess Room for Debate section in 2014, Grenell said that Obamas belief that the U.S. could support Ukraine but not antagonize Russia represented a nave and dangerous world view.In aFox News op-ed, he proposed military escalation: Offer advice and training to Ukraine, and sell it the lethal weapons required to contend with Russian armored personnel carriers, tanks and missiles, he wrote,adding that the U.S. should also restart missile defense shield programs in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Grennellalso counseled Obama to leave directly military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine on the table.

The Obama doctrine only persuades Putin that he need never fear the U.S. military the worlds most powerful deterrent, he wrote. Even if Obama would never start a war with Russia, he should stop swearing off military action in public. Instead, President Obama, through his inexhaustible number of speeches and statements, should rhetorically leave military action on the table.

Although his support for arming Ukraine stretches back years, Grenell was continuing to advocate for lethal aid for Ukraine as recently as Tuesday via his Twitter account, which he frequently uses to opine on world affairs:

Grenell is not the only Russia hawk to step into Trumps orbit recently.

His new national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, holds more moderate views on Islam than his bigoted predecessor Michael Flynn but also has a more adversarial view of Russia. In May, he described the Russian annexation of Crimea as an attempt to collapse the post-World War Two, certainly the post-Cold War, security, economic, and political order in Europe and replace that order with something that is more sympathetic to Russian interests. While Trump has been critical of NATO at one point in early January calling it obsolete McMaster is a strong supporter of the alliance.

Trumps UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has also taken a tough line with Russia during her first month on the job. The dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions, she said of Russian-allied forces there. She also affirmed continued support for U.S. sanctions on Russia that were enacted in response to the annexation of Crimea, saying: The United States continues to condemn and calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.

Some Russian government officials, including those who were initially openly supportive of Trump, are starting to grow uneasy with the presidents approach, reportedMoscow-based journalist Amie-Ferris Rotman for Foreign Policy.We were too early in our decision, made with absolute sympathy towards President Trumps constructive rhetoric, that he would somehow be pro-Russian,Leonid Slutsky, who is head of the Russian parliaments foreign affairs committee, said in February. But he turned out to be pro-American.

Top photo: A Ukrainian soldier stands at the front line of the ATO operation in Artemovsk, Ukraine, in 2015.

Original post:

Trump Picks Hawkish Critic of Russia as NATO Ambassador, Veering From One Extreme to the Other - The Intercept

Controversial NSA Surveillance Programs Up for Renewal at Year’s End – Government Technology

Posted on by

(TNS) -- WASHINGTON Nearly four years after National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden blew the lid off domestic spying, the vast surveillance programs cherished as the crown jewels of the U.S. intelligence establishment are about to spring back into public debate and not just because of Donald Trumps allegation that hes been the subject of wiretaps.

The legal framework for some of the broadest U.S. surveillance programs, authorized for a five-year period in 2012, will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress reauthorizes it. Already, the debate about those programs has begun, with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee focused on finding an answer to a simple question: How many Americans have emails, text messages and telephone conversations picked up in the governments electronic sweep?

Is it a few thousand? Or is it a lot higher?

We need that number, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told Dan Coats, Trumps nominee to serve as director of national intelligence, at a confirmation hearing Feb. 28. We have sought it for years and years. More and more Americans are getting swept up in these searches.

Wyden pressed Coats on whether he would nail down a number. Coats hedged.

It has been extremely hard to come up with that number for various reasons which I dont fully understand, said Coats, a former member of the Intelligence Committee now weighing his nomination. I will do my best to work to try to find out if we can get that number, but I need first to talk find out about why we cant get it.

Trumps allegation that President Barack Obama ordered his phones tapped last fall, a claim for which he has offered no evidence, has little to do with the coming debate. But it is an indication of the sensitivities surrounding surveillance practices that do not cleave easily along party lines.

While the issue is often cast as a balance of privacy vs. national security, many Republicans, especially those with libertarian streaks, are troubled by what they see as invasive practices. And many Democrats offer strong support of the intelligence community.

At a separate hearing before a House of Representatives committee, Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who earns a perfect score from the American Conservative Union, read incredulously a response he had gotten to his official query to the U.S. intelligence director in which he was told it would be difficult if not impossible to calculate the number of Americans whose communications are intercepted.

That seems like baloney to me, Jordan said. Were talking about the greatest intelligence service on the planet. Youd think they would be able to know that, right?

Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat far to Jordans political left, said, The government can, and does, collect massive amounts of information about our citizens under this authority.

At hearings, Snowdens name hardly arises. But few doubt that his revelations in 2013 helped mold the current debate. Worldwide, Snowden is seen from sharply distinct angles traitor and villain, or global celebrity for data privacy. From his exile in Moscow, where he fled after spilling the secrets, Snowden continues to cast a long shadow.

It was his disclosures that let Americans and people around the world learn of NSA programs like PRISM, Dishfire and XKeyscore, which, respectively, allowed for the monitoring of electronic data retrieved from nine large tech companies, grabbed 200 million text messages a day and saw nearly everything a targeted user did on the internet.

Leaders of allied nations like Germany and Brazil bristled when they learned from Snowdens disclosures that their officials were among dozens of leaders tapped by the NSA.

Much of the bulk collection of data by the NSA was rolled back or halted in 2015 under the USA Freedom Act.

On Capitol Hill, Snowdens name is sometimes uttered with revulsion mixed with recognition that his actions accelerated change.

What he exposed, Im glad that we learned about it. It allowed us to make reforms that were necessary, said Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. But the way that he did it was so reckless. He exposed information that put our troops at risk and hurt important relationships with our allies.

Trump called Snowden a terrible traitor in a 2013 television interview and suggested he should be executed.

Digital rights activists credit Snowden with forcing major intelligence agencies to talk more openly about surveillance.

What Snowden did was enable the debate and provide more disclosures by the intelligence community when it saw the debate move in a direction it didnt like, said Gregory T. Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a Washington research group that advocates for an open and free internet.

Civil rights activists voice concern over what they describe as gaps in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides the legal framework for the NSA to monitor non-U.S. persons without warrants.

As of 2015, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported that 94,368 foreigners or entities abroad were targets of U.S. surveillance for intelligence purposes. The NSA is presumed to vacuum up hundreds of millions of electronic communications a year from those foreign targets, including any they may have had with Americans.

The impact is actually much greater than 94,000 because each of these individuals talks to potentially hundreds of people, said Neema Singh Guliani, legislative counsel for the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

How many Americans have their communications monitored in so-called incidental collection remains a guess. In the House hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pressed Elizabeth Goitein, an expert on surveillance at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, for an estimate.

If you conservatively assume that even 1 out of 100 of every foreign targets communications was with an American that would still be millions of American communications, Goitein said.

Pressed further at another point, Goitein said: I had said millions earlier, which I think is conservative. Potentially tens of millions. I dont know. I really hesitate to speculate.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act regulations require the NSA, CIA and FBI all of which have access to the database of collected communications to minimize information about U.S. citizens or green card holders when it is incidentally swept up.

But the databases are widely available one report on how the FBI handles searches of the databases monitored use in 13 FBI field offices and agents in those offices can query the databases even when they have no suspicion of wrongdoing, said David Medine, who until July 1 was chair of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, a bipartisan watchdog that seeks to ensure government compliance with privacy and civil liberties rules.

They are just sort of entitled to poke around and see if something is going on, Medine told a Senate panel in May.

Critics of Section 702 say that sort of backdoor search allows authorities to snoop on citizens without having to show probable cause and obtain constitutionally required warrants.

You have this authority, and the government says the goal is national security and to help us prevent terrorism. The reality is that they can collect information that has no connection to terrorism, national security or weapons of mass destruction, Guliani said.

Defenders of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act surveillance said they hoped legislators reauthorized its use. They say evidence of abuse is minimal.

Throughout my time at NSA, I routinely saw analysts self-report if they ran an improper query, April Doss, a former assistant general counsel at the agency, wrote in her submitted testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on March 1.

Auditors review logs for signs of improper queries, Doss said in an interview, calling existing laws robust and effective and noting the oversight of three branches of government.

Doss and other supporters of the status quo make an unusual argument: Simply trying to satisfy legislators who want to know how many U.S. citizens turn up in the electronic sweeping would require the NSA to act intrusively, would divert analysts from hunting terrorists and would possibly even break the law by actively tracking the Americans they find, raising new privacy concerns.

It would prompt intelligence analysts to look for communications that they would not otherwise see, communications that have no intelligence value, Doss said.

For his part, Swalwell, the California legislator, said convincing the citizenry that surveillance was being done properly was vital to the health of the intelligence community.

The more transparent we are about 702, the better, he said. When Americans understand how their government is protecting them, theyre more willing, I think, to go along with whats necessary to keep us safe.

2017 McClatchy Washington Bureau Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

More here:

Controversial NSA Surveillance Programs Up for Renewal at Year's End - Government Technology

Posted in NSA

Leaked docs suggest NSA and CIA behind Equation cyberespionage group – PCWorld

Posted on by

Thank you

Your message has been sent.

There was an error emailing this page.

Purported CIA documents leaked Tuesday appear to confirm that the U.S. National Security Agency and one of CIA's own divisions were responsible for the malware tools and operations attributed to a group that security researchers have dubbed the Equation.

The Equation's cyberespionage activities were documented in February 2015 by researchers from antivirus vendor Kaspersky Lab. It is widely considered to be the most advanced cyberespionage group in the world based on the sophistication of its tools and the length of its operations, some possibly dating as far back as 1996.

From the start, the tools and techniques used by the Equation bore a striking similarity to those described in secret documents leaked in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. This relationship was further strengthened by the similarity between various code names found in the Equation malware and those in the NSA files.

The new CIA documents leakedby WikiLeaks include a 2015 discussion between members of the agency's Technical Advisory Council following Kaspersky's analysis of the Equation group.

The discussion focused mostly on what the Equation did wrong that allowed Kaspersky's researchers to establish relationships between various tools and link them to the group. The goal was for the CIA's own cyber teams to learn from those mistakes and avoid them in their own tools and operations.

The Equation's errors identified during the discussion included the use of custom cryptographic implementations instead of relying on standard libraries like OpenSSL or Microsoft's CryptoAPI, leaving identifying strings in the program database (PDB), the use of unique mutexes, and the reuse of exploits.

"The 'custom' crypto is more of NSA falling to its own internal policies/standards which came about in response to prior problems," one team member said during the discussion. "In the past, there were crypto issues where people used 0 [initialization vectors] and other miss-configurations. As a result, the NSA crypto guys blessed one library as the correct implementation and everyone was told to use that."

"The Equation Group as labeled in the report does not relate to a specific group but rather a collection of tools (mostly TAO some IOC)," another member wrote.

TAO is a reference to the NSA's Office of Tailored Access Operations, a large division that specializes in the creation of hacking tools for infiltrating foreign computer systems. Meanwhile, IOC refers to the Information Operations Center, a CIA division that, according to a leaked 2013 budget justification for intelligence agencies, has shifted focus from counterterrorism to cyberespionage in recent years.

The CIA analysis of Kaspersky's Equation report highlights how hackers can learn to better hide their attacks based on research published by security companies. This raises the question of whether security vendors and independent researchers should be so forthcoming with the methods they use to establish links between malware tools.

It is a proven fact that attackers learn from public analyses, and this is something that all researchers consider when publishing material," researchers from Kaspersky Lab said in an emailed statement. "It is a calculated risk. Of course, not all companies choose to disclose all their findings. Some companies prefer to keep some of the details for private reports, or not to create a report at all."

"We believe that, going forward, a balance will be achieved between the amount of publicly disclosed information (just enough to highlight the risks and raise awareness) and the amount of information kept private (to allow for the discovery of future attacks)," the Kaspersky researchers said.

According to them, this new information ties into the escalating cyber arms race that has been going on since 2012 and shows no signs of slowing down.

Lucian Constantin is an IDG News Service correspondent. He writes about information security, privacy, and data protection.

Read the original here:

Leaked docs suggest NSA and CIA behind Equation cyberespionage group - PCWorld

Posted in NSA

NSA Whistleblower Backs Trump Up on Wiretap Claims – Fox News

Posted on by

By Curt Mills | U.S. News

President Donald Trump is "absolutely right" to claim he was wiretapped and monitored, a former NSA official claimed Monday, adding that the administration risks falling victim to further leaks if it continues to run afoul of the intelligence community.

"I think the president is absolutely right. His phone calls, everything he did electronically, was being monitored," Bill Binney, a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency who resigned in protest from the organization in 2001, told Fox Business on Monday. Everyone's conversations are being monitored and stored, Binney said.

Binney resigned from NSA shortly after the U.S. approach to intelligence changed following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He "became a whistleblower after discovering that elements of a data-monitoring program he had helped develop -- nicknamed ThinThread -- were being used to spy on Americans," PBS reported.

On Monday he came to the defense of the president, whose allegations on social media over the weekend that outgoing President Barack Obama tapped his phones during the 2016 campaign have rankled Washington.

Link:

NSA Whistleblower Backs Trump Up on Wiretap Claims - Fox News

Posted in NSA

VIDEO: Ex-CIA & NSA Director Dismisses Trump’s Wire Accusations on LATE SHOW – Broadway World

Posted on by

On last night's LATE SHOW, General Michael Hayden, the ex-director of the CIA and NSA dismisses Trump's wiretapping accusations against Obama. Watch the appearance below!

Stephen Colbert brings his signature satire and comedy to THE LATE SHOW with STEPHEN COLBERT, where he talks with an eclectic mix of guests about what is new and relevant in the worlds of politics, entertainment, business, music, technology and more.

Featuring bandleader Jon Batiste and his band Stay Human, the show is broadcast from the historic and newly renovated Ed Sullivan Theater. Stephen Colbert took over as host, executive producer and writer of THE LATE SHOW on September 8, 2015.

A multi-talented and respected host, writer, producer, satirist and comedian, Colbert is well-known for his previous late night show, "The Colbert Report," which concluded on Friday, Dec. 18, 2014. The program received wide-spread critical acclaim and earned two Peabody Awards and 29 Emmy Award nominations, including two Emmy wins for Outstanding Variety Series (2013, 2014) and four Emmy wins for Outstanding Writing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Program (2008, 2010, 2013, 2014). Prior to that, Colbert spent eight years as a correspondent on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" as an on-air personality and writer of news satire for the Emmy and Peabody Award-winning series.

Photo credit: Richard Boeth/CBS

Read more:

VIDEO: Ex-CIA & NSA Director Dismisses Trump's Wire Accusations on LATE SHOW - Broadway World

Posted in NSA

Public Record of Cases Heard in Edgartown District Court – The Vineyard Gazette – Martha’s Vineyard News

Posted on by

The following cases were heard in Edgartown district court.

March 2

Belmiro Baptista, 65, of Pawtucket, R.I., will have Oct. 7 charge in Gosnold of misc. statutory violation (possessing undersized tautaug) dismissed if $1,000 in costs paid in six months. Charge of misc. statutory violation (possessing sea bass in closed season) dismissed upon request of commonwealth. According to state environmental police report, patrol boat allegedly found four black sea bass during closed season and 19 undersized tautaug aboard vessel during patrol of Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound.

Eudes R. Deoliveira, 55, of Edgartown, had Feb. 21 charges in Edgartown of assault and battery with dangerous weapon and assault with dangerous weapon dismissed upon request of commonwealth, alleged victim having fifth amendment issue. In separate case, arraigned on Feb. 4 charges in Vineyard Haven of negligent operation of motor vehicle, operating motor vehicle with license suspended, and marked lanes violation.

Maria Dirino, 50, of Vineyard Haven, had June 2015 charge in Oak Bluffs of leaving the scene of property damage dismissed upon success of motion to dismiss.

Jonathan A. Larkin, 31, of Aquinnah, had Feb. 21 charge in Edgartown of assault with dangerous weapon dismissed upon request of commonwealth, alleged victim having fifth amendment issue.

Vinicio J. Medeiros, 29, of Vineyard Haven, will have November 2007 charge in Edgartown of negligent operation of a motor vehicle dismissed if $300 in court costs paid forthwith. Charge of unlicensed operation of motor vehicle dismissed upon request of commonwealth and found not responsible on failure to wear seat belt.

Zilmara Moraes, 38, of Vineyard Haven, arraigned on March 1 charge in Edgartown of assault and battery on family/household member. Pretrial hearing scheduled for May 4.

Breno E. Silva, 31, of Oak Bluffs, found not guilty in bench trial on charge of drunken driving, second offense. Found guilty on charge of negligent operation of motor vehicle, sentenced to 90 days in house of correction, suspended 18 months and placed on probation for 18 months. Ordered to pay $300 in fees and $50 monthly probation services fee and remain alcohol free with screens, if successful for first six months may be without screens. Found responsible on charges of marked lanes violation and failure to stop/yield, ordered to pay $200 in fines/assessments.

March 3

Mia Church, 48, of Ingram, Tex., admitted to sufficient facts on July 3 charge in Edgartown of drunken driving, continued without finding for one year and ordered to pay $600 in fees and $65 monthly probation services fee, complete 24-day driver alcohol education fee, and lose license for 45 days. Charge of negligent operation of motor vehicle dismissed upon request of commonwealth and found not responsible on marked lanes violation, possessing open container of alcohol in motor vehicle, and motor vehicle lights violation.

Nicholas Graham, 27, of Vineyard Haven, had Oct. 8 charge in Vineyard Haven of criminal harassment dismissed upon successful motion to dismiss.

Carrie Natusch, 42, of Vineyard Haven, arraigned on Jan. 21 charges in Edgartown of negligent operation of motor vehicle, leaving scene of property damage, failure to stop/yield, no inspection/sticker, and trespassing with motor vehicle. According to police report filed in court charges stem from alleged accident at intersection of Barnes Road and Edgartown-West Tisbury Road in which defendant allegedly went through stop sign and drove about 100 feet into the woods; vehicle allegedly found later at a private property. Pretrial hearing scheduled for April 7.

Denis E. Toomey, 32, of Walpole, pleaded guilty on Nov. 26 charges in Edgartown of larceny from a building and breaking and entering a building in nighttime for a felony, sentenced to two years in house of correction, suspended two years and placed on probation for two years. Ordered to submit DNA, pay $90 victim/witness assessment fee, and pay $1,700 in restitution out of court. According to police report allegedly broke into Suka in Edgartown and stole about $1,300 worth of items.

Nicole Wiggins, 46, of Hyde Park, admitted to sufficient facts on July 9 charge in Oak Bluffs of negligent operation of a motor vehicle, continued without finding for six months and ordered to pay $300 in fees and $50 monthly probation services fee. Charge of drunken driving, second offense dismissed upon request of commonwealth and found not responsible on marked lanes violation.

March 6

James W. Hart, 21, of Vineyard Haven, admitted sufficient facts on Dec. 26 charge in Vineyard Haven of assault and battery on a police officer, continued without finding for one year, ordered to pay $50 victim/witness assessment fee and $65 monthly probation services fee, remain drug and alcohol free with screens, and attend and complete New Paths and engage in counseling as recommended until professionally discharged.

David C. Hawkins, 55, of Vineyard Haven, arraigned on March 4 charges in Vineyard Haven of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and two counts of threat to commit a crime. Pretrial hearing scheduled for April 21.

Read the original post:

Public Record of Cases Heard in Edgartown District Court - The Vineyard Gazette - Martha's Vineyard News

Filing Your Taxes Is Not Self-Incrimination, Rules Court – Forbes

Posted on by

Forbes
Filing Your Taxes Is Not Self-Incrimination, Rules Court
Forbes
So he took the Fifth. The court had an easy time with his argument, and rejected the claim. The Fifth Amendment does grant a privilege against self-incrimination. However, that doesn't mean you can just refuse to file taxes. The mere act of filing an ...

Link:

Filing Your Taxes Is Not Self-Incrimination, Rules Court - Forbes

A Parallel Universe: Navigating Discovery in Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings – JD Supra (press release)

Posted on by

As criminal law has expanded into almost every sector of the American economy, one byproduct is the rise of "parallel proceedings"lawsuits that proceed concurrently in criminal and civil court based on largely the same facts. Often times, the government is a party to both proceedings. This is most common in False Claims Act cases or in securities enforcement proceedings. But that is not always the case. Civil litigation, especially cases involving claims of fraud and deceit, may also attract the government's attention (sometimes in response to a request by one of the parties). In those cases, at least one of the parties will be confronted with the difficult task of navigating the two proceedings without doing violence to the client's interest in either.

The discovery process typically presents the most treacherous waters for the lawyers tasked with handling parallel proceedings. Criminal and civil practitioners who rarely venture over to the "other side" may forget or be unaware of the dramatic differences in a defendant's ability to request and obtain evidence when the defendant is the subject of an indictment instead of a civil complaint. This article explores some of those differences in the discovery contextthough litigants who find themselves involved in parallel proceedings will quickly find that differences in discovery are only one of the many factors that must be carefully considered as part of an overall litigation strategy.

United States v. Rand and Federal Discovery

A helpful case study of the different tools available to litigants in the civil and criminal context is the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Rand. The government began investigating Michael T. Rand in 2007 in relation to alleged mortgage fraud that occurred while he was acting as chief accounting officer at Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ("Beazer"). In 2009, the SEC brought charges against Rand in a civil, regulatory proceeding on allegations that he had conducted a multi-year fraudulent accounting scheme. Then, in 2010, the government charged Rand criminally with accounting fraud and with obstructing the investigation into Beazer's mortgage practices. Before his trials, Rand sought leave of court to issue subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) to obtain information regarding, among other things, Beazer's accounting systems. Rand's subpoena for documents to Beazer asked for "accounting entries, budgets, budget entries, and financial reports for seven categories of reserve accounts over an eight-year period (the timeframe of the alleged conspiracy)." Rand sought this information to bolster his defense of his accounting practices. The district court denied Rand's requests.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit examined Rule 17(c) and held that the rule is "not intended to provide a means of pretrial discovery." Instead, the purpose of the rule is to expedite the trial by providing time and place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials. Although requests like those contained in Rand's proposed subpoena would be considered commonplace in civil litigation, the Fourth Circuit found this request to be too broad under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, comparing it to a "fishing expedition."

Criminal vs. Civil Discovery

The court's assessment highlights the differences in discovery in criminal and civil proceedings. Rand's options for discovery were more limited than they would have been in a civil case, as illustrated by the following chart listing the discovery tools available to criminal and civil litigants:

The Civil Side Methods for Obtaining Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The Criminal Side Methods for Obtaining Discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of "any non-privileged matter relevant to any party's claim or defense."

Rule 16 permits discovery, upon the defendant's request, of the defendant's statements, criminal record, and certain documents and tangible evidence the government intends to use in its case-in-chief at trial. Once the government has complied, Rule 16 triggers reciprocal obligations on the defendant's part.

Rule 27 Depositions to perpetuate testimony before an action is filed

Rule 15 Depositions are not allowed by right. Upon a party's motion, the court may allow oral depositions "to preserve testimony for trial" if there are "exceptional circumstances" and it is "in the interest of justice."

Rule 30 Depositions by oral examination

Rule 31 Depositions by written questions

The Criminal Rules do not provide a mechanism to require the opposing party to prepare written responses to questions. Accordingly, this method is not available to force the opposing party to take positions or forecast strategy.

Rule 33 Interrogatories to parties

Rule 36 Requests for admission

Rule 34 Requests for production of documents

Rule 16 The defendant has to make a request to trigger this Rule, which then creates reciprocal obligations to produce pre-existing documents that fit into broad categories articulated in the rule.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), established that the government must turn over evidence that is exculpatory, or might exonerate the defendant. This includes evidence that might prove the defendant's innocence or reduce his or her sentence, as well as evidence that impeaches or discredits the government's case.

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), provides that the government must disclose information relating to any deals that witnesses have received in exchange for their cooperation.

The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500, requires the government to produce written statements and reports of its witnesses. This law only requires the production of Jencks material after the witness has testified, although the government frequently delivers the materials pre-trial in the interest of efficiency.

Rule 45 Subpoenas to third parties, which may command attendance at a deposition or command a party to produce or permit inspection of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things.

Rule 17 Does not provide the defendant with a broad-reaching subpoena power. The court authorizes the issuance of a subpoena only if the terms meet the high standard articulated in United States v. Nixon: (1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) that [the documents] are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3) that [the subpoenaing] party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general fishing expedition.

By contrast, the government's ability to subpoena third parties through the power of the grand jury is almost unlimited.

As the chart makes clear, a civil litigant has far more ability to obtain information from the opposing side and third parties through a wide variety of tools. While the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a "proportionality" requirement, the civil rules remain designed to help the parties fully flesh out their theories and collect the evidence necessary to support them. It is also critical to remember that civil litigation can, and routinely is, resolved short of trial by jury based on the evidence collected through the discovery process and presented to the court in support of summary judgment. There is no analogous vehicle for challenging a criminal indictment.

The exchange of information in criminal cases, by contrast, is designed to expedite the decision to seek a trial of the case, or negotiate a plea. The government's obligation to produce information obtained during the course of the investigation is fairly broad, though the timing of the disclosures can often be a source of dispute since there are few firm deadlines established by the criminal rules. However, nothing obligates the government to investigate potential defenses to a charge. As such, the decision to accept a plea offer is made based not on a thorough review of all the available evidence, but on an evaluation of the evidence the government intends to present at trial. To the extent an affirmative defense rests on facts not collected during the government's investigation, the burden falls to the defendant to use the limited criminal discovery tools in his arsenal to collect potentially exonerating evidence.

This is precisely where Mr. Rand found himself. Rand's subpoena requests to Beazer would have been routine in a civil case. But because Rand was a defendant in a criminal matter, his ability to obtain such information from Beazer was significantly, if not entirely, diminished. Rand may have utilized civil discovery tools in the SEC's case against him, but that civil suit settled prior to the resolution of the criminal matter. While Rand would have had the opportunity to serve discovery and subpoena third parties in the civil matter, whether or not he would have elected to do so raises a number of critical strategic and legal questions that all litigants in parallel proceedings must consider.

Discovery Issues in Parallel Proceedings

Access to Discovery

For a defendant in a criminal case, the expansive discovery power in a civil action might seem to be an attractive way to get additional information. However, there are downsides to attempting to use a parallel civil case to obtain discovery that would also be useful for a criminal defense. First, courts are wary of criminal defendants skirting the criminal rules by using civil discovery tools. Despite the broad latitude civil litigants generally enjoy in conducting discovery, the court may be more willing to quash or limit requests geared towards the criminal defense, particularly if the government objects.

Additionally, the litigant must also consider that the same discovery tools used to obtain information may be used against him or her. While the discovery rules (especially the civil rules) often allow for broad investigation of the opposing side's case, they simultaneously create broad exposure to respond to civil discovery requests, which can multiply costs and create self-incrimination issues. These considerations become particularly complicated when the opposing civil litigant is a government entity. Federal agencies involved in civil enforcement actions work closely with the Department of Justice, and information obtained in these civil actions can be used in a later criminal proceeding.

Along the same lines, civil litigants also must exercise caution regarding the discoverability of materials provided to the government if the parties are in a cooperative posture. Regulatory agencies provide strong incentives for companies and individuals to cooperate in civil and administrative regulations. However, statements and documents provided in these civil proceedings are likely to be shared among agencies and may form the basis for a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Fifth Amendment Implications

The Fifth Amendments protection against self-incrimination applies to individuals in both civil and criminal proceedings. However, the application of this right differs in each arena. A criminal defendants decision to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights may not be used against him or her. Because the government cannot force a defendant to make pre-trial statements or testify at trial, a fact-finder is unlikely to even hear a defendant invoke his or her right against self-incrimination.

By contrast, in a civil setting, a party has no ability to assert a blanket invocation of his or her Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, these rights must be asserted on a question-by-question basis in response to written discovery requests, deposition questions, or even examination at trial. Further, unlike in the criminal setting, the invocation can be used against the individual who makes it. If an individual invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a civil proceeding, the opposing party is entitled to an instruction to the fact-finder that it may draw an adverse inference from the invocation of Fifth Amendment rightsin other words, the fact-finder may infer that the invoking party is guilty of some wrongdoing.

Moreover, business entities have no testimonial protection under the Fifth Amendment, and cannot assert the privilege on behalf of individual employees. The Fifth Amendment does protect a witness from having to produce documents if doing so would be testimonial in nature by revealing the witness's mental processes. However, the privilege does not apply to corporate records or documents kept pursuant to law.

Stays of Litigation

Due to these complications, parties frequently seek stays of civil litigation pending the resolution of the related criminal matter. Criminal defendants might seek a stay to avoid making damaging admissions in the civil proceeding, or to avoid the application of the adverse inference. The government might wish to stay the civil litigation to prevent the defendant from using civil discovery to prepare his or her defenses, particularly since the defendants Fifth Amendment rights prevent the government from using civil discovery similarly. While requests for stays technically are not granted as a matter of course, courts generally will stay the civil litigation if one or more parties can demonstrate true risk of injury arising from the concurrent proceedings.

Conclusion

Successfully litigating through parallel proceedings is an endeavor fraught with peril. Litigants involved in concurring civil and criminal matters, like the defendant in Rand, should seek the advice of counsel skilled in navigating parallel proceedings to avoid potential discovery pitfalls.

Read more from the original source:

A Parallel Universe: Navigating Discovery in Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings - JD Supra (press release)

Will Trump Roll Out the Big Guns on Second Amendment Issues … – CALIFORNIA

Posted on by

Jewish Journal
Will Trump Roll Out the Big Guns on Second Amendment Issues ...
CALIFORNIA
Avowed Second Amendment enthusiast Donald Trump drew plenty of scorn and outrage recently when he signed a bill overturning an Obama era restriction on ...
Bill to end 'reckless' denial of Second Amendment rights in ...Arizona Daily Sun
Other viewpoints: 2nd Amendment doesn't trump 1stThe Columbus Dispatch
My first gun: How I became a Second Amendment American ...Jewish Journal
theTrumpet.com -The Ramapo News
all 7 news articles »

Read the original post:

Will Trump Roll Out the Big Guns on Second Amendment Issues ... - CALIFORNIA

The Second Amendment and ‘weapons of war’ – The Fayette Tribune

Posted on by

Put simply, writes Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war.

In Kolbe v. Hogan, the court upheld Marylands ban on assault weapons, also known as rifles that look scary to people who know nothing about guns.

As talk radio host Darryl W. Perry of Free Talk Live notes, Kings perversely broad statement would cover a ban on the possession of rocks:

And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him 1st Samuel, Chapter 17

King also displays a poor grasp of history. No judicial power is required to extend the Second Amendment to cover weapons of war, because theyre precisely what it was intended to cover in the first place.

The Second Amendment was ratified only a few years after a citizen army many of its soldiers armed, at least at first, with weapons brought from home defeated the most fearsome professional military machine in the history of the world, the army of a global empire.

The express purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the continued maintenance of an armed populace. In fact, the Second Militia Act of 1792 legally required every adult able-bodied white American male to own and maintain weapons of war (a musket or rifle, bayonet, powder and bullets) just in case the militia had to be called out.

Even in the 1939 case usually cited to justify victim disarmament (gun control) laws, U.S. v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the reason Jack Miller/s short-barreled shotgun could be banned was that it WASNT a weapon of war: [I]t is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Yes, you read that right: The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies ONLY to weapons of war. I think thats too narrow myself, but at least it comes at the matter from the correct historical perspective.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is best understood in terms of a quote falsely attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese navy at the beginning of World War II: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Shame on King and the 4th Circuit for failing to uphold the plain meaning of shall not be infringed.

(Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, thegarrisoncenter.org. He lives and works in north central Florida. Follow him on Twitter @thomaslknapp.)

Go here to see the original:

The Second Amendment and 'weapons of war' - The Fayette Tribune

Advocates say First Amendment can withstand Trump attacks – New Haven Register

Posted on by

Whenever Donald Trump fumes about fake news or labels the press the enemy of the people, First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. hears echoes of other presidents but a breadth and tone that are entirely new.

Mr. Trump may not know it, but it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, Nothing now can believed, said Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

But whats unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. Weve had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press Richard Nixon comes to mind. ... But I cant think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it.

Journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week, which draws attention to the medias role in advocating for government transparency, at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press.

Advertisement

First Amendment advocates call the Trump administration the most hostile to the press and free expression in memory. In words and actions, they say, Trump and his administration have threatened democratic principles and the general spirit of a free society: The demonizing of the media and emphatic repetition of falsehoods. Fanciful scenarios of voter fraud and scorn for dissent. The refusal to show Trumps tax returns and the removal of information from government websites.

And in that battle with the Trump administration, the media do not have unqualified public support.

According to a recent Pew survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored fair and open elections while more than 80 percent value the system of government checks and balances. But around two-thirds called it vital for the media to have the right to criticize government leaders; only half of Republicans were in support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Americans by a margin of 53-37 trust the media over Trump to tell the truth about important issues; among Republicans, 78 percent favored Trump.

Were clearly in a particularly polarizing moment, although this is something weve been building to for a very long time, says Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, a leading news and commentary source for journalism.

I think one of the mistakes the press made is we became perceived as part of the establishment. And I think one of the silver linings of the moment were in is that we have a renewed sense of what our mission is and where we stand in the pecking order, and that is on the outside, where we belong.

Hudson, ombudsman of the Newseums First Amendment Center, says its hard to guess whether Trump is serious or bloviating when he disparages free expression. He noted Trumps comments in November saying that flag burners should be jailed and wondered if the president knew such behavior was deemed protected by the Constitution (in a 1989 Supreme Court ruling supported by a justice Trump says he admires, the late Antonin Scalia).

Hudson also worries about a range of possible trends, notably the withholding of information and a general culture of secrecy that could close a lot of doors. But he did have praise for Trumps pick to replace Scalia on the court, Neil Gorsuch, saying that he has showed sensitivity to First Amendment issues. And free speech advocates say the press, at least on legal issues, is well positioned to withstand Trump.

We have a really robust First Amendment and have a lot of protections in place, says Kelly McBride, vice president of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism education center based in St. Petersburg, Florida. That doesnt mean that attempts wont be made. But when you compare our country to what journalists face around the world, I still think the U.S. is one of the safest places for a journalist to criticize the government.

The First Amendment, which states in part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, is far broader and more uniquely American than when ratified in 1791.

At the time, free expression was based on the legal writings of Britains Sir William Blackstone. The First Amendment protected against prior restraint, but not against lawsuits once something was spoken or published. Truth was not a defense against libel and the burden of proof was on the defendant, not the plaintiff. And the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, but not to individual states, which could legislate as they pleased.

The most important breakthrough of recent times, and the foundation for many protections now, came with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case of 1964.

The Times had printed an advertisement in 1960 by supporters of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that noted King had been arrested numerous times and condemned Southern violators of the Constitution. The public safety commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L. B. Sullivan sued for libel. He was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that allegations against the police also defamed him. After a state court awarded Sullivan $500,000, the Times appealed to the Supreme Court.

Some information in the ad was indeed wrong, such as the number of times King was arrested, but the Supreme Court decided unanimously for the Times. In words still widely quoted, Justice William Brennan wrote that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. He added that a libel plaintiff must prove that the statement was made ... with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

It was breathtakingly new, First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Brennans ruling. It was an extraordinary step the court was taking.

But freedom of speech has long been championed more in theory than in reality. Abraham Lincolns administration shut down hundreds of newspapers during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson championed the peoples indisputable right to criticize their own public officials, but also signed legislation during World War I making it a crime to utter, print, write, or publish anything disloyal or profane about the federal government. During the administration of President Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Wilson-era Espionage Act was used to obtain emails and phone records of reporters and threaten James Risen of The New York Times with jail.

Predicting what Trump might do is as difficult as following his views on many issues. He often changes his mind, and contradicts himself.

During the campaign last year, he spoke of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. But shortly after the election, he seemed to reverse himself. He has said he is a tremendous believer of the freedom of the press, but has worried that Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.

Trumps disparagement of the media has been contradicted by high officials in his administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said recently that he did not have any issues with the press. Vice President Mike Pence was an Indiana congressman when he helped sponsor legislation (which never passed) in 2005 that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by federal courts. In early March, he spoke at a prominent gathering of Washington journalists, the Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner.

Be assured that while we will have our differences and I promise the members of the Fourth Estate that you will almost always know when we have them President Trump and I support the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment, he said, while adding that too often stories make page one and drive news with just too little respect for the people who are affected or involved.

EDITORS NOTE One of a package of stories marking Sunshine Week, an annual celebration of access to public information.

Read more here:

Advocates say First Amendment can withstand Trump attacks - New Haven Register

Letter: First Amendment was first for a reason – Amarillo.com

Posted on by

Regarding the letter to the editor in Amarillo Globe-News (Letter: AGN needs to serve its conservative readers, Feb. 23, amarillo.com), I am astonished that a conservative (as the letter writer appears to be) would assault the First Amendment rights of the press or anyone else.

Once elected to public office, you are fair game for criticism.

Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush were caricatured as big-eared monkeys or elfin creatures, and most public figures have drawn criticism in print and editorial cartoons.

I hope AGN will continue to furnish their readers with timely and entertaining news and commentary, including the brilliant observations of (syndicated editorial) cartoonist Jeff Stahler and others.

The First Amendment was first for a reason.

When an individual in this society can tell someone else what to think, and tell the press what to print, we are in trouble.

Steve Close

Amarillo

Original post:

Letter: First Amendment was first for a reason - Amarillo.com

Amazon releases Echo data in murder case, dropping First Amendment argument – PBS NewsHour

Posted on by

The Amazon Echo, a voice-controlled virtual assistant, is seen at its product launch for Britain and Germany in London, in 2016. Photo by Peter Hobson/Reuters

After several months of pushback, Amazon has agreed to release user data from an Amazon Echo device involved in a high-profile Arkansas murder trial.

The device, a popular, hands-free artificial intelligence assistant named Alexa that responds to human directives, contains audio recordings that prosecutors say could could provide information in the murder of Victor Collins, 47, who was found dead in his hot tub on Nov. 22, 2015, in Bentonville, Arkansas.

James Bates, 31, was charged with first-degree murder and tampering with evidence in the case.

Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Nathan Smith wrote in an email that prosecutors were pleased with Amazons decision.

I am pleased that we will have access to the data from the Defendants Echo device since the Defendant consented to its release, Smith said. As with any case, our obligation is to investigate all of the available evidence, whether the evidence proves useful or not.

Smith said he could not provide details on the recordings or if they would be used in court because the case is still under investigation.

Amazon had argued against the datas release in February, saying the Echo recordings were protected under the First Amendment. According to a court order, Bates consented to the disclosure, which then prompted Amazon to agree to the release of the data March 3.

Amazon declined to comment for this story, but did provide the official court order to the NewsHour, acknowledging the defendants consent.

Kathleen Zellner, Bates legal counsel, said in a statement to the NewsHour: Because Mr. Bates is innocent of all charges in this matter, he has agreed to the release of any recordings on his Amazon Echo device to the prosecution.

This case depicts yet another legal battle over the use of technology-based evidence and privacy laws. Other similar cases include Apples toe-to-toe with the FBI over the hack of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farooks iPhone.

Carrie Leonetti, an associate law professor at the University of Oregon, said the Bates case highlights an important ongoing open issue in the field of constitutional criminal procedure.

In my mind, as well as the minds of a lot of other privacy experts, the Echo has been a ticking constitutional time bomb, along with a lot of other features of smart homes and the internet of things, Leonetti, who teaches criminal and constitutional law, said.

The same issue has arisen with the NSAs pattern analysis of Americans telephony metadata, cell-site location tracking of suspects via subpoenas to the phone company, and GPS cell-phone tracking, she added.

A hearing set for today on the Amazon Echo case is now canceled following the defendants consent.

READ MORE: How can I stop my TV from spying on me?

Read this article:

Amazon releases Echo data in murder case, dropping First Amendment argument - PBS NewsHour

Letter: First Amendment, safety at issue with social media – Fredericksburg.com

Posted on by

First Amendment, safety at issue with social media

In an article [Court may strike law barring sex offenders from social media, Feb. 27], the idea of rights given to sex offenders in the online world was discussed. The question Id like to raise is this: How far does freedom of speech stretch, and what rights do the courts have in taking this possible expression of free speech away?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, the First Amendment reads.

Elsewhere in the legislative processes, though, we have concluded that one willing to act in deviant and criminal ways while in society is one willing to lose the rights granted to them by society. With the Constitution coming from an age where technology was minuscule, the judicial branch must use its discretion, through generally democratic processes, in deciding on topics outside of its realm.

My hope is that officials involved in deciding will hold true to constitutional values, while also keeping in mind the safety of the general public.

See the article here:

Letter: First Amendment, safety at issue with social media - Fredericksburg.com

Montgomery County Settles First Amendment Lawsuit with … – BethesdaMagazine.com

Posted on by

Mannie Garcia sued the county after he was arrested while photographing police officers making an arrest in 2011

Published: 2017.03.08 03:30

Montgomery County announced Wednesday it has reached a settlement with photographer Mannie Garcia in a long-running First Amendment lawsuit in which Garcia claimed his civil rights were violated when county police officers detained him while he was taking photos of what he believed to be excessive force applied during an arrest.

The county agreed to pay Garcia $45,000 to settle the case, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt in 2012. However, the federal court still must consider how much the county should pay Garcias attorneys fees and costs in the case, according to the settlement agreement.

The parties believe it is in their best interests, and those of the citizens of Montgomery County, to bring finality to the case to achieve certainty as to its resolution, a joint statement from Garcia and the county said.

Garcia, 63, is an award-winning photographer with more than 30 years of experience who is based in Washington, D.C. and is known for taking the photo of Barack Obama that artist Shepard Fairey later used to create the Hope poster that became an iconic image of the 2008 presidential campaign. Garcia filed the lawsuit after he was arrested in Wheaton on June 16, 2011.

On that day, according to the complaint, Garcia was leaving a restaurant with his wife and a friend when he saw county police officers arresting two young Hispanic men near the corner of Hickerson Drive and Georgia Avenue. Garcia stopped because he was concerned the officers were using too much force.

He began recording the ongoing arrest and when an officer approached him, Garcia identified himself as a member of the press. Despite having done so, according to the complaint, the officer tried to place Garcia under arrest and then placed him in a chokehold and reportedly dragged him across the street to a police cruiser. While he was standing next to the cruiser, an officer swept Garcias legs out from under him, causing the photographer to hit his head against the car before he was placed inside and taken to jail, according to the complaint.

Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct, but was later found not guilty in December 2011 by a Montgomery County District Court judge.

The settlement in the federal case eliminates the need for a trial, which was scheduled to take place this month.

The county had denied Garcias allegations in a response to the complaint. However, the countys police department updated its policies after the Garcia incident to specifically note that the public has a right to record and photograph police officers.

"I think this case helps clarify the law," Garcia's attorney Robert Corn-Revere, said Wednesday. "It makes clear the First Amendment does protect both photojournalists and normal citizens when they document the actions of police in public places."

He added, "Ultimately the county will pay our attorney fees, which underscores the lesson that violating First Amendment rights is not free."

He said the court will determine the amount the county must pay, but he expects it to exceed six figures.

Garcias case also affected national policy. In 2013, the Department of Justice urged the federal court not to dismiss his case after Montgomery County filed a motion to do so.

At the time, the department wrote to the court, The United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights . Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges.

Since Garcias case was filed, video recordings of police made by people using cell phones and other devices have become commonplace. Some videos showing what appears to be police officers using excessive forcein a few cases resulting in fatal shootingshave sparked a national conversation about police brutality and civil rights.

Garcia told the National Press Photographers Associationabout the settlement: Im extremely relieved that its come to fruition after five and a half years. I think this lawsuit has given attention to the fact that police departments need to pay attention in regards to individuals rights.

Incident happened Monday in Howard County, police said

Plus: Electronics and appliance retailer to close in Rockville; Bethesda financial firm celebrates 30th anniversary

Go here to see the original:

Montgomery County Settles First Amendment Lawsuit with ... - BethesdaMagazine.com

What our First Amendment freedoms are for – VVdailypress.com – VVdailypress.com

Posted on by

By Richard ReebContributed Content

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Surely, the freedom guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are a timely topic given the lengths to which boorish behavior is being taken by some, while claiming legal protection. Could angry and unreasoning mobs really be what the Founders had in mind when they penned those immortal words?

The key word in the First Amendment is peaceably. As the Constitution establishes a government for the United States of America, it places all discussion within that framework. That is, public oral, written or electronic communications must serve the purposes and follow the procedures laid down by our supreme law and cannot justifiably be in conflict with them.

Put another way, public discussion is justified so long as it is about how, not whether, to achieve our goals as a nation. Speech or publication that aims to undermine or overthrow our form of government is rightly denominated as unconstitutional and certainly seditious.

Our ancestors revolted against a despotic government, engaging in illegal and violent means, including prolonged warfare, to end British imperial authority in the 13 American colonies. But the sequel was the establishment of republican governments in all of them and, ultimately an effective federal government.

The American Revolution was legitimate only to the extent it brought self-government to the North American continent, but not to institutionalize revolution. To forestall that possibility, frequent elections of the peoples representatives were adopted to secure the consent of the governed.

The most severe test of our constitutional framework came in 1860 when seven, ultimately 11, Southern states attempted to secede from the federal union. When rebel forces fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861, the situation changed from one of extreme agitation to full-scale war. Fortunately, that rebellion was crushed. But unless the nation learns the appropriate lessons from the Civil War, we will not have benefited.

Before the conflict began, mostly Southern politicians were not only declaring a right to block the enforcement of federal law and even the Constitution, but asserting that the Declaration of Independence was based on a self-evident lie. In their defense of chattel slavery, they struck at the central idea of the American Republic that held that all human beings are equally endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They even said that such a proposition was unscientific, arguing that the emerging idea of the survival of the fittest applied not just to species but to the races of mankind as well.

Slaverys apologists argued that Caucasians had established their superiority and consequent right to rule over inferior races. Accordingly, the Confederate Constitution distinguished itself from the U.S. Constitution by inserting the word slave without apology and avoided the latters more ambiguous word person.

A comprehensive account of our nations greatest crisis is possible only if we recall that open rebellion was preceded by seditious and even heretical speech. If one denies, as Confederates did, the truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, it is just a matter of time and opportunity before our form of government is at risk.

It is striking that the angry left in America, while professing dedication to equality, denies that our ancestors or their descendants shared that dedication. The claim is that the very existence of slavery proved their hypocrisy, if not their evil intentions for persons of African descent.

The steady progress of justice that ended both slavery and compulsory racial segregation gives the lie to that claim. Of course, if the left is wrong in its diagnosis, America deserves not only the benefit of the doubt but our peoples full dedication. Mimicking their Confederate mentors, todays progressive left is arguing that America is based on a lie. Because its minions believe that lie, they feel free to reject any and all authority that stands in their way.

It never made sense to hold that those who speak or write about our Constitution with contempt are entitled to the full protection secured by the First Amendment. The germ of rebellion against it lies with the heresy that acts of the freely chosen representatives of the people can be defied at will.

We should certainly hear the arguments of the Republics critics if we are to know what they are about, but we are not obliged to be shouted down, driven from our public (and even private) places or put in fear of our lives. The First Amendment, properly understood, absolutely favors peaceable speech. The alternative is mob rule.

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow Community College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of "Taking Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause" (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net

Read more:

What our First Amendment freedoms are for - VVdailypress.com - VVdailypress.com