Mark O’Connell’s Journey Among the Immortalists – The Ringer (blog)

Few people want to die. Nevertheless, like taxes and The Big Bang Theory reruns, death is an inevitability of the modern human condition. Its the status quo. And tech-sector eccentrics adore little more than disrupting the status quo, which is why Slate books columnist Mark OConnell zagged from a dingy warehouse full of surly biohackers in Pittsburgh to various Bay Area dive bars to a tour bus shaped like a coffin, surveying Americas subcultures devoted to living forever. The result is To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death, a travelogue through the well-funded fringe communities seeking to live forever.

OConnells book is skeptical but not cynical, and it functions as a witty overview of transhumanism, a movement defined by the desire to use technology to enhance and eventually transcend the mortal body, as well as a meditation on how people deal with death. Last summer, I attended an immortality conference, and my experience there made To Be a Machine mandatory reading.

Many of the same people I saw at the conference showed up as subjects of OConnells book, including excessively bearded scientist Aubrey de Grey, who has proclaimed that the first person who will live to be 1,000 years old is alive today. Theres also hardbody transhumanist Max More, who sells the chance to live forever as the CEO of the Arizona-based cryonics company Alcor, which charges people to freeze their bodies and brains, with the assumption that science will figure out a way to revive them later.

I called up OConnell, who lives in Dublin, to learn more about what happened on his raucous reporting journey for To Be a Machine. This interview has been edited and condensed.

One of the reasons I loved your book is that it uses philosophy, literature, and mythology to illustrate the ideas that transhumanists and life extensionists have. Even though they can seem like new-fangled science-fiction, theyre really manifestations of the old human desire to live forever. I know you have a background in writing about literature, so Im curious what sparked your interest to go on this journey of writing about transhumanism and life-extension movements, specifically?

I was intrigued by this stuff for a really long time before it occurred to me that I might be able to write a book about it. I used to work for a magazine in Ireland, years ago, after I left college. I stumbled across transhumanism on some website and I wrote a short piece about it. I went back and read it while I was writing the book, and its a frivolous, crappy pieceyou know the pieces you wrote years ago and youre kind of ashamed ofbut it never went away, I was always thinking about the topic.

I dont want to say Im preoccupied with death, but, like everyone else, I think about it a lot. I think about how weird it is that were alive and dying, and we all know this is happening to us, and we dont ignore it, but we sublimate it in various ways. I like literature that approaches that. Not only does transhumanism come from the same place as religion, but a lot of art comes from the same place as well. Its this sense that this is unacceptable; its a bullshit situation that we have to die.

I think whats weird and interesting and crazy about transhumanism is that, while I dont want to characterize it as very American, it has this American, can-do, capitalist attitude, where you roll up your sleeves and you attack the problem and throw money at it and think, We can do this thing. [The book] rolled together all these things I was fascinated with anyways, like salesmanship. Theres a lot of really great, eccentric salesmen in the movement. Ive always been drawn to people who are great at selling stuff. And I think the salesmanship aesthetic is very American, and Im interested in that aspect of American culture. It was a way to write about America that wasnt just European guy goes to America and just walks around in wide-eyed bafflement at American culture, but a way that was more oblique and specific than that.

I attended an immortality conference last year, and I found it upsetting how much of the immortality movement that I saw on that weekend was focused around buying products and services. I saw people who seemed like true believers, but at the same time they were also selling stuff. It made me concerned that it was just a big grift. I was wondering, since you met with a lot of the same people, like [transhumanist presidential candidate] Zoltan Istvan and Max More, what you think of their motivations. Do you think most of them are true believers?

There were moments where I felt it was just a sales pitch, a grift. But I think the true salesman is someone who is not a grifter. They believe absolutely in what theyre selling. I dont think, on any level, for any of those people, its just snake oil. I think it goes much deeper than that, and in a very personal way theyre obsessed with these technologies and possibilities. In a way they are unable to see the extent to which it looks like a bunch of baloney to most people. But it is fascinating how smoothly this stuff segues into money-making.

Peter Thiel is not a huge figure in my book. I never met with him, and hes mostly lurking in the background throughout the book, but in almost all of the major technologies that I looked into, his money was there, or thereabouts. I think he sees a way to make massive amounts of money with all of these technologies. Whether hes right or not, I have no idea. Its definitely that, but its also a true belief that this is a way to address the problems of the human condition. And I think thats the truth for most of these people. Ive never met anyone who was at once such an amazing salesman and someone who clearly believes absolutely in everything hes selling as Aubrey de Grey. So, yeah, I think the two things arent mutually exclusive.

Aubrey de Grey ended up moving from London to Silicon Valley because it was a better culture fit for his life-extension project. A lot of time in the book is spent in Silicon Valley, and it seems like a hub for transhumanism and the life-extension movement. I think that follows from the overall Silicon Valley culture of techno-utopianism. Did your feelings about Silicon Valleys culture change over the course of this book? Did you become more of a believer or more of a skeptic as you were researching?

Im not sure Id be comfortable saying it went in either direction completely. I went into it definitely very skeptical. But I also really did not want to go in with a skeptical attitude and come out having my skepticism confirmed. I wanted to emerge slightly different from the experience of reporting and writing the book than I went in. I dont know if that actually happened. Id love to be converted to radical techno-optimism, but it was never going to happen. Im not wired that way, to use a slightly transhumanist-sounding term. But I wanted to at least be open to the possibility. While my attitude never really changed, I became more open to people who have those attitudes. I could see what it meant to them, whereas before I would have just seen a bunch of rubes or grifters or wide-eyed, nave optimists. In every case I saw something much more complex than that, much more human and sophisticated and messy.

I both loved and was afraid of your discussion of artificial intelligence, where you go over how some of the figures in the book believe that AI is a potential key to immortality, since it could possibly allow people to upload their consciousness. But then you talk to other people who believe that AI could destroy humanity, because the artificial intelligence would end up killing humans as part of its programming imperative. And those are such different, extreme conclusions of what AI can do.

You get people who believe both at the same time. Which is not completely irrational. But you get people who think that AI could or very likely will destroy us all. Most of them believe if that doesnt happen, well be setwell be uploaded to the cloud and be powerful and intelligent and itll be great. We just have to forestall the annihilation issue.

Thats a really strong example of where I would be speaking to people who were incredibly rational, and in most cases were so far ahead of my intelligence that I could barely keep up, but at the same time I was thinking, This is crazy, and these people are nuts. As a journalist, its kind of uncomfortable to be the dumbest person in the room, but there were so many situations when I was writing that book where I felt like a bit of a dud. I probably shouldve done a crash course in basic coding or formal logic before I embarked on the book. Didnt happen.

In the chapter The Wanderlodge of Eternal Life you describe riding around in a coffin-shaped tour bus with Zoltan Istvan, who is this transhumanist figurehead. You also describe Roen Horn, Zoltans sidekick, who is saving himself for a sex bot. He doesnt eat or drink that much, and I was honestly not sure if he was going to be OK based on your depiction of him. Im wondering if you kept in touch.

Were friends on Facebook, and Ive talked to him since. That chapter was excerpted on The New York Times Magazine [February 9], so I know he read that. Youre always wary of how people will react to their depictions, and people might read about Roen in the book and in the excerpt and think, Wow, this guy is off the charts completely. So I wondered if he was going to see a distorted version of himself in that depiction. You try not to do that, but its impossible not to reflect people in different ways than they see themselves. But he was fine with it! He thought it was good promotion for his eternal life racket. Hes still doing what he was doing when I hung out with him. Hes still doing the Eternal Life Fan Club and hes living with his parents.

He subsequently, and this shouldnt have surprised me at all, but he became a really vocal Trump supporter at a certain point after the election, after the coffin-bus episode. Hes a very eccentric guy who knows what his motivations were, but at some point he started to see Trump as the vehicle who will deliver eternal life. I think hes still there; Im not sure. He seems to have adopted his philosophy to the current political climate.

Maybe hes taking his cues from Peter Thiel.

Who knows, if youre susceptible to the sales pitch of eternal life, you might certainly be open to the pitch of making America great again.

Whats your relationship like with the other people you wrote about in the book? Was Zoltan happy with his depiction in the New York Times Magazine excerpt?

Yes, Zoltan was super happy; he was delighted. Hes obviously a guy who likes to promote himself in whatever way he can. You try to represent someone as accurately as you can, and there are certain comic elements to Zoltan as a person that you cant ignore. There was always the possibility that hed be uncomfortable with it, but he was thrilled. So thats good. Im not sure what his next move is, I think hes doing quite well [from the] self-promotion that hes getting from the tour, so hell continue to capitalize on that. There may be more political gambits.

As far as the other people I wrote about, I havent really been in touch with them since stopping reporting beyond checking up on things here and there. I dont really do that. Its not like I spent all that much time with them. I wasnt living with any particular person for a long period of time. Id hope that theyre not going to be disgusted about it, or sue me or my publishers, but you never know. People have different reactions to things.

I want to talk about the grinder community [a group of people who want to augment their bodies with technology to live extended or infinite lives as cyborgs]. When you went to Pittsburgh to meet biohackers, I thought it was interesting that the grinder subculture seems a lot grittier and DIY-focused and much less into the idea of courting corporate interests and Peter Thiel than, say, the artificial intelligence research community. Do you have any theories on why the grinders are less interested in going corporate, why theyre rougher around the edges?

Grinders are inherently quite extreme people. Theyre dedicated, and they were much different from the other transhumanists Id met. Most of the people I spent time with were very scientific people, and they had much more in common with any other kind of scientist than with the grinders. Theyre an anomaly within transhumanism. They dont have that much connection to the overall movement; theyre not really that big a part of the community. They do call themselves transhumanists, but theyre sort of punk. What theyre doing is literally and physically so extreme. They get a kick out of that in the same way extreme body-piercing people would. So theres a visceral element to it thats absent from transhumanism more generally. The DIY element attracts a particular kind of person, and the personalities were completely different. I guess most transhumanists are fascinated by the idea of grinders and becoming cyborgs but they dont want to do the disgusting stuff, where you put a giant whatever under your skin. I regretted not getting to see implants being done. That wouldve been a thing I missed out on in the book, but Im kind of glad I didnt as well. Im sort of squeamish.

I was going to ask, what would it take for you to get technology implanted in your body?

I did think about it. At a certain point I thought it might be a good thing for the book, if I had that kind of extreme, edgy experience. But I dont think I cared about the book that much, to be honest.

I dont think you needed to get cut open for it. Ive seen photographs of [book subject Tim Cannons body-monitoring] implant and they still haunt my dreams.

It was enough for me, in terms of extreme experiences, to see video of Tim getting the implant done. I mean, people have done it. In a way its an obvious thing for a writer to do, and I think a guy who wrote for Vice did that, and a German magazine. So I didnt go down that road, nor would I have, probably. I wouldve come up with some medical excuse.

On the other end of the spectrum of people you interviewed, you went to a religious service for a group called Terasem. They dont do anything to their bodies, but they believe in the spiritual side of transhumanism. Im not sure where the meeting was happening. Was it in a church? How parallel was it to a traditional mosque or church or temple experience?

It was in a room in a veterans hall in Piedmont, California, which is where a transhumanist conference I was at was happening. Id been at the thing all day, and although this part comes late in the book, it was the first bit of reporting I did. So, it was my first experience with actual transhumanism. Itd been a really long day, and the conference was mostly quite boring, as conferences tend to be, and it was 9 oclock and I was thinking about getting out of there when the organizer told me that the Terasem thing was happening. We were in this makeshift room, and it was nothing like an actual religious meeting Ive ever been to, but my experience with religion is exclusively Catholicism and the Church of Ireland, where its grandiose. I imagine it might have something in common with Protestant church meetings, maybe Quakerism, in an odd way. It was one of the weirdest experiences I had writing the book. And it was the first thing that I did.

Did anyone else you talked to while reporting ever bring Terasem up? Did it seem like something most transhumanists even knew about? I went to its website and it hadnt been updated recently. The only updates from 2016 were posts that say Hacked By GeNErAL.

That was one of the things I noticed early on, that transhumanists are a group that is so deeply embedded in the culture of technology and futurism, but their websites are universally shitty and bad. The web design looks like it was made in the late 1990s and left to fester. It is surprisingly low-tech. But yeah, its very niche, even within the overall niche of transhumanism its a tiny niche. The conference [about religion and transhumanism] I went to was very badly attended, because while the overlap between transhumanism and religion does exist, within the movement its taboo. They in no way want to be connected to religion, they dont want to be seen as a cult at all, so things like Terasem are sort of noncanonical, if you know what I mean.

At the same time, Terasem comes from the writings and philosophies of [biotechnology CEO and Sirius XM founder] Martine Rothblatt, who is a significant figure in transhumanism. Shes a very wealthy woman who funds a lot of transhumanist endeavors, so its not completely obscure. People are curious about it, but its so obviously out there, even within the context of transhumanism. I could never get a grip on what it was, and I think my complete bafflement is obvious in the book. I had no idea what was happening in that meeting, and I dont think anyone else does either. I dont even think the guy who was holding the meeting knew what was happening. And its so full of obvious nonsense language, with no reference to anything in the world, that it was almost like a parody of religion in a way that was completely sincere.

Im curious how involved Martine is now in Terasem. Did you try to talk to her?

I reached out a couple times but never heard anything back. There was a big profile in New York magazine around the same time I started writing, and it was amazing. But I didnt get to meet her, and its a shame, but at the same time she didnt quite fit into any of the major things I was hoping to look at in the book. There were a couple people I tried to talk to who just werent into it, like Peter Thiel. You can imagine the channels you have to go [through] to get to him. I didnt hear back from him at all. [Ray] Kurzweil wasnt into talking either. Fair enough! I was always more interested in talking to the less-prominent people anyways.

I was also wondering if you had any luck talking to anyone who worked for Googles life-extension wing, Calico. Ive tried many times to get them to talk to me and have never had success.

Nor did I, so its not just you. It seems like a closed shop. They have no need to talk to the press. I guess they will at some point, when they have something to sell, but thats probably very far off. There was some writing around the margins, because Calico is the most interesting thing happening in that area. It sucks not to be able to write about that in a direct way. But I wouldve been getting their media pitch anyways, and thats not interesting.

Id always rather talk to regular employees instead of the press people. Its the only way to get information.

I guess I couldve gotten a car and driven up there and broken the door down. Maybe a better journalist would go do that, but I never got to that.

I think that would have been a really quick way to get arrested.

But it might have been interesting for the book!

Originally posted here:

Mark O'Connell's Journey Among the Immortalists - The Ringer (blog)

Why Elon Musk’s transhumanism claims may not be that far-fetched – Wired.co.uk

Kirill_Savenko/iStock

We must all become cyborgs if we are to survive the inevitable robot uprising. That's the message from Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, the entrepreneur who wants to send the human race to Mars. At the World Government Summit in Dubai, Musk argued that to avoid becoming redundant in the face of artificial intelligence we must merge with machines to enhance our own intellect. The merging of humans and machines is happening now

"Over time I think we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence," Musk said at a Tesla launch in Dubai, according to a report in CNBC. "It's mostly about the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself, particularly output."

Transhumanism, the enhancement of humanitys capabilities through science and technology, is already a living reality for many people, to varying degrees. Documentary-maker Rob Spence replaced one of his own eyes with a video camera in 2008; amputees are using prosthetics connected to their own nerves and controlled using electrical signals from the brain; implants are helping tetraplegics regain independence through the BrainGate project. At the lo-fi end of the spectrum, aspiring cyborgs have been implanting magnets under their skin for years. In the February issue of WIRED, former director of the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arati Prabhakar, wrote: From my perspective, which embraces a wide swathe of research disciplines, it seems clear that we humans are on a path to a more symbiotic union with our machines.

But the theory isn't new. In March 2013, Zoltan Istvan published a novel called The Transhumanist Wager. The book asks a simple question: how far would you go to fight an anti-science world in order to live indefinitely through transhumanism? Protagonist Jethro Knights would start a world war - and does so in the book. It is seen, by some, as a political manifesto and 18 months after publishing it, Istvan announced he was running for the US presidency.

"Transhumanism will lead humanity forward to understand what seems like a simple truth: that the spectre of ageing and death are unwanted, and we should strive to control and eliminate them," Istvan said last year. "Today, the idea of conquering death with science is still seen as strange. So is the idea of merging with machines - one of transhumanists' most important long-term goals. But once bionic eyes are better than human eyes - something that will likely happen within the next decade or so - the elective upgrades will start. So will using robots for household chores and getting chip implants (I have one in my hand). So will CRISPR genetic editing create a new age of curing of disease and enhancing our physical form."

These separate, yet parallel, views suggest Musks claims are not particularly far-fetched. For many people, phones, tablets and laptops are near to hand through most of the day - the Tesla boss simply believes we will need to integrate that processing power, rather than keep it exterior. The resulting potential of this would be extraordinary. At the Dubai Summit, Musk compared our current communication capability (typing) of 10 bits per second, to that of a computers, at a trillion bits per second.

"Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence and maybe solves the control problem and the usefulness problem."

Justin Sullivan/Getty

According to the CNBC report, Musk went on to call the future of AI, at a time when it eventually outsmarts humanity, as dangerous. The founder is part of the Future of Life Institute, a group of academics, activists, scientists and technologists that have tasked themselves with safeguarding life and developing optimistic visions of the future. In 2015 the group, which includes Stephen Hawking and Morgan Freeman, warned that a global robotic arms race would be "virtually inevitable" unless a ban were to be imposed on autonomous weapons. Meet Earth's Guardians, the real-world X-men and women saving us from existential threats

Musks seemingly pessimistic outlook is not at odds with the optimism of his own work, but a reasoned prediction of what could come to be if human oversight is not at the heart of artificial intelligence progress. His latest statement seems to imply that to keep on top of that role, we will need to become the machine. He is not alone in his concerns, either. At WIRED2016, pioneer in deep learning neural networks Jrgen Schmidhuber warned that robots will eventually colonise our galaxy

Despite being at the launch of his own semi-autonomous car brand, Musks statements were designed to encourage society to ensure tech like his does not put everyone out of a job, predicting that 12-15 per cent of the global workforce will be unemployed 20 years from now as a result of AI. Autonomous cars will be spearheading that change. It was a kind of, sorry, not sorry, statement from the billionaire.

There are many people whose jobs are to drive. In fact, I think it might be the single largest employer of people...driving in various forms. So we need to figure out new roles for what do those people do, but it will be very disruptive and very quick."

Originally posted here:

Why Elon Musk's transhumanism claims may not be that far-fetched - Wired.co.uk

NASA’s Hubble Telescope Observes a Comet 100,000-Times … – The Daily Galaxy (blog)

A team of astronomers in Garching, Germany, discovered a comet-like object in a distant galaxy 170 light-years from Earth that is similar in composition to the famed Halleys comet however, this one is about 100,000 times bigger. New Hubble Space Telescope findings are evidence for a belt of comet-like bodies orbiting the white dwarf, similar to our solar systems Kuiper Belt.

The international team of astronomers observed the white dwarf WD 1425+540 in the constellation Botes (the Herdsman) . While studying the white dwarfs atmosphere using both the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and the W. M. Keck Observatory the team found evidence that an object rather like a massive comet was falling onto the star, getting tidally disrupted while doing so.

The team determined that the object had a chemical composition similar to the famous Halleys Comet in our own Solar System, but it was 100 000 times more massive and had twice the proportion of water as its local counterpart. Spectral analysis showed that the destroyed object was rich in the elements essential for life, including carbon, oxygen, sulphur and even nitrogen .

This makes it the first detection of nitrogen in the debris falling onto a white dwarf. Lead author Siyi Xu of the European Southern Observatory, Germany, explains the importance of the discovery: Nitrogen is a very important element for life as we know it. This particular object is quite rich in nitrogen, more so than any object observed in our Solar System.

There are already more than a dozen white dwarfs known to be polluted with infalling debris from rocky, asteroid-like objects, but this is the first time a body made of icy, comet-like material has been seen polluting a white dwarfs atmosphere. These findings are evidence for a belt of comet-like bodies, similar to our Solar Systems Kuiper Belt, orbiting the white dwarf. These icy bodies apparently survived the stars evolution from a main sequence star similar to our Sun to a red giant and its final collapse to a small, dense white dwarf.

The team that made this discovery also considered how this massive object got from its original, distant orbit onto a collision course with its parent star. The change in the orbit could have been caused by the gravitational distribution by so far undetected, surviving planets which have perturbed the belt of comets. Another explanation could be that the companion star of the white dwarf disturbed the belt and caused objects from the belt to travel toward the white dwarf. The change in orbit could also have been caused by a combination of these two scenarios.

The Kuiper Belt in the Solar System, which extends outward from Neptunes orbit, is home to many dwarf planets, comets, and other small bodies left over from the formation of the Solar System. The new findings now provide observational evidence to support the idea that icy bodies are also present in other planetary systems and have survived throughout the history of the stars evolution

Siyi Xu of the European Southern Observatory, who led the team that made the discovery, says this is the first time nitrogen has been detected in the planetary debris that falls onto a white dwarf.

The Daily Galaxy via NASA and ESA ( Z. Levy image)

Here is the original post:

NASA's Hubble Telescope Observes a Comet 100,000-Times ... - The Daily Galaxy (blog)

WORLD WAR 3: Putin’s aggression prompts Spain to bolster Nato forces with MORE resources – Express.co.uk

GETTY

According to the Latvian information agency LETA, Spain is planning to send six tanks, a dozen armoured vehicles along with 350 troops to Latvia to join Natos battalion led by Canadian forces.

At least 16 armoured vehicles will reportedly accompany six new Leopard 2e tanks in Latvia as part of the Spanish Embassy's bid to reinforce Natos presence on the eastern flank.

Kaspars Galkins, the Latvian defence ministry spokesman, said: Several countries participating in the battalion have announced what kind of equipment they intend to deploy to Latvia.

Consultations continue with these countries, and no specifics regarding the type of military equipment and the precise number of units has been determined.

Getty Images

1 of 11

Every member country, no matter how large or small, has an equal say in discussions and decisions. Photo shows: Signing the North Atlantic Treaty which marked the beginning of NATO, 1949.

Nato defence ministers are set to meet in Brussels later this week as Canadian defence minister Harjit Sajjan is reportedly keen to discuss the increased equipment in Latvia.

The news comes after reports confirm Russia deployed a new cruise missile which violates the arms control treaty it shared with the US.

Whilst Trump has previously refused to call Putin a killer, the US President will now be faced with the task of responding to Putins missile launch.

Although Nato members claim Russia is becoming an increasing dangerous threat, Aleksey Meshkov a Russian deputy foreign minister took a sharp turn and also claimed they felt threatened.

GETTY

Meshkov said: This deployment is, of course, a threat for us. It is obvious that the steps by Nato gravely increase the risk of incidents.

Last week, the Latvian defence minister Raimonds Bergmanis confirmed that the Adani base in Latvia will become very large as construction to the barracks to accommodate the huge unit will continue this year".

Go here to read the rest:

WORLD WAR 3: Putin's aggression prompts Spain to bolster Nato forces with MORE resources - Express.co.uk

NATO Chief Concerned if Russia Missile Reports Prove True – New York Times


The Independent
NATO Chief Concerned if Russia Missile Reports Prove True
New York Times
BRUSSELS NATO's chief says the military alliance would be concerned if reports that Russia has violated a Cold War-era treaty by deploying a cruise missile prove true. U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that the missile became operational late ...
Nato chief expresses 'serious concern for the alliance' if Russian missile reports prove trueThe Independent
NATO: Concerned If Russia Violated INF TreatyNBC 7 San Diego

all 119 news articles »

More here:

NATO Chief Concerned if Russia Missile Reports Prove True - New York Times

Ursula von der Leyen calls for more defense spending ahead of NATO summit – Deutsche Welle

German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has called for more military spending across Europe, ahead of a meeting with her NATO counterparts in Brussels on Wednesday.

Herproposal is an extremely unpopular one in Germany, even as the army suffers from the consequences of outdated equipment and lack of resources.

"We Europeans have to do more to be able to establish security for Europe, and that means investments," von der Leyen told state broadcaster ZDF.

The minister also voiced concerns shared by many NATO member states that the skepticism with which US President Donald Trump has treated the alliance could be dangerous for all involved. However, she hoped that US Secretary of Defense James Mattis would temper Trump's attitude.

Mattis: US maintains support for NATO

Mattis has described NATO as "the most successful military alliance in history," and tried to calm allies' fears after the Trump described the organization as "obsolete" in a newspaper interview. Mattis and von der Leyen are set to meetat the summit starting on Wednesday in Brussels.

"I hope his position (on NATO) will prevail," said the German defense minister in reference to Mattis' more positive stance on the alliance.

After arriving in Brussels, Mattis reiterated his earlier comments."The alliance remains a fundamental bedrock for the United States and for all the transatlantic community, bonded as we are together," said Mattis, adding that "as President Trump has stated, he has strong support for NATO."

One of the main topics of discussion during the two-day NATO summit will be how defense spending will develop in Europe in the future. President Trump has criticized some member states for not contributing the required two percent of GDP to the alliance, saying that the US was unfairly shouldering the burden of costs.

Bundeswehr recruits in Thuringia

"We also have to invest in the army, and that means an increased budget," von der Leyen said in the ZDF interview. Berlin has already tacitly agreed to increase defense spending, although it still will not reach the promised two percent for NATO.

es/jm (AFP, dpa)

Visit link:

Ursula von der Leyen calls for more defense spending ahead of NATO summit - Deutsche Welle

NATO and TITUS Announce Joint Master Service Agreement – Marketwired (press release)

NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Agency to supply TITUS solutions to numerous member states and agencies

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM--(Marketwired - Feb. 15, 2017) - TITUS, the worldwide market leader in classification and protection solutions for unstructured data, and the NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Agency today announced the signing of a joint Master Service Agreement (MSA). This agreement will enable TITUS to supply their solutions to NCI Agency, NATO Member Nations and other NATO entities.

Cybersecurity is a major area of concern for NATO, and is considered the fourth domain of operations after air, land and water. NATO and its member agencies need to be prepared to defend networks and operations against the increasingly sophisticated cyber threats and attacks that it faces.

TITUS classification and policy enforcement tools ensure unstructured information in email and documents is classified, protectively marked and effectively secured. TITUS solutions enable users to apply uniform, consistent, and comprehensive markings. By ensuring information is properly marked, TITUS solution help promote cross-domain sharing and reduce spillage of classified and sensitive information.

Several NATO agencies and projects run by NCI Agency have been using TITUS solutions to help classify and secure unstructured data. With this agreement in place, they will be able to streamline and standardize on TITUS solutions across the agency, as well as NATO Member Nations.

Mitch Robinson, President and Chief Operating Officer at TITUS, said:

"We are pleased to see the continuation and growth of our relationship with NATO and specifically NCIA. While TITUS solutions have already been in use by some NATO member agencies, with this agreement in place we look forward to working more closely together to achieve consistent, effective information protection across the board."

About TITUS

TITUS products enhance data loss prevention by classifying and protecting sensitive information in emails, documents and other file types - on the desktop, on mobile devices, and in the Cloud. TITUS solutions are trusted by millions of users in over 120 countries around the world. Our customers include Dell, Provident Bank, Dow Corning, Safran Morpho, United States Air Force, NATO, Pratt and Whitney, Canadian Department of National Defence, and the Australian Department of Defence. Additional information is available at http://www.TITUS.com.

About NCI Agency

The NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Agency provides the Alliance with advanced Information and Communications Technology and C4ISR, including cyber and missile defence. NCI Agency connects forces, NATO and nations. Supporting NATO operations is NCI Agency's top priority.

Read this article:

NATO and TITUS Announce Joint Master Service Agreement - Marketwired (press release)

Trump Puts NATO Allies in the Crosshairs Over Military Spending – Wall Street Journal

Trump Puts NATO Allies in the Crosshairs Over Military Spending
Wall Street Journal
Last month, Germany began deploying an army battle group to Lithuania, the first of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops to arrive to bolster the defenses on the alliance's eastern border with Russia. It isn't an overwhelming display of force ...

Read more here:

Trump Puts NATO Allies in the Crosshairs Over Military Spending - Wall Street Journal

NATO’s Red Herring – Carnegie Europe

In Washington and at NATOs headquarters in Brussels, the view is that alliance members spend far too little on defense. Despite repeated cajoling from U.S. defense secretariesand now from U.S. President Donald Trumpfor European allies to spend more, many European finance ministers are opposed to opening their purses to their defense counterparts.

Only a handful of NATO alliesBritain, Estonia, Greece, Poland, and the United Statesspend 2 percent or more of their GDP on defense. And thats out of an alliance of 28 members. No doubt therell be more cajoling at the annual Munich Security Conference when scores of leaders and hundreds of diplomats along with defense and security officials gather in the Bavarian capital on February 17.

By spending more on equipment and training and sending 5,000 troops to Poland and the Baltic states, NATO aims to reassure its more vulnerable members and show Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, that the alliance is taking collective defense seriously. But something of fundamental importance is missing from the spending plea and the deployment of troops: institutional memory, or what collective defense and deterrence used to mean in substance and in practice.

During the Cold War, NATO was in top gear. Training and coordination, doctrine and capabilities, strategy and preparedness were taken as given. Collective defense was ingrained in the theory and practice of the alliance.

The nature of the threat was never underestimated, either. Just take a look at a fascinating report written by the alliances military committee in 1966. The Overall Strategic Concept for the Defense of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Area is worth reading for one main reason: it set out the strategic goals of NATO and those of its adversary, the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.

The year 1966 cannot be compared with 2017. The Warsaw Pact is defunct. In that sense, the conventional definition of the Cold War no longer applies today. But Russia is still intent on weakening or dividing NATO. The alliances demise remains Moscows goal. Russias determination to hold on to its immediate western neighborsBelarus, Georgia, and Ukraineand maintain a strong influence over Armenia and Moldova has already been tested by Moscows invasion of eastern Ukraine and its annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014.

Page 4 of NATOs 1966 report states clearly that Soviet policy toward NATOa policy that Putin is replicating todaywas based on economic means, political means, propaganda, subversion, and military power. With a brief interlude in the early 1990s, the Kremlin hasnt discarded these instruments.

This is NATOs Achilles heel and the reason why the debate over the 2 percent spending goal could be a red herring. During the 1990s, the alliance lost its raison dtreand understandably. Many of its members assumed Russia would embark on a different kind of cooperation or coexistence with the West. However, NATOs bombing of Serbia in 1999 and Russias staunch opposition to that mission only reinforced Moscows Cold War perception of NATO.

The alliance, meanwhile, slowly lost the tools that underpinned territorial defense: coordination and strategic thinking. In 2001, NATO went off to Afghanistan, where crisis management and counterinsurgency eroded what the alliance was established for in the first place. The strategic pendulum is swinging back from crisis management to deterrence and collective defense, a top NATO diplomat told Carnegie Europe on condition of anonymity.

The problem is that on the ground, NATOs European allies are singularly ill equipped for deterrence and collective defense. Again, there is a lack of institutional memory. We lack the generals who knew what deterrence and collective defense were about, another NATO diplomat said.

Just as crucially, NATO today lacks the necessary infrastructure. During the Cold War, NATO had strong bridges, aircraft, roads, and a railroad network to transport troops quickly and in large numbers. True, there were tens of thousands of NATO troops at the ready. But that infrastructure also included energy supplies and logistics, the availability of housing and food, and the ability to cross borders without bureaucratic delays. All these have been largely eroded. If NATO is serious about deterrence and collective and territorial defense, it has to remake this infrastructure.

As the 1966 report stated, to be fully effective against an attack with little or no strategic warning forces should be provided with adequate combat and logistic support, possess the necessary tactical mobility, and be deployed forward with appropriate echeloning in depth in suitable tactical locations.

NATO cannot revive this depleted institutional memory. A whole generation of military, diplomatic, and security personnel has been replaced. That is why the 2 percent spending issue will become a red herring unless NATO realizes what it has lost and what Russia has retained.

Go here to read the rest:

NATO's Red Herring - Carnegie Europe

Montenegrin PM Warns Russia To ‘Keep Hands Off’ NATO Bid – RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Montenegro's prime minister, Dusko Markovic, has told Russia and its allies within Montenegro to stop destabilizing the country as part of their opposition to Podgorica's NATO membership bid.

Speaking on February 14, Markovic said that those warning of unrest "in Montenegro or outside of it should keep their hands off Montenegro."

His remarks came after pro-Russian parties denounced a call by Montenegro's special prosecutor for parliament to lift the immunity of two senior opposition leaders.

The pro-Kremlin opposition Democratic Front leaders, Andrija Mandic and Milan Knezevic, were allegedly involved in a pro-Russian plot in October 2016 to kill the then-prime minister and take over power to prevent Montenegro from joining NATO.

Prosecutor Milivoje Katnic wants their immunity lifted so they can be detained and put on trial for criminal conspiracy and inciting "acts against constitutional order and the security of Montenegro."

Parliament is due to vote on their immunity on February 15. Pro-Russian opposition parties have called for demonstrations outside of the national assembly in Podgorica during the February 15 vote.

Mandic and Knezevic have dismissed the plot allegations as "fiction."

Mandic has made several recent visits to Moscow, where he received support from the Kremlin for his anti-NATO position.

He has warned of civil war in Montenegro over the issue of NATO membership.

But Markovic's government remains committed to forging ties with the West.

Montenegro in October arrested about 20 people -- including two Russian citizens -- in connection with the alleged coup plot.

Most of the others arrested in October are pro-Russian Serbian nationals.

The Kremlin has denied involvement, but has actively supported local groups that oppose Montenegro becoming a NATO member.

NATO Awaits Approval, Including U.S.

Twenty-four of NATO's 28 members have approved Montenegrin membership, which was endorsed by NATO leaders at a Warsaw summit in July 2016.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on February 14, a day before a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, that he couldn't say exactly when the remaining four NATO members will ratify the accession protocol for Montenegro, but added that "we are on a good track to have the membership of Montenegro relatively soon."

The United States is one of the four countries yet to formally approve Podgorica's NATO bid.

But Stoltenberg said on February 14 that "there has been no sign that the U.S. administration is not supporting the ratification."

"It has a strong bipartisan support in the Senate and the [Senate] Foreign Relations Committee has supported it, so I think it is also on a good track in the U.S.," Stoltenberg said.

However, U.S. President Donald Trump's description of NATO as an "obsolete" organization and his calls for improved relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin have worried many in Montenegro that Trump may try to block Podgorica's membership bid.

Excerpt from:

Montenegrin PM Warns Russia To 'Keep Hands Off' NATO Bid - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Trump Is Engaged on Cyber Threats, Says Former NSA Head – Fortune

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly (L), National Security Advisor General Mike Flynn (C), and Keith Alexander wait for a meeting on cyber security in the Roosevelt Room of the White House January 31, 2017 in Washington, D.C.Photograph by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKIAFP/Getty Images

President Trump's early tenure has been marked by reports of slipshod cybersecurity practices, and dysfunction among the country's intelligence agencies. But behind the scenes, Trump has shown he is attuned to hacking threats, and prepared to defend the U.S. in cyber-space, according to the former head of the National Security Agency.

Speaking at a breakfast in San Francisco on Tuesday morning, retired General Keith Alexander described a recent meeting at which the President discussed cybersecurity issues with members of his inner circle. According to Alexander, Trump's behavior shifted significantly once members of the media left the event.

The Presidents demeanor changed to what you would expect of a corporate CEO," said Alexander. "The part that struck me was he listened. He took what they said, restated it, went on to next thing and allowed everyone to talk."

The gathering reportedly included Trump, adviser Jared Kushner, Defense Secretary James Mattis, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, and others.

Alexander also said Trump's comportment in the meeting was "the president our nation needs to see," and expressed confidence Trump would be able to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat cyber threats.

The remarks come at a time of ongoing tumult among White House security staffmost notably the sudden resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Mondayand are at odds with earlier news reports that portrayed Trump as sometimes cavalier about what he famously called "the cyber" in a presidential debate last fall.

On the question of Flynn's resignation, Alexander said he was not aware of what occurred behind the scenes, only stating he was sure the White House had good reasons to back the departure.

Alexander's assessment of Trump and cybersecurity is significant in part because as the former head of the country's top spy agency, he presided over a controversial set of intelligence gathering techniques that were exposed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.

Get Data Sheet , Fortunes technology newsletter.

In addressing the breakfast, hosted by the State of Maryland during the RSA security conference, Alexander also spoke about the challenge of balancing privacy and security, and the wisdom of "hacking back" against other countries.

The pervasive hacking conducted by countries like North Korea and China is a source of ongoing frustration for companies, and has led some to suggest the private sector should retaliate with cyber-attacks of their own.

Alexander, however, believes such retaliation is possible but ill-advised. Using Sony ( sne ) as an example, he explained could easily avenge North Korea's devastating attack of 2014 by "hacking back," perhaps with the discreet aid of U.S. defense contractors.

"Youd kick North Korea's buttwipe out their seven computers and we would be done with it," he said about a hypothetical Sony counter-strike. But heres the problem. North Korea assumes its a government attack and they escalate. They throw artillery into Seoul and we've started a land war on the Korean peninsula, even if it started with a company trying to protect themselves.

Instead of companies taking cyber retaliation into their own hands, Alexander instead argues it's the government's job to address these issues as part of its larger mandate to defend the United States. He said this should include assistance to build "cyber domes" across key industrial sectors, and "network speed" threat coordination between government and the private sector.

Cyber has become an element of national power," he said, alongside traditional diplomatic, military, and economic initiatives.

One of the most difficult cybersecurity tasks for the Trump administration will be how to address a new generation of device and communication tools that are all but impossible to spy on. Fueled in part by Edward Snowden's revelations, Apple ( aapl ) and other companies began introducing encryption features that can't be broken by law enforcement or even accessed by the companies themselves.

Last spring, encryption was at the heart of a hugely publicized court fight between Apple and the FBI, which sought access to a locked iPhone owned by a terrorist responsible for the San Bernardino massacre. (The stand-off ended abruptly after the FBI succeeded in unlocking the iPhone on its own account, but the issue is likely to return again soon in light of newer versions of the iPhone with even stronger security measures).

According to Alexander, the trouble with ubiquitous encryption is that terrorists can plan in perfect secrecy. Alexander cited a 2009 plot to blow up the New York City subway that was foiled after intelligence agencies intercepted an emailsomething that would not have been possible if the plotters had used today's encryption tools, he noted.

Any solution that gives spy services a window into encrypted communication is problematic, however, because it can involve weakening the overall security of a device or messaging service. Such an outcomeespecially in the form of a "back door" that lets law enforcement get around encryptionis fiercely opposed by the tech community, which points out any such back door will also be exploited by criminals or repressive governments.

Alexander acknowledged this tension, but did not offer a specific solution.

"Im not for back doors but I dont buy the fact we cant [have both privacy and security]," Alexander said. "We have to drive two groups together and force them to work on this. I dont think we should accept fact people die because were intractable."

See the article here:

Trump Is Engaged on Cyber Threats, Says Former NSA Head - Fortune

Posted in NSA

Beverly Ann Beall, NSA worker and travel agent, dies – Baltimore Sun – Baltimore Sun

Beverly Ann Beall, a retired National Security Agency briefer and world traveler, died of cancer Jan. 14 at her Stuart, Fla., home. She was 78 and lived in Stevenson.

Born in Baltimore, she was the daughter of Mabel Councilman, a homemaker, and her husband, Avery Gordy.

She was a graduate of Southern High School and attended college courses through the federal government at the NSA.

She joined the NSA out of high school and worked there until her retirement. She then became a travel agent and worked in several agencies in the Baltimore area.

Mrs. Beall, who was known as Bebe to her family, was a member of Green Spring Valley Hunt Club, where she enjoyed golf and games of bridge. She traveled the world on cruises and hiked in jungles of Cambodia and Vietnam. She belonged to the Town and Country Garden Club and had an interest in orchids.

She took trips to Maryland and Delaware beaches, and enjoyed fishing and searching for sea glass. She also did needlepoint and played pinochle with family members, and enjoyed walking along the boardwalks.

"She was as beautiful on the inside as she was on the outside," said her niece, Carol Hearrell of Farmington Hills, Mich.

Mrs. Beall survived two husbands. Wade Allen Poole died in the early 1970s. Her second husband, Richard Olin Beall, died in 2013 after they had been married for 30 years. Mr. Beall was the son of Sen. J. Glenn Beall Sr.

Mrs. Beall had requested that no funeral be held.

In addition to her niece, she is survived by a daughter, Laura Poole Mathiesen of Annapolis; two stepdaughters, Margot Beall King of San Francisco and Charlotte Ashley Beall of Seattle; a companion, Allen Durling of Annapolis; four grandchildren; and other nieces and nephews.

Jacques Kelly

Continue reading here:

Beverly Ann Beall, NSA worker and travel agent, dies - Baltimore Sun - Baltimore Sun

Posted in NSA

NSA So Worried Over Trump Russia Ties, They’re Hiding Info from Him – Huffington Post

David Pakman Host & Executive Producer, The David Pakman Show This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

If you arent worried about relations between President Trump and Russia, now is the time to start paying attention. There are reports now that the NSA has been withholding information from the president over these concerns of Russian intervention.

This is truly stunning, considering Trumps recurring flip-flopping denial of how close he is to Putin. Its also unreal that a U.S. spy agency would be hiding certain information from the president.

Other agencies involved include the Pentagon, with one worker stating, There's not much the Russians don't know at this point. Since January 20, weve assumed that the Kremlin has ears inside the [situation room].

If this statement is true and the Russians are able to have a look inside the White House, this means that our national security has been compromised. On top of that, there was also the sudden resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn over ties to the Russian Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, before Trump even took office.

This is definitely a situation where the media needs to hold the president accountable, along with his cabinet. He said that he would keep us safe and Make America Great Again but so far has not kept this promise, especially if there is Russian intervention in the White House.

Excerpt from:

NSA So Worried Over Trump Russia Ties, They're Hiding Info from Him - Huffington Post

Posted in NSA

My Republica – Call to scrap fifth amendment to Wildlife Protection Bill – Republica

KATHMANDU, Feb 15:The Conscious Citizen Group has demanded the scrapping of 'Fifth Amendment' of National Parks and Wildlife Protection Bill endorsed by the Legislature-Parliament arguing it was not in favour of preservation of wildlife.

At a press conference organized here on Tuesday, group campaigner Amod Dahal claimed that the fifth amendment to the wildlife protection bill endorsed by the parliament has curtailed the right of wildlife to survive in a free and natural environment.

Environment activists including Niraj Gautam, Shristi Singh Shrestha and Sangeeta Sapkota stressed the need to prohibit the establishment of factories, hotel, restaurant and transport in and around national parks acknowledging the right of animals to have a free life.

The Clause 9(2) of the amended bill has the provision that wildlife species can be provided to any individual, agency, users committee, local body and organization for study or research. Likewise, Clause 15 (E) has specified that the wildlife can be offered as gift to foreign nations.

Since the amended bills have these provisions against the concept of wildlife protection, it would affect the campaign of wildlife protection.

Myagdi's musk deer in search of suitable habitat

Musk deer living in the mountain forests of Myagdi have started migrating to other areas due to increasing temperature and human activities.

Forest areas in Mudi, Lulang, Gurja, Kuinemangale, Dana and Muna VDCs are known as major habitats of musk deer. But with the rising temperature in the highland caused by climate change, human encroachment on forest areas and lack of sufficient diet, these herbivores animals have started leaving home grounds in search of suitable habitats, according to Babiyachaur-based Area Forest Office Chief and environmentalist Chandramani Sapkota.

This wildlife species prefers to live in a cold and peaceful atmosphere.

Musk deer is considered as one of the rare wildlife species in the world and Myagdi's musk deer have started migrating to the Dhorpatan Wildlife Reserve and forests in Dolpa, Rukum and Mustang in search of proper home and food, locals said. RSS

See the original post:

My Republica - Call to scrap fifth amendment to Wildlife Protection Bill - Republica

The Fourth Amendment at the border and beyond: A few thoughts on Hernandez v. Mesa – Washington Post

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a Fourth Amendment case, Hernandez v. Mesa. The facts of the case are simple. At the border that separates El Paso, Tex., from Ciudad Jurez, Mexico, a U.S. border patrol agent named Mesa shot and killed a Mexican citizen named Hernandez. The bullet itself crossed the border, as Mesa was on U.S. land and Hernandez was on Mexican land. A subsequent lawsuit was filed by Hernandezs parents, as successors-in-interest to his estate, alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.

The cert petitionarticulated two questions to be decided:

Does a formalist or functionalist analysis govern the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendments prohibition on unjustified deadly force, as applied to a cross-border shooting of an unarmed Mexican citizen in an enclosed area controlled by the United States?

May qualified immunity be granted or denied based on factssuch as the victims legal status unknown to the officer at the time of the incident?

When the court granted cert, the court added a third question drafted by the court itself: Whether the claim in this case may be asserted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971).

Here are a few thoughts about the case.

One of the most important questions for the future of the Fourth Amendment is whether non-U.S. persons get Fourth Amendment rights abroad. As I explained in my recent article, The Fourth Amendment and the Global Internet, 67 Stan. L. Rev. 28 (2015), the basic structure of what kind of Internet surveillance is permitted hinges on the question.

Under the rule of the majority opinion in Verdugo-Urquidez the so-called formalist approach you get one framework with some significant uncertainties but a lot of results settled. On the other hand, under Justice Anthony Kennedys impracticable and anomalous test the so-called functional approach no one really knows what the Fourth Amendment would look like in the context of global network surveillance. And because those cases come up for litigation so rarely, it would take many years for courts to figure out the answers (by which time the technology may have changed anyway).

From that perspective, the odd part about Hernandez v. Mesa is that it asks the court to decide between the formalist and functionalist approaches in a setting that appears to implicate almost none of the real stakes of the answer. The facts of a shooting across the border are like a law school exam. They raise interesting questions, but the context seems pretty idiosyncratic. In contrast, the application of the functionalist or formalist approach has a massive day-to-day impact on global Internet surveillance. Its there, not in the context of a cross-border shooting, that the Fourth Amendment question in Hernandez seems to matter most.

Hernandezs brief argues that the court can and should apply or not apply individual parts of Fourth Amendment doctrine to non-citizens abroad depending on whether doing so would be impracticable or anomalous. But I dont see how this is at all workable. As I explain in a forthcoming article, Fourth Amendment rules are deeply path-dependent. The rules on what is a search impact the rules on what is reasonable, and vice versa; and they together impact the available remedies, and the remedies have an impact on them. In an area of law that is as exquisitely fact-sensitive as the Fourth Amendment, I dont know how you could tell whether a particular doctrines application would be impracticable or anomalous. Assuming you had an empirical way to answer that in the abstract, the answer would depend on what the other doctrines are, and without knowing if their application to non-citizens abroad would be impractical and anomalous, I dont know how you could tell.

Hernandez tries to avoid these problems by suggesting a very narrow holding. The reply brief advocates the following narrow rule: [T]he prohibition on unjustified deadly force applies at (and just across) the border, at least when a law-enforcement officer on U.S. soil fires his weapon at close range. But this attempted narrowing just makes the problem much worse. Its bad enough to figure out how the impracticable or anomalous framework should apply doctrine by doctrine. Hernandez seems to want to apply it fact pattern by fact pattern, imposing some essentially arbitrary definition of the relevant set of facts.

Think closely about Hernandezs proposed rule. In his far narrower view, the rule of extraterritorial liability advocated for in this case would apparently apply notto all excessive-force claims brought by non-citizens, but only to claims of unjustified deadly force brought by them; not outside the United States generally, but only at the specific location of at (and just across) the border; and maybe (although maybe not!) only to the narrower circumstance when the U.S. officer fires his weapon at close range. The phrasing of the question presented in the cert petition suggests another possible limitation: Maybe it applies only to shooting a person who is an unarmed Mexican citizen. As to the rule that would apply to any other facts, well, hey, courts will have to figure those out over time.

That seems kind of nuts to me. If any court can pick the set of facts over which aproposed rule of extraterritorial applicationcontrols, the result will be that any Ninth Circuit lower-court judge can just pick the result he or she wants in any case. If Judge Reinhardthas a case and wants to hold the defendants liable, he can drawthe category of facts in a stylized way so that application of the Fourth Amendment doesnt seemimpracticable. If another judge wants to rule against the plaintiffs, she can draw the category of facts differentlyso that it does. That strikes me as really problematic.

All of which is to say that I hope the court sticks with the majority opinion in Verdugo-Urquidez. Not only is itrelatively clear, but alsoI personally tend to think it isbased on apersuasive social contract approach to rights.

The Fourth Amendment issue in Hernandez is made more interesting by a practical point: Its not clear whether other members of the courtbeyond Kennedy agree with using theimpracticable or anomalous test in the Fourth Amendment context. It sometimes happens that other justices are willing to sign on to a Kennedy opinion with reasoning that they dont particularly agree with, if its needed to get to a five-justice majority. But that doesnt always happen, and it could happen either way in this case (with Kennedy applying the impractical or anomalous test in favor of either the petitioners or respondents). If the court reaches the merits, it will be really interesting to see where the votes will come out on that issue.

Finally, its not at all obvious that the court will reach the Fourth Amendment merits. The court added the Bivens question on its own, and the Solicitor Generals Office brief took the hint and made that the lead argument in its brief. The Bivens issue takes up fully 20 pages of the argument section in the governments brief, as compared with 15 pages for the Fourth Amendment merits and eight pages for the qualified-immunity issue. Well have to wait and see which issue draws the justices attention.

As always, stay tuned.

Read the rest here:

The Fourth Amendment at the border and beyond: A few thoughts on Hernandez v. Mesa - Washington Post

MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second Amendment? – Holmes County Times Advertiser

Mark Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution?

As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done, we must study the times in which such decisions were made.

The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office, two key challenges faced him and the leadership in Congress.

First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us.

At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work, each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed.

Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia, neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people.

In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government.

The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history.

In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed.

Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Read the rest here:

MARK HOPKINS: Why did the Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Holmes County Times Advertiser

Second Amendment supporters rally in Roanoke – WSET

ROANOKE, Va. (WSET) -- A group of Roanoke residents gathered with guns in hand Saturday for Virginia's 11th annual Pro-Second Amendment Rally.

The group rallied in support of individual gun rights.

Second Amendment supporters say guns are harmless, but it's people who make them dangerous.

"Not one shot has been fired, no one's been hurt, no injuries, and we're just here to remind people that it's your right to carry," said Daniel Highberger, who helped organize the rally. "It's your right to protect yourself, and to the gun-grabbers out there in the world, explain to us why no one's gotten hurt on this corner."

Challice Finicum say her father's death is all the more reason to support the right to bear arms. LaVoy Finicum was a spokesperson for Citizens for Constitutional Freedom. He was shot and killed by state troopers at an Oregon wildlife refuge over a government land dispute.

"The video is on YouTube, you can watch him get out of his truck with his hands in the air, and they shoot him in the back three times," said Finicum.

Federal officials say he was reaching for a gun. His death made national headlines.

Those calling for more gun regulations say the protesters are not taking everything into account.

"I wish that they would exercise their listening abilities to hear about the real-life cases where children have been shot," explained Freeda Cathcart, a member of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. "And also parents who have been shot by their children."

Cathcart also referenced drug and alcohol addicts and mentally ill people who carry guns.

Both sides agree all guns should be used by responsible owners.

The City of Roanoke recently introduced a bill banning the open carrying of long guns within city limits. The bill did not pass in the General Assembly.

**Editor's Note**

Video version states Freeda Cathcart as a member of the General Federation of Women's Clubs Virginia. Webscript has been updated to reflect proper title: General Federation of Women's Clubs.

See original here:

Second Amendment supporters rally in Roanoke - WSET

Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? – Wicked Local Newton

Mark L. Hopkins More Content Now

This preoccupation with the Second Amendment began a few months back when I wrote a column entitled Guns dont kill people. Really? The amount of interest in that topic directed me to do additional research on the subject and every avenue pointed back to the key question. Why did we need a militia/gun amendment added to the Constitution? As is true with most momentous decisions in the life of our country, to fully understand why something was done we must study the times in which such decisions were made. The why of the Second Amendment in the 1780s is very different from answering that same question in 2017. The United States was a very different country in the years following the Revolution than it is today. When President Washington first took office two key challenges faced him and the leadership in congress. First, the Revolutionary War had concluded just eight years before. England had been defeated on our shores and withdrew their troops. However, that didnt make us the strongest nation on the globe. England still had the strongest combination of army and navy. They still controlled Canada, just a short trip up the Hudson River from New York City. In short, they were still a threat to us. At the conclusion of the war, General Washington and the leadership in Congress did not have the money to support a standing army. It was the consensus that the U.S. must make do with smaller, live-at-home militia units in the various states rather than a centralized army. Thus, it was their hope that the new country could be protected with a citizen army that was armed and ready to be called up at a moments notice. To make that work each military age male needed to be armed and ready if needed. Second, several citizen rebellions had occurred between the end of the war and the time of the passage of the new Constitution. Principal among these were the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Without the creation of a local militia neither state had the firepower to protect the government or the people. In short, our young country did not have the money to support a standing army so adding the Second Amendment was for the expressed purpose of making sure that each state had the legal right to call men to arms. Just as important, it was necessary that those men were able to join the militia fully armed and ready to defend their state and their government. The contention from some that the framers of the Constitution adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that could take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical just has no credence in history. In past columns about the Second Amendment, we have established the historical context of the creation of the Second Amendment. The primary purpose was to create a legal foundation for a state militia, the forerunner of our National Guard. President Washington not only wrote letters to support such action but actually created his own militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Congress supported his action by creating The Militia Act, that allowed states to call up militia units to protect the government and the people as needed. Resources used for these columns on the Second Amendment came from His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis (2004), James Madisons arguments for a strong federal government in The Federalist Papers, (1777-78) and The Readers Companion to American History by John A. Garraty and Eric Foner, which tells the stories of Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. If a reader missed the two earlier columns, contact me at presnet@presnet.net for copies. Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. You will find Hopkins latest book, Journey to Gettysburg, on Amazon.com. Contact him at presnet@presnet.net.

Read more here:

Mark L. Hopkins: Why did the US Constitution need the Second Amendment? - Wicked Local Newton

What Jeff Sessions Confirmation Means For The 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO – AmmoLand Shooting Sports News


AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
What Jeff Sessions Confirmation Means For The 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO
AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
USA -(Ammoland.com)- With the recent confirmation of Jeff Sessions to Attorney General, gun owners and pro second amendment supporters could be heard breathing an audible sigh of relief. The 52-47 vote confirmed the Senator from Alabama as The ...

and more »

The rest is here:

What Jeff Sessions Confirmation Means For The 2nd Amendment ~ VIDEO - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues – Bearing Arms

Since August of 2015, Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, has takena stance against the Social Security Administrations action to provide names of Social Security recipients to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Neil W. McCabe, from Breitbart, has confirmed that Senator Manchin will continue his support by voting to overturn this overreach of the SSA. This will eliminate pending restrictions of the right to bear arms onsome of the countrys most vulnerable citizens.

In a statement released on Manchins website, the senator said:

As a law-abiding gun owner, hunter, card-carrying life member of the NRA and Second Amendment advocate, I have always supported a West Virginians right to bear arms.This potential overreach by the Social Security Administration is a blatant infringement on the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. The assumption by the SSA that seniors and individuals with certain disabilities are a threat to society is both inaccurate and misguided and should not be grounds to revoke someones constitutional rights. That is why I joined my colleagues in strongly urging the Administration to end efforts to move forward with this proposal.

Its important topoint outthatpeople need to do their research and stop jumping to dangerous conclusions that are not based in fact. Disability status based upon age orvarious diseases does not equate to a person being inherently dangerous to themselves or anyone else.

Under a law enacted during the Obama Administration, the private information that the SSA could turnoverwould reside within the NICS database, which currently houses the names of individuals prohibited from purchasing or carrying a firearm. It is a violation of an individuals rights and privacy for the SSA to make their owndetermination about thoserecipients future actions based solely upon receiving certain benefitswithout the due process of the law. Once a persons information is entered into the NICS database, theywill immediately be deemed a threat to society. This will stand without any additional proof, other than the SSAs determination of having a propensity for or history of a violent past, present, or future.

Fortunately repealing this infringement upon millions of Americans right to bear arms seems to have gained strength during this new Congress.

The bill is currently awaiting movement in the Senate, where it currently resides after having passed through the House.

Author's Bio: Pamela Jablonski

More:

The Fight to Ensure the Right to Bear Arms for Social Security Recipients Continues - Bearing Arms