Daily Archives: April 28, 2017

How Ann Coulter cashed in on a ‘dark day for free speech’ – The Mercury News

Posted: April 28, 2017 at 2:52 pm

In a perfect world, Ann Coulter would have given a speech Thursday, at UC Berkeley, as originally scheduled. She would have spoken on immigration and no doubt aroused passionate reaction ranging from rabid applause to sputtering apoplexy.

Its her schtick, peddling provocation from about as far right as you get. And she is very good at what she does.

She was invited to appear at UC Berkeley on Thursday, and in a perfect world the speech would have gone off without a hitch. But before Thursday could get here, the city of Berkeley was rocked by three politically themed violent demonstrations in three months. UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, prudently fearing the worst, asked Coulter to reschedule for May 2.

One assumes the date wasnt picked at random. May 2 is the beginning of a dead week before finals, a time when the campus would be a ghost town. Coulter, for whom an audience is like oxygen, declined.

It is a dark day for free speech in America, she said in a tweet.

By the letter of the Bill of Rights, she is correct. The First Amendment is a bedrock principle of our country. And Coulter was denied her right to speak at the time and venue of her choosing.

Heres the irony:

Denied her right to free speech, she has spent the better part of a week on a filibustering First Amendment-fest. Seriously, she hasnt shut up. She has been omnipresent, making dozens of posts on her Twitter and Facebook accounts and making the media rounds. For all we know, she churned out another of her New York Times best-sellers between tweets. No one could possibly wonder what she is thinking.

And she is thinking.

She not only kept the narrative of this nonevent alive, she drove it with skill and dexterity, keeping her fans, detractors and the press sprinting from one shiny object to the next.

She bashed UC Berkeley:

She exhibiteddefiance:

She even found time for a little self-promotion:

She hinted that she would show up for the originally scheduled event, insisting it was up to police to keep me safe. Then backed off and confirmed it was canceled. Then said she might show up Thursday to stroll around the graveyard of the First Amendment.

In short, she occasioned a brilliant bit of branding, delivering her message in spades and reaping a priceless windfall of free publicity along the way certainly more attention than she would have generated from a speech.

She is such an astute messenger that it was hardly a surprise early Thursday afternoon when, despite the cancellation, groups of all stripes and agendas began trickling into Berkeley. As of 3 p.m., the most prominent feature of the gathering was a bubble-blowing machine. Perhaps fittingly, the nonevent generated a nonviolent assembly.

As if to underscore that point, a Twitter post included a photo of a plane towing a banner above the gathering. The banner read,Dont take the bait, rise above the hate!!

A nice thought. But theres no money in that.

The rest is here:
How Ann Coulter cashed in on a 'dark day for free speech' - The Mercury News

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on How Ann Coulter cashed in on a ‘dark day for free speech’ – The Mercury News

Wisconsin Republicans push college free speech bill that would punish hecklers – Chicago Tribune

Posted: at 2:51 pm

University of Wisconsin students who disrupt speeches and demonstrations could be expelled and campuses would have to remain neutral on public issue under a bill Republican legislators are pushing this week.

The bill comes as free speech issues have grown more contentious on college campuses across the country. Conservatives are worried that right-wing speakers aren't given equal treatment as liberal campus presenters and some students have complained about free expression fanning racial tensions.

In Madison, home to the University of Wisconsin's flagship campus, students shouted down and traded obscene gestures with ex-Breitbart editor and conservative columnist Ben Shapiro during a presentation in November. This week, supporters of conservative commentator Ann Coulter rallied behind her after the University of California-Berkeley cancelled her speech citing concerns that violence could erupt.

The bill is based on a model proposal the conservative Arizona-based Goldwater Institute put together to address campus free-speech issues. Legislation based on the model has been enacted in Colorado, with others being considered in five states, including Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the institute.

The lawmakers sponsoring Wisconsin's bill said it represents Republicans' promise "to protect the freedom of expression on college campuses."

"All across the nation and here at home, we've seen protesters trying to silence different viewpoints," Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, one of the bill's chief sponsors, said in a news release Thursday. "Free speech means free speech for everyone and not just for the person who speaks the loudest."

UW-Madison's policy already calls for facilitating free speech equally and objectively, school spokesman John Lucas said. Mandating sanctions eliminates the ability of a disciplinary committee to consider all the circumstances of the situation, he said.

"We urge the Legislature to work with the Board of Regents to identify policies that will address the free exchange of ideas and need for order while respecting the existing student conduct process that has served institutions well for many years," Lucas said in an email.

University of Wisconsin System spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said the system is committed to ensuring freedom of speech at its institutions.

Scot Ross, executive director of liberal advocacy group One Wisconsin Now, called Vos and the bill's other authors, Reps. Jesse Kremer and Dave Murphy and Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, "fragile snowflakes."

"These Republicans want to make our campuses safe spaces for Republicans to be free of criticism and subject students to legal sanctions if they speak out," Ross said.

The legislation would require regents to quickly adopt a policy requiring each campus to remain neutral on current public controversies. It wasn't immediately clear whether the bill would bar chancellors and faculty members from expressing their viewpoints or if university lobbyists' work would be forbidden.

Vos clarified that portion during a brief interview Thursday, saying he believes chancellors and faculty should be allowed to express their personal opinions but universities shouldn't take sides. He said a description of what qualifies as a university would be part of the process as the bill moves through the Legislature.

The policy also would have to include a range of disciplinary sanctions for students and faculty who engage in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct" that interferes with someone's free speech rights. The bill doesn't define what constitutes any of that behavior.

Students would be entitled to a disciplinary hearing and appeals. Any student found to have interfered with someone's free expression twice would be suspended for a semester or expelled. And anyone who feels his or her free speech rights have been violated can bring a lawsuit within a year to stop the violation.

Larry Dupuis, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Wisconsin chapter, said the neutrality provisions are so vague they could prevent universities from promoting tolerance for people and opinions.

Suspending or expelling hecklers, Dupuis added, is "unnecessarily draconian."

Here is the original post:
Wisconsin Republicans push college free speech bill that would punish hecklers - Chicago Tribune

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Wisconsin Republicans push college free speech bill that would punish hecklers – Chicago Tribune

Professor: Left Wing Snowflakes Get Some Things Right About Free Speech. Fact Check: Totally False. – Townhall

Posted: at 2:51 pm

Is free speech something that should be redrawn? With Ann Coulters scheduled speech at Berkeley cancelled today due to security concerns, were once again seeing the ugly face of the Left shutting down constitutionally-protected rights for the sake of safe spaces and political correctness. Yet, thats the whole point of college, immersing in things that areoutside your comfort zone, right?My political philosophy professor in college was an avowed anarchist and we all turned out okay. Yet, Ulrich Baer, the vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity, and professor of comparative literature at New York University, decided to bring us an explanation for why its okay to chip away at the Bill of Rights. The New York Times published his op-ed and its only something that the snobby elite in the urban bastions of America could argue in support ofsquashing free speech: Its a public good that constantly needs redrawing (they say) [emphasis mine]:

Instead of defining freedom of expression as guaranteeing the robust debate from which the truth emerges, Lyotard focused on the asymmetry of different positions when personal experience is challenged by abstract arguments. His extreme example was Holocaust denial, where invidious but often well-publicized cranks confronted survivors with the absurd challenge to produce incontrovertible eyewitness evidence of their experience of the killing machines set up by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Not only was such evidence unavailable, but it also challenged the Jewish survivors to produce evidence of their own legitimacy in a discourse that had systematically denied their humanity.

Lyotard shifted attention away from the content of free speech to the way certain topics restrict speech as a public good. Some things are unmentionable and undebatable, but not because they offend the sensibilities of the sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencers visit as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In todays age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the Internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.

The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to overestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generations oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth. We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.

Right, theres the Left using the most extreme example to characterize the whole issue as if every conservative thats being protested is denying thatthe Holocaust ever happened. Thats not whats happening. Its students who just dont want to hear other views because theyre, in the words of Bill Maher, f**king babies. Moreover, the whole notion that the parameters for free speech needs to be redrawn is absurd. The First Amendment is quite explicit in outlining what the Founders intended it to be used for in this country of ours. Perverting that to give yourself various political escape hatches to shut down conservatives is cute at best and abjectly stupid at worst.

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community, wrote Baer.

Thats precisely wrong. And there is value for inviting some of the most insane people to speak. Since you brought up Nazis, lets say a typical national socialist addresses a college, offends people, denies the Holocaust, thinks Adolf Hitler is the best leader in the world, and feels that anyone who isnt Aryan is the scum of the Earth worthy of extermination. It would be brutal. It would be rough, but theres nothing to gain from this? You couldnt glean that maybe there should be another discussion about the sordid history of anti-Semitism? Maybe discuss at length the Holocaust; listing the endless amounts of evidence that shows the Third Reich tried to purge the entire continent, and eventually the world, of these people? All of which ends with the same result: Nazis are wrong and they have a history that is downright evil. Why do people still carry Nazi beliefs? Is it due to a lack of education? Is it because racism persists in families who hold such views? Can the cyclebe broken with more speech, more tolerance, and more outreach of some sort? If anything, having a Nazi whackovisit campus is a great way to remind us the horrors committed in the name of this ideology to avoid it from ever happening again. And I frankly think that history lessons tend to serve the public good.

The National Review took Baerto the woodshed for this piece as well. But the Right has also found some unlikely allies in this fight, like the American Civil Liberties Union. Liberal Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine is also disconcerted with this faction that he branded the illiberal left. And yes, he also criticized Baer:

But what kinds of speech should be shut down on these grounds? Baers definition is rather vague.

[]

Nearly all American politicians in both major parties support some limits on legal immigration, and some measures to enforce those laws. Virtually all of them define some human beings as unworthy of legal standing a position Baer insists does not deserve to be defended in public at all. Perfectly cogent arguments can and have been made that, say, Hillary Clinton advocates systemically racist policies or that Bernie Sanders encourages sexism. The ability to associate disagreeable ideas with the oppressor, and to quash free speech or other political rights in the name of justice for the oppressed, is a power without any clear limiting principle. Historically, states that rule on that basis tend to push that power to its farthest possible limit.

In other words, the end of free speech as we know it, coupled with the entrance of an Americanized Cultural Revolution that would make Mao proud. This is what were fightingand it shouldnt be just conservatives. Any free speech loving American should be horrified at the progressive intolerance that spreading through American academia like a brushfire.

Phew: There's Not Going To Be A Government Shutdown

Read this article:
Professor: Left Wing Snowflakes Get Some Things Right About Free Speech. Fact Check: Totally False. - Townhall

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Professor: Left Wing Snowflakes Get Some Things Right About Free Speech. Fact Check: Totally False. – Townhall

An interview with CW Brown Founder and CEO of Philosophical Atheism, and Executive Director of the Atheist … – Conatus News

Posted: at 2:51 pm

An interview with CW Brown Founder and CEO of Philosophical Atheism, and Executive Director of the Atheist Alliance of America

CW, you are the CEO and Founder of the Philosophical Atheism online community. How did this idea come about?

I wanted to create a forum for people to discuss complicated philosophical concepts based in reason, evidence, understanding, and proper argumentation. We also joke, laugh, and educate ourselves as we go. I am excited that it has become so popular. We have a lot of fun and learn a lot about life while doing it.

How do you believe the two relate? Is there a need for atheists to be philosophical and for philosophers to be atheists?

To be without religion is a beginning, but to better navigate life without a god or gods, we need a decent philosophy to live by. Some atheists are nihilists, while others are humanists. I prefer to say that we all create meaning for our own lives, as we see fit. To do this, we need good philosophy and there is plenty for us to learn. Philosophical Atheism helps people do this.

What does Philosophical Atheism do to promote its values?

We constantly encourage people to question their beliefs. We have recently partnered with the Atheist Alliance of America to make a better world based on our shared values. Their vision is to transform society into one that supports a worldview based on reason, empiricism, and naturalism.

You were a conservative Christian for 17 years. How, and why, did you become an atheist?

I read the Bible many times. I used to proselytize to people and became quite adept at Christian apologetics. I had to do this because it kept me believing. However, by continuing to defend in my gut what I felt were faulty thinking processes, I acknowledged much about the psychology behind many believers that disturbed me. With this in mind, I increased my understanding of psychology, philosophy, and other religions, including Eastern ones. This led me to know that my feelings were correct and had clear, valid reasons for why these people were wrong. This research also helped me understand why their actions played out the way they did. It was liberating, but also difficult because I had to leave everything I knew. Philosophical Atheism was a creation of this transition, to help others avoid floundering as long as I did before my own de-conversion.

You are also at the Executive Director and Director of Social Media of the Atheist Alliance of America (AAoA). What are the main goals of the AAoA as well as its largest activities and initiatives?

As I mentioned before, AAoAs vision is to transform society into one that supports a worldview based on reason, empiricism, and naturalism. To achieve this, we are working on uniting as many of the atheist communities in the Unites States as we can. For those who do not join us, we will still strive to support when needed. We want to provide a service to the atheist community and the general public that helps them both understand and value logic as a proper reasoning process to build their world view upon. This includes spreading values based off secular humanism, which promotes equal rights for all, based upon our status as humans and not god or gods people may or may not follow.

Which do you think are the main challenges that atheism faces in todays world?

I think the main challenge is the fact that we have to be called atheists at all. Atheism is an off switch to a widely accepted epidemic of people believing in a god or gods without proper foundations of reasoning, evidence, and understanding. They do not seem to understand that you cannot start with a conclusion, then build evidence backwards to support that claim. It leads to many gaps in knowledge unknowingly built upon fallacies like confirmation bias or gods being accepted as an explanation for missing pieces in our understanding of the cosmos (also known as god of the gaps). Moving forward with evidence not based on a pre-determined conclusion helps to show us that there are many things we still do not know, but, if you are like me, would love to find out. There are many things we do not yet understand about ourselves and our cosmos, but I find no fear in that; I actually find it quite thrilling. We have to stop thinking as a species that we must have answers to all of lifes questions. This is our biggest problem and why atheism exists in the first place, because people decided that they must know things they cannot.

What do you think is the best response to religious fundamentalism?

I think the best response to fundamentalism is through education, with the goal of changing peoples hearts and minds. We should help people realize that they are pretending to know things they cannot possibly know and that it is okay not to have answers for some of the most difficult existential questions. To start this, we first need to reach the more reasonable liberals and moderates. They are the ones, through their silence or support, who provide fundamentalists with credibility, that people must respect peoples beliefs no matter what. One of the biggest mistakes we make is giving beliefs unassailable rights, instead of people, which place them beyond the scope of criticism. Beliefs are not people; people are not their beliefs. This is how fundamentalism is allowed to run rampant. Moderate believers dont want to call into question what may be wrong about their own reasoning processes.

What is the best piece of advice you would give to people who are unsure about their faith and are now balancing between theism and atheism?

I would encourage them to explore other religions. Many of them contradict each other. Rather than thinking that one of them must be right, I encourage them to accept the more likely possibility that they could all be wrong. Also, to start realizing that the reason something must be called faith is because it is not knowledge. This is a huge red flag in itself that invites more investigation.

Finally, how can one contact you to learn more about your projects, initiatives, and how to join or donate to AAoA and Philosophical Atheism?

For more information please contact me at cw.brown@atheistallianceamerica.org, visit philosophicalatheism.com,and to help support our cause please consider a donation or signing for a membership atheistallianceamerica.org/membership/.

More:
An interview with CW Brown Founder and CEO of Philosophical Atheism, and Executive Director of the Atheist ... - Conatus News

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on An interview with CW Brown Founder and CEO of Philosophical Atheism, and Executive Director of the Atheist … – Conatus News

NATO, EU Rebuke Macedonia Over Parliament Violence – Foreign Policy (blog)

Posted: at 2:48 pm

Violence erupted in Macedonias parliament as tensions between ethnic Albanian minorities and nationalists boiled over, prompting sharp rebukes from Western governments.

Protesters supportive of the nationalist VMRO-DPMNE party, as well as individuals clad in identity-concealing hoods, stormed parliament on Thursday night local time, violently accosting at least lawmakers and journalists. Police say the violence left 102 inside and outside parliament injured.

Parliament had just managed to break the filibuster of the minority VMRO-DPMNE. The party lost its governing majority in Decembers elections, which were an attempt to quell concern after leaked wiretaps showing illegal surveillance and corruption on the part of the then-ruling party. The governing majority is now the Social Democrats, led by Zoran Zaev, in coalition with the parliaments ethnic Albanian parties. President Gjorge Ivanov has so far defied calls to make Zaev prime minister.

On Thursday, parliament managed to move forward in putting together a new government by voting on a new speaker, who received the support of the Social Democratic parties as well as members of the ethnic Albanian parties. The newly elected speaker is Albanian Talat Xhaferi.

The demonstrators, who had been protesting the influence of ethnic Albanian parties, broke through the police and entered parliament to assault journalists and legislators including some Albanian MPs. And so the fear now is that what had been a political crisis, with VMRO-DPMNE attempting to scare the Macedonian population with the idea of more rights for Albanians, will become a full-fledged ethnic clash.

The Macedonian and ethnic Albanian communities are still living next to each other, not together, Jan Cingel, a researcher with the Bratislava-based GLOBSEC Policy Institute, told Foreign Policy. If something happens some kind of a spark can light more tensions.

The European Union and NATO swiftly condemned the assault on lawmakers and reporters.

The acts of violence in the Parliament are wholly unacceptable and we call for calm and restraint, Federica Mogherini, the EUs head of foreign policy, and Johannes Hahn, European commissioner, said in a joint statement.

I strongly condemn yesterdays attacks on members of Parliament in Skopje. Violence has no place in any parliament, said Jens Stoltenberg, NATO secretary general.

But the EU and NATO havent specified how they could follow up on these words of warning. And, of course, not all EU member states saw the situation the same way.

Hungarys foreign minister, Peter Szijjarto, echoed the official Russian position in blaming influence from abroad. Moscow blames the EU and United States; Budapest, external intervention and, of course, Hungarian-born billionaire and perpetual bogeyman George Soros. (Russian and European interest and investment in the region increased only recently, said Cingel, who believes the protests were the manifestation of homegrown tension.)

Macedonia hasnt had a government since December, when former Prime Minister Nukola Gruevski won an election but didnt gain enough votes to win a parliamentary majority. Talks with the ethnic Albanian parties floundered over a debate on designating Albanian as an official second language in Macedonia.

Macedonia, a former Yugoslav republic, plunged into ethnically-fueled strife and violence following Yugoslavias break-up in the 1990s. In 2001, the countrys Albanian minority led an armed rebellion that ended under a NATO-brokered peace agreement. The peace deal failed to resolve tensions between the countrys ethnic groups, which have been simmering ever since.

While Macedonia made a series of democratic and market-oriented reforms in the past decade to boost their prospects of joining the EU and NATO, experts fear the country is backsliding and that the political crisis could spill into the streets.

Photo credit:ROBERT ATANASOVSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

View original post here:
NATO, EU Rebuke Macedonia Over Parliament Violence - Foreign Policy (blog)

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO, EU Rebuke Macedonia Over Parliament Violence – Foreign Policy (blog)

by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint press point with the President of the Council of Ministers … – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted: at 2:48 pm

Jens Stoltenberg: Thank you very much Prime Minister Gentiloni, Paolo. We have met many times before, but this is the first time we meet formally in your new capacity as Prime Minister and I really appreciate this opportunity to meet with you, to discuss a wide range of security challenges we face together in NATO. But especially to focus on the preparations for the meeting in May in Brussels, where NATO leaders, heads of state and government, are going to meet. The new US President, the new President of France, but also Montenegro, which is going to be at the next or the new member of NATO we will all be together there and showing the strength and the solidarity of the alliance through being together in Brussels at the leaders meeting.

Let me also thank Italy for being such a vital and highly valued NATO ally. You are contributing to NATO missions, operations, activities in many different ways and that is of great importance for our shared security, for our collective defence and for the strength of the alliance. You are on the top when it comes to contributing forces to our mission in Afghanistan. You are in Afghanistan with forces which are of great importance for the mission. I have met them myself in Herat and they are there helping to stabilize Afghanistan and also helping to fight international terrorism in Afghanistan and we thank you for your presence in Afghanistan. You are also present in the Balkans, helping to keep the Balkans stable and to also address the challenges posed by foreign fighters in that part of Europe and we also thank you for being the lead nation, having the leadership in our KFOR mission in Kosovo.

Let me also thank you for your contribution later this year to a Canadian-led battle group in Latvia, being part of our enhanced forward presence in the eastern part of the alliance. And Italy will next year lead our High Readiness Joint Task Force or Spearhead Force which is of great importance for the readiness of the alliance and the ability of the Alliance to reinforce if needed.

So you are participating and contributing in many different ways to the strength of the alliance. In particular I would like to thank Italy for being the driving force for developing NATOs strategy towards the south. We are now in the process of establishing a Hub for the south in our Joint Force Command in Naples. This will be an important tool in strengthening, enhancing NATOs ability to address the challenges we see emanating from the south, improve our situational awareness and improve our ability to react and to deal with the threats, including working with partners in the south.

NATO has been at the forefront of fighting terrorism for many, many years and our biggest military operation ever is in Afghanistan and we have to remember that the reason why we are in Afghanistan is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for international terrorists once again. NATO is also contributing to the fight against terrorism in many other ways. We have established a new division for intelligence. Sharing intelligence is key when it comes to addressing the terrorist threat. NATO is also providing support for the Counter-ISIL coalition, training Iraqi officers and providing AWACS surveillance plane support to the Coalition and you are really an important contributor to the Counter-ISIL Coalition and this is important for all of us. We are stepping up our support for Iraq and we have recently included military medicine, courses and training and also stepping up our counter-IED activities when it comes to helping Iraq stabilize their own country and fight, and fight terrorism.

NATO is also prepared to help Libya. I spoke with Prime Minister al-Sarraj last week. A NATO expert team will meet with the Libyan authorities in the coming weeks to discuss how NATO can help Libya build institutions, including a modern ministry of defence, joint chief of staff and intelligence serviceshelp to build institutions which are crucial to stabilize Libya. And Italy is once again being a highly valued ally because you are really present, you are really helping to solve the crisis, the problems in Libya through the political process, but also through your presence in Libya. And we all are grateful for what you do there.

Let me also underline that NATO and the European Union have stepped up our cooperation which is also important for Italy, being a member of both the European Union and NATO. And we have the NATO maritime security operation in the Mediterranean, Sea Guardian, and we have, currently we have four ships, three maritime patrol aircrafts and some other assets providing direct support to the EUs Operation Sophia, showing how NATO can help support the European Union addressing the challenges, the migrant and the refugee crisis we see in the central Mediterranean and we are also present in the Aegean Sea dealing with the migrant and refugee crisis.

As you mentioned we will also address burden sharing at the meeting in May with heads of state and government. Burden sharing is about defence spending and of course when tensions are going up we have to increase our investment in defence. I welcome that Italy has increased. Last year, Italy increased defence spending. And we are following up on the pledge we made together in 2014 to stop the cuts, to gradually increase defence spending and then move towards spending 2 % of GDP on defence within a decade. But burden sharing is about more than spending. Burden sharing is also about the capabilities we are developing and Italy again is contributing with many important capabilities to NATO, to the alliance and the contributions to NATO activities, missions and operations in Kosovo, in Afghanistan but also when it comes to our presence in the eastern part of the alliance.

So once again thank you so much for an excellent meeting. Thank you for everything Italy is doing for our alliance and Im looking forward to seeing you again in Brussels on the 25th of May together with all the other leaders showing the strength and the unity of the alliance. Thank you.

Go here to see the original:
by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint press point with the President of the Council of Ministers ... - NATO HQ (press release)

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the joint press point with the President of the Council of Ministers … – NATO HQ (press release)

A new era of digital underwater communications – NATO HQ (press release)

Posted: at 2:48 pm

Satellites and mobile phones, built on international standards, help the world get connected. But the communications technology we use on land does not work well underwater. As water covers over 70 per cent of the earth's surface, NATO has sponsored research into establishing the first ever digital underwater communications standard.

Imagine a scuba diver approaching the surface, being made aware of nearby boating activity; or a submarine communicating with a land-based command post; or an underwater robot sending a warning to an oil rig after a leak is detected the possible applications of underwater communications are limitless.

It could be used in many areas: for harbour protection, maritime surveillance, mine detection, surveying offshore wind farms and pipelines, or even underwater archaeology.

The NATO Science and Technology Organizations Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE, see below for more info) has developed a standard for underwater acoustic communications called JANUS, which is recognised as a NATO standard by all NATO Allies since 24 March 2017. This marks the first time that a digital underwater communication protocol has been acknowledged at international level and opens the way to develop many exciting underwater communication applications.

A network of marine robots

CMRE is working to support effective underwater communication networks to allow undersea robots to work together and report back home (see the infographic on Digital Underwater Networked Communications).

"Robots can behave intelligently and act as a team," says Joo Alves, Principal Scientist and Project Leader at CMRE. For example, one of the robots could find some interesting feature and call the rest of the team.

With effective undersea communication, this can all happen in an autonomous way, without requiring direct human intervention. If needed, the operation can be managed by land-based engineers who monitor all the communications from a command and control room ashore. The connection to land is made through gateway buoys on the surface of the water equipped with radio links to local support platforms or satellites.

This is particularly important for search-and-rescue operations, says John Potter, a scientist at the CMRE Strategic Development Office. Autonomous vehicles are relatively inexpensive and of course unmanned, so they can be sent to do dirty, dangerous jobs.

Sound is known to have an impact on marine life, said Joo Alves. Aware of this risk, the Centre works with biologists and other scientists to protect the marine environment.

Much of this development work is carried out on the Littoral Ocean Observatory Network, or LOON (see below for more info). The LOON is a test facility, installed in the harbour of La Spezia, Italy that plays a central role in NATO projects, many of which are developed in partnership with the European Commission.

CMRE uses the LOON to develop and test communication solutions that contribute to the protection and monitoring of oceans and rivers by underwater robots.

JANUS, the standard underwater language

To be able to communicate with each other, underwater assets need common standards. In the air we can simply connect our gadgets to any WiFi hotspot without having to worry about the compatibility, says Joo Alves. Until now, there wasnt anything even remotely similar for the underwater domain.

As with the industry standard for WiFi communication, an undersea communication standard has to be defined in order to guarantee the interoperability between equipment from different manufacturers.

For the past ten years, CMRE has been working on the development of the first international digital underwater communication protocol, known as JANUS, which is now an approved NATO standard.

JANUS was a Roman god of openings and gateways, says John Potter. Thats why it is called JANUS, because this language opens the portal between two domains, two different operating paradigms, through which they can talk.

It is a digital underwater signalling system that can be used to contact underwater devices using a common format; announce the presence of a device to reduce conflicts; and enable a group of underwater devices (that can be underwater robots, submarines, divers or any other equipment operating under the surface) to organise themselves into a network, adds John Potter.

Adopted globally, JANUS can make military and civilian, NATO and non-NATO devices interoperable, providing them all with a common language with which to communicate and arrange to cooperate.

JANUS has been extensively tested at sea in exercises involving a number of partners (universities, industries and research institutions) covering a range of application scenarios. Close collaboration with NATO Allies has been particularly fruitful in developing JANUS for use in cases that may improve the safety of maritime operations.

For example, the Portuguese Navy has been working with CMRE to develop new concepts to support the exchange of crucial information with submarines (typically only available at the surface via radio) such as the location of nearby ships. Digital data exchanges to support rescue operations in case of a submarine incident are currently also being developed.

Littoral Ocean Observatory Network an underwater test bed

NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation

Read this article:
A new era of digital underwater communications - NATO HQ (press release)

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on A new era of digital underwater communications – NATO HQ (press release)

NSA Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets – New York Times

Posted: at 2:48 pm


New York Times
NSA Halts Collection of Americans' Emails About Foreign Targets
New York Times
WASHINGTON The National Security Agency is stopping one of the most disputed forms of its warrantless surveillance program, one in which it collects Americans' emails and texts to and from people overseas and that mention a foreigner under ...
The NSA will stop reading American emails that mention intelligence targetsThe Verge
NSA ends a controversial part of its warrantless spyingAlaska Dispatch News
NSA Halts Controversial Surveillance Tactic of Collecting American Emails About Foreign TargetsDaily Beast
Techdirt
all 6 news articles »

Read this article:
NSA Halts Collection of Americans' Emails About Foreign Targets - New York Times

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA Halts Collection of Americans’ Emails About Foreign Targets – New York Times

Who Is Publishing NSA and CIA Secrets, and Why? – Lawfare – Lawfare (blog)

Posted: at 2:48 pm

There's something going on inside the intelligence communities in at least two countries, and we have no idea what it is.

Consider these three data points. One: someone, probably a country's intelligence organization, is dumping massive amounts of cyberattack tools belonging to the NSA onto the Internet. Two: someone else, or maybe the same someone, is doing the same thing to the CIA.

Three: in March, NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett describedhow the NSA penetrated the computer networks of a Russian intelligence agency and was able to monitor them as they attacked the U.S. State Department in 2014. Even more explicitly, a U.S.allymy guess is the U.K.was not only hacking the Russian intelligence agency's computers, but also the surveillance cameras inside their building. "They [the U.S. ally] monitored the [Russian] hackers as they maneuvered inside the U.S. systems and as they walked in and out of the workspace, and were able to see faces, the officials said."

Countries don't often reveal intelligence capabilities: "sources and methods." Because it gives their adversaries important information about what to fix, it's a deliberate decision done with good reason. And it's not just the target country who learns from a reveal. When the U.S. announces that it can see through the cameras inside the buildings of Russia's cyber warriors, other countries immediately check the security of their own cameras.

With all this in mind, let's talk about the recent leaks at NSA and the CIA.

Last year, a previously unknown group called the Shadow Brokers started releasing NSA hacking tools and documents from about three years ago. They continued to do so this yearfive sets of files in alland have implied that more classified documents are to come. We don't know how they got the files. When the Shadow Brokers first emerged, the general consensus was that someone had found and hacked an external NSA staging server. These are third-party computers that the NSA's TAO hackers use to launch attacks from. Those servers are necessarily stocked with TAO attack tools. This matched the leaks, which included a "script" directory and working attack notes. We're not sure if someone inside the NSA made a mistake that left these files exposed, or if the hackers that found the cache got lucky.

That explanation stopped making sense after the latest Shadow Brokers release, which included attack tools against Windows, PowerPoint presentations, and operational notesdocuments that are definitely not going to be on an external NSA staging server. A credible theory, which I first heard from Nicholas Weaver, is that the Shadow Brokers are publishing NSA data from multiple sources. The first leaks were from an external staging server, but the more recent leaks are from inside the NSA itself.

So what happened? Did someone inside the NSA accidentally mount the wrong server on some external network? That's possible, but seems very unlikely. Did someone hack the NSA itself? Could there be a mole inside the NSA, as Kevin Poulsen speculated?

If it is a mole, my guess is that he's already been arrested. There are enough individualities in the files to pinpoint exactly where and when they came from. Surely the NSA knows who could have taken the files. No country would burn a mole working for it by publishing what he delivered. Intelligence agencies know that if they betray a source this severely, they'll never get another one.

That points to two options. The first is that the files came from Hal Martin. He's the NSA contractor who was arrested in August for hoarding agency secrets in his house for two years. He can't be the publisher, because the Shadow Brokers are in business even though he is in prison. But maybe the leaker got the documents from his stash: either because Martin gave the documents to them or because he himself was hacked. The dates line up, so it's theoretically possible, but the contents of the documents speak to someone with a different sort of access. There's also nothing in the public indictment against Martin that speaks to his selling secrets to a foreign power, and I think it's exactly the sort of thing that the NSA would leak. But maybe I'm wrong about all of this; Occam's Razor suggests that it's him.

The other option is a mysterious second NSA leak of cyberattack tools. The only thing I have ever heard about this is from a Washington Post story about Martin: "But there was a second, previously undisclosed breach of cybertools, discovered in the summer of 2015, which was also carried out by a TAO employee, one official said. That individual also has been arrested, but his case has not been made public. The individual is not thought to have shared the material with another country, the official said." But "not thought to have" is not the same as not having done so.

On the other hand, it's possible that someone penetrated the internal NSA network. We've already seen NSA tools that can do that kind of thing to other networks. That would be huge, and explain why there were calls to fire NSA Director Mike Rogerslast year.

The CIA leak is both similar and different. It consists of a series of attack tools from about a year ago. The most educated guess amongst people who know stuff is that the data is from an almost-certainly air-gapped internal development wikia Confluence serverand either someone on the inside was somehow coerced into giving up a copy of it, or someone on the outside hacked into the CIA and got themselves a copy. They turned the documents over to WikiLeaks, which continues to publish it.

This is also a really big deal, and hugely damaging for the CIA. Those tools were new, and they're impressive. I have been told that the CIA is desperately trying to hire coders to replace what was lost.

For both of these leaks, one big question is attribution: who did this? A whistleblower wouldn't sit on attack tools for years before publishing. A whistleblower would act more like Snowden or Manning, publishing immediatelyand publishing documents that discuss what the U.S. is doing to whom, not simply a bunch of attack tools. It just doesn't make sense. Neither does random hackers. Or cybercriminals. I think it's being done by a country or countries.

My guess was, and is still, Russia in both cases. Here's my reasoning. Whoever got this information years before and is leaking it now has to 1) be capable of hacking the NSA and/or the CIA, and 2) willing to publish it all. Countries like Israel and France are certainly capable, but wouldn't ever publish. Country like North Korea or Iran probably aren't capable. The list of countries who fit both criteria is small: Russia, China, and ... and ... and I'm out of ideas. And China is currently trying to make nice with the US.

Last August, Edward Snowden guessed Russia, too.

So Russiaor someone elsesteals these secrets, and presumably uses themto both defend its own networks and hack other countries while deflecting blame for a couple of years. For it to publish now means that the intelligence value of the information is now lower than the embarrassment value to the NSA and CIA. This could be because the US figured out that its tools were hacked, and maybe even by whom; which would make the tools less valuable against U.S. government targets, although still valuable against third parties.

The message that comes with publishing seems clear to me: "We are so deep into your business that we don't care if we burn these few-years-old capabilities, as well as the fact that we have them. There's just nothing you can do about it." It's bragging.

Which is exactly the same thing Ledgett is doing to the Russians. Maybe the capabilities he talked about are long gone, so there's nothing lost in exposing sources and methods. Or maybe he too is bragging: saying to the Russians that he doesn't care if they know. He's certainly bragging to every other country that is paying attention to his remarks. (He may be bluffing, of course, hoping to convince others that the U.S. has intelligence capabilities it doesn't.)

What happens when intelligence agencies go to war with each other and don't tell the rest of us? I think there's something going on between the US and Russia that the public is just seeing pieces of. We have no idea why, or where it will go next, and can only speculate.

Read more:
Who Is Publishing NSA and CIA Secrets, and Why? - Lawfare - Lawfare (blog)

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Who Is Publishing NSA and CIA Secrets, and Why? – Lawfare – Lawfare (blog)

NSA Halts Collecting Americans Emails About Foreign Targets – Daily Beast

Posted: at 2:48 pm

The National Security Agency will no longer use a controversial surveillance tactic that lets the spy agency sift through electronic communications to find communications about its surveillance targets, according to an official who has been briefed on a pending ruling from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

The FISC ruling is expected to be publicized soon, and to indicate that the NSA has stopped using this surveillance tactic because it couldnt fully comply with procedures designed to protect Americans constitutional rights.

The New York Times first reported that the NSA will stop engaging in this particular surveillance tactic, known as about colletion.

Its a significant change in how the U.S. government surveils people, which will cheer civil liberties advocates and worry conservatives who argue muscular surveillance is necessary to stop terrorism.

The surveillance tactic at issue is known as about collection, and allowed under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. Section 702 lets the NSA store and read internet communications pertaining to foreign targets that move through American companies. About collection is the process by which the NSA searches through those electronic communications it collects as theyre in traffic in transit across the Internet backbone. Civil liberties advocates believe about collection may result in the NSA reading emails between Americans without a warrant.

This process is now going to stop.

The NSA has secretly spied on Americans internet communications for years, continuously searching through the contents of emails and web-browsing activities in bulk, said Patrick Toomey, an ACLU attorney who works on surveillance issues. This kind of warrant-free, suspicion-free surveillance is exactly what the Fourth Amendment prohibits. Putting an end to this spying is an important step, but it is only a start to the broader reforms of Section 702 that are badly needed to safeguard Americans' privacy.

The official who spoke with The Daily Beast said the intelligence community will stop doing about collection because its analysts couldnt fully comply with minimization procedures designed to keep them from violating Americans Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

NSA analysts conduct about collection when they spy on foreigners who they believe are outside the United States. Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act lets the NSA read the emails and listen to the phone calls of people who arent U.S. citizens and arent in America.

When the NSA engages in about collection, it searches through internet communications (without a warrant, of course) for references to a person it is surveilling. And that means NSA analysts may sometimes look at emails sent by American citizens without first getting a warrant.

To try to protect Americans Constitutional rights, the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has required that NSA analysts take certain steps to minimize how much their spyingincluding about collectionimpacts Americans rights. Those steps are called minimization procedures. Civil liberties advocates worry they dont sufficiently protect Americans constitutional rights.

The NSAs apparent struggles to comply with minimization procedures may be the reason the FISC it didnt authorize any surveillance under Section 702, as indicated by a report on the court released last week.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

The NSAs decision to end about collection is also significant because the agency previously told the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)a bipartisan watchdog agencythat it would be difficult to stop about collection without stopping all upstream surveillance. The term upstream surveillance refers to the NSAs practice of scanning communications in bulk as they pass over the Internet backbone, and saving copies of any that contained a term on the agencys list of selectors.

This new ruling could mean one of two things: that either the NSA misinformed the PCLOB when it said it probably couldnt stop doing about collection without stopping all upstream surveillance, or it found a way to do the former without doing the latter.

Regardless, this is a major change in how the U.S. government spies on foreigners its trying to surveil. And its the rare restriction in surveillance that has happened without Congressional involvement.

There is a short list of things that civil liberties advocates honed in on as the biggest problems with 702, said Julian Sanchez, who follows surveillance issues for the libertarian Cato Institute. The other major one is the backdoor search loophole. But about collection was probably the second on the list.

I think this is a useful narrowing of this very broad collections program, he added, something thats at least a little bit closer to the traditional concept of surveillance, where the target is a person or account and not everything in the universe of communications that refers to that person or account.

Read the original here:
NSA Halts Collecting Americans Emails About Foreign Targets - Daily Beast

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on NSA Halts Collecting Americans Emails About Foreign Targets – Daily Beast