Category Archives: NSA

The National Security Agency said it is redefining the academic path to jobs in cybersecurity with a new program offering minority students interested in the field access to paid internships and training facilities.

The Cybersecurity Education Diversity InitiativeCEDImakes officials and resources such as virtual cyber ranges available to minority-serving institutions through NSAs National Centers of Academic Excellence in Cybersecurity, according to a press release on Thursday. The Office of Industrial Policys Small Business Program and the Mentor Protg Program at the Defense Department would participate, and students can receive stipends for working with companies in their geographic areas, the release said.

This partnership is a revolutionary approach to developing the cybersecurity workforce of the future, said Diane M. Janosek, the commandant of NSAs National Cryptologic School, which houses the NCAE-C program. CEDI is the future model for developing well-qualified and trained cybersecurity professionals across all industrial sectors, in all 50 states. Thank you DoDs Office of Small Business Programs for creatively addressing the critical need for cybersecurity professionals in the Defense Industrial Base.

Tapping Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions to fill what is now hundreds of thousands of related vacancies makes sense to politicians and cybersecurity officials, alike.

During a town hall event Thursday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said the availability of cybersecurity jobs provides an opportunity for young Black voters to start generating wealth. He touted his efforts while serving as vice president during the Obama administration, which included the announcement of a $25 million grant for cybersecurity education at HBCUs.

That will enable those schools to produce young Black women and men who are going to go into a field of the future that's burgeoning; cybersecurity, he said. And that's what's going to help a great deal.

Biden said he plans to put another $70 billion toward HBCUs, if elected. Simultaneously, in a separate town hall, President Donald Trump also emphasized his commitment to HBCUs.

But there are also cybersecurity benefits to be had from making the industry more diverse, according to Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Christopher Krebs.

Theres an advantage of U.S.-centric cybersecurity defense against what is generally adversaries that are fairly homogeneous, he said this summer. We have a distinct advantage in diversifying our workforce and having a more inclusive environment. Thats going to give us perspectives our adversaries dont have. I think innately the American experience can set us up for greater success in the cybersecurity game.

Eight minority-serving institutions have already received grants to build their capacity, according to a factsheet on the initiative. The document lists participating NCAE-C institutions, including those from regions around the country, and provides contact information for learning about the application process.

Here is the original post:
NSA Launches Diversity Initiative to Grow Bench of Job-Ready Cybersecurity Talent - Nextgov

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire, supported by Glenlivet Books. Today, we present an exclusive interview from Islamabad on India-Pakistan relations. My guest is the Pakistan prime ministers advisor on national security and strategic policy planning, Moeed Yusuf. This is Dr. Yusufs first interview to the Indian media, its also the first interview by any official in Pakistan after the constitution changes in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019.

Dr. Yusuf, lets start with August 2019. Why is Pakistan so worked up by the internal constitutional changes in Jammu and Kashmir? First of all, this is a strictly internal Indian matter its of no concern to Pakistan and secondly, youre reported to be attempting something very similar in Gilgit Baltistan.

Moeed Yusuf: Thank you for having me on your show, Karan. So, lets take these separately because GB is a separate issue, Ill come to that. As far as the 5th of August, 2019 is concerned, quite frankly, India scored an own-goal. You know, there was never a doubt what the Kashmiris of occupied Kashmir believed in what they thought of India but, if there was any doubt left, its gone now.

Dont accept what Im saying; Farooq Abdullah came to your programme very recently I heard him, what did he say? No Kashmiri sees him or herself as Indian, theyd much rather be ruled by Chinese of course, he couldnt say Pakistan, he has to survive in India but, the Chinese. What does the ICJ report saying? What is Yashwant Sinhas report saying? The world is calling India out. Karan, thats the reality. Kashmiris cant bear the thought of being Indian. Kashmiri Hindustan se nafrat kartein hain, Karan and, when thats the reality, what internal arrangement are you talking about?

KT: But see, youre confusing two things. Whatever the Kashmiri feeling toward India may be is another matter; but what has happened

MY: No, no! *chuckles*

KT: is an internal constitutional change. It doesnt affect Pakistan in any way, it doesnt affect the UN referendum or plebiscite requirement in any way. Its internal its simply a constitutional, administrative measure and precisely the same thing is being

MY: Let me correct you, Karan.

KT: talked about for

MY: Let me correct.

KT: Gilgit Baltistan.

MY: Let me correct you. If Indias taking a stance that its actions of August 5th a permanent change to the territory which is disputed if India is arguing that a forced domicile law, change of demography of that territory, is not against the UN Charter, well, India is then priding itself at being a rogue state, Karan. Let me tell you why. The UN Charter and the UN resolutions are very clear; Indias never obeyed them, but now you have formally stated youre going to violate them. And, let me also tell you, your foreign minister was very recently I think last year, perhaps in the US. I heard him say that India will now resolve all its problems unilaterally. So, let me tell you whats happening, its very important

KT: Let me come back to this point

MY: Just give me one second.

KT: Let me come back

MY: Karan, one second

KT: One quick point

MY: Let me just finish

KT: You made

MY: Karan, just let me finish

KT: a point of talking

MY: No, no, no

KT: about demographic changes. Pakistan has been making demographic changes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, by bringing in Punjabi settlers, for decades

MY: No

KT: At the moment, what demographic changes happen, its only made possible by the domicile law and, secondly, this is equally important if you can change the administrative structure of Gilgit Baltistan, India can certainly do the same in Jammu and Kashmir.

MY: Karan. Karan, I told you Ill come to Gilgit Baltistan but let me just finish this topic. You know, there are three levels you know, I have a background in scholarship. There are three levels at which the state can operate in the international community of nations. Theres the multilateral international, which is the UN we know what India thinks of the UN resolutions, we know what India said about the plebiscite after going to the UN itself and then pulling back from it. The second level is bilateral; for years, for decades since 1972 Shimla, India told the world its a bilateral matter well use Shimla. What happened on the 5th of August? A unilateral decision that Shimla explicitly says you cannot do. And dont take my words for it, take A.G. Nooranis words what did he say in a recent article? The foul deeds of August 5th destroyed the Shimla agreement, or the Shimla pact, totally. And the third level is unilateral; youve done something unilateral, when you did something unilateral you had to bring in a 180,000 troops, lie to the world that there was a terrorist threat, and then you perpetrated Indian government perpetrated terrorism on the 5th of August

KT: Can I respond?

MY: And then, a year later

KT: Can I respond?

MY: You had to impose curfew

KT: Dr. Yusuf

MY: And when you say, Karan, that the

KT: You must let me respond

MY: wishes of the people dont matter, thats where you go wrong.

KT: You began, first of all

MY: All that matters is the wishes of the people.

KT: Dr. Yusuf, you must let me respond. You began, first of all, by referring to the UN requirements of a plebiscite that is conditioned by a Pakistani withdrawal which didnt happen. So, lets be honest

MY: *chuckles*

KT: the first step was from your side, it didnt happen, thats why the plebiscite didnt never happened. Secondly, youre talking about the world believing that India has done the wrong thing with the exception of Turkey and Malaysia, no other country supports Pakistans position on 370. In fact, youre aware better than me that your attempt to create a special OIC meeting annoyed the Saudis and has strained your relationship with them. Actually, your obsession with Kashmir is becoming an own goal against yourself.

MY: Youre actually packing too many questions so Im going to write so I dont forget. So, Karan, first of all, here is where India goes wrong the only thing that matters is the wishes of the people because the UN resolutions are about the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris you dont believe me? And, Ill come to GB now you think what Im saying about occupied Kashmir is wrong? Even though everybody on your programme, in New York Times andThe Economist have said what they have to say? Lets hold a UN-administered plebiscite tomorrow. Lets bring the UN in, ask them what needs to be done

KT: Youre changing the subject

MY: Just do it.

KT: Were not talking about a UN plebiscite, were talking about the fact that Pakistan for reasons that have no warranty or justification is finding fault with Indias internal decision to change the constitutional arrangements in Jammu and Kashmir. Youve done the same in Gilgit Baltistan. Secondly, youve been changing the demography of P0K by bringing in Punjabi settlers for decades that hasnt happened in India.

MY: Yeah. So, let me come to the Pakistan side by adding just one sentence to what I was saying. The day India recognises that only the wishes of people of Kashmiris matter, this issue can be resolved. And today, Karan, I sit here, on the instructions of my prime minister, to talk to you about the future to talk to you how we can move forward, how we can get over our problems, not to litigate the past.

But since youre there, Gilgit Baltistan first of all, no decision has been made. What is happening in Gilgit Baltistan? Theres a public debate? Yes. Why is there a public debate? For the polar opposite reason to what is happening in Illegally Occupied Kashmir. Whats the reason? People of Gilgit Baltistan want to be fully integrated into Pakistan that is the reason of this public debate. Now

KT:Can I interrupt you?

MY: what is Pakistans response?

Indus River at Skardu in Gilgit-Baltistan region. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

KT: I have to interrupt you because youve made, I think, according to your papers, a factual error. Dawn, one of Pakistans best-known papers, on the 22nd of September, reported that at a meeting with several senior cabinet ministers present, members of the PPP, and the army chief a decision was taken to confer provincial status on Gilgit Baltistan. And that was confirmed to Dawn thereafter by your railway minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed and by the minister in charge of Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan affairs, Ali Amin Gandapur. Im quoting Dawn! They say the decision

MY: My friend. My friend, the proof is in the pudding. If it was so confirmed and so done, where is the act? Now, please let me finish this answer. You asked me two or three times, I want to clarify this. One, no decision has been made; two, there is a public debate the public debate is not being generated by the Government of Pakistan, its being generated by the people of Gilgit Baltistan. Theyve been saying this for two or three years now. What are they saying? We want to be fully integrated with Pakistan. Now, you tell me, Karan, if a people is not treated well, would they ever want that? Ive never heard the Kashmiri Muslims talk about this in the occupied territories

KT: Youre deliberately missing the point.

MY: Third, whatever

KT: Just as you say

MS: Sorry, Karan just let me finish.

KT: Just as you say the people of Gilgit Baltistan

MS: Karan, this is not fair.You ask me a question, you dont let me finish.

KT: people of Ladakh wanted to be separated from Jammu and Kashmir, they wanted union territory status as well, they asked for it.

MY: Karan, not fair. You asked me a question, let me finish please have the patience to hear me out. The third part of that is most important. Whatever decision is ultimately taken will be within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions. If the resolutions bar permanent change of territorial status, there will be no permanent change and there may be no change. This is a debate, this is how democratic societies debate; democratic societies, by the way, Karan, do not bring in a 180,000 troops to change the status of a territory. Thats the difference between Pakistan and India right now.

KT: Let me repost to some of the things youve said. First of all, you said the change in Gilgit Baltistan is happening because the people have requested it that is equally true of Ladakh, the people of Ladakh have been wanting to be separated from Jammu and Kashmir for decades, they wanted union territory status, theyve now got it. So, the same criteria apply in both instances. Secondly

MY: Within the constraints of the UN.

KT: You have to let me finish, you have to let me finish.

MY: Sure.

KT: Secondly, you said that, in fact, what is happening is not a violation of the Shimla agreement in the case of Gilgit Baltistan, it is, you claim, a violation of Shimla in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. Actually, its the same thing happening on both sides; you are changing the nature of the

MY: But nothing has happened!

KT: Youre changing the nature

MY: Nothing has happened! 5th of August has happened. In Pakistan theres a public debate and one thing I can guarantee you on your programme whenever that debate settles, there will be no question of going outside any multilateral or bilateral framework that Pakistan has agreed to.

KT: Doctor, when you say nothing has happened

MY: Karan, thats the difference.

KT: youre forgetting the fact

MY: Karan, that

KT: that changing the provincial nature of Gilgit Baltistan is a campaign promise of Imran Khans party. Mr. Gandapur had said so, Im quoting Mr. Gandapur, just listen to the minister

MY: Yeah, you quote him.

KT: Our government has decided to deliver on the promise it made to the people there. Hes saying so, its a campaign promise

MY: The promise made to people in Gilgit Baltistan is to ensure that they get more development, even more rights within the framework of the UN Security Council resolution. If the UN Security Council resolutions allow the word provisional to be added, maybe the public debate goes there; if it doesnt allow it, it wont go there. Karan, we are talking of Kashmir, right? This is a disputed territory, internationally recognised

KT: Both sides of it! Both sides of it! Do not forget to include PoK-Gilgit Baltistan; its disputed, India believes

MY: Absolutely. It will be included in the plebiscite the day the plebiscite happens. My map, behind me, Pakistans official political map, all of it in one colour for that very reason. Now, youve talked of Kashmir, but Karan, let me say one thing this is no longer, unfortunately, an India focused on Pakistan doing things that are illegal and wrong. Unfortunately, we are now seeing at least, sitting on this side of the border we are seeing an ideology that you who knows better than you?

KT: Forgive me, just a moment

MY: Weve seen expansionism

KT: Just a moment! Before you start branching into an ideology and making claims, like your Prime Minister has made with the UN, that Mr. Modi

MY: Karan, youve written about it! For god sakes, youve written about it.

KT: Lets not become polemical, lets stick to details

MY: No!

KT: otherwise, we

MY: No, no I was going to

KT: will not have a discussion, we will have a tu tu, main main which will serve no ones purpose.

MY: No, no Im here to talk of the future.

KT: Let me come back to the issue

MY:Lets talk of the future, lets talk peace.

KT: I will definitely talk to you about the future

MY: Lets talk peace.

KT: but lets talk about the present first.

MY: Okay.

KT: Lets come back to Article 370. I want to point out the paradox. One, while Article 370 existed, Pakistan dismissed it as a sham. Your high commissioners repeatedly refused to meet the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir they wouldnt recognise them. Now that Article 370 has been scrapped, youre clamouring for its restoration. You seem to be contradicting yourselves.

MY: First of all, Karan, Pakistan does not recognise cannot recognise Article 370 because Pakistans quarrel is with the actual instrument of accession; an instrument of accession that was signed under duress

KT: *chuckles* Youve just given the game away. If you cant recognise 370, why worry when its scrapped? Why make such a protest about its scrapping? Thats the point Im making.

MY: Oh, its not my issue. Im not making a protest about 370, lets be clear

KT: Your government is.

MY: No, no not at all. Show me one place where weve said 370 good or bad. We are raising an issue because you have formally gone outside the UN Charter and the resolutions by making a permanent change in the territory I rightfully claim as mine, to people who cant bear the thought of being under Indian occupation. Thats my quarrel. My quarrel is the domicile law which is thrusting people on a Muslim-majority territory to change its character.

KT: Dr. Yusuf, everything youre saying will apply to Gilgit Baltistan a campaign manifesto promise of your government, a commitment made in public by your railway minister and the Kashmir minister to the Dawn newspaper you can apply your arguments to yourself. What Im saying is

MY: So, Ive said two things to you, Karan

Read the original post:
Full Text: Interview with Imran Khans NSA on Kashmir, Uighurs, Jadhav, Terror and Talks - The Wire

THE Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) has formalized the accreditation of Philippine Electronic Sports Organization (PESO) as the official National Sports Association (NSA) for esports in the Philippines.

An NSA is the officially appointed regulatory body of a sport in the country. For a refresher of how NSAs work, read this:

In a certificate issued on October 9, 2020, the POC declared PESO as an associate member of the National Olympic Committee (NOC) Philippine Olympic Committee.

As such, PESO is the sole recognized National Sports Association and governing body for the sport of ESPORTS in the Philippines, the certificate reads.

The certificate also bears the names of PESO officials who will serve the term of two years from their election last February 2019: Brian Benjamin Lim, president; Eric Redulfin, vice president; Jess Tamboboy, secretary general; and Michael Gatchalian, corporate secretary.

The news comes after reports surfaced this week that esports would return to next years SEA Games.

Continue reading below

PESOs member-organizations include Bren Esports, Gariath Concepts, Mineski Philippines, The Nationals, PlayBook Esports, Tier One Entertainment, TV5, and TNC Holdings. These groups were key in last years debut of esports as a medal event in the 30th SEA Games.

They also worked, variously, as technical officials for the production and streaming of the event, as well as coaches and managers for Sibol, the Philippines esports team.

Continue reading below

Recommended Videos

We are honored and grateful for the trust that the POC placed in us. We embrace this huge responsibility as we continue to support our athletes and push the growth and development of Esports in the country, said PESO President Brian Lim.

We also echo POCs call for unity among esports groups and communities as we all share the same goal to showcase the skills and abilities of Filipino gamers in the world arena and ultimately bring glory to our country, he adds.

PESO went through a rigorous accreditation process by the POC, which took into consideration its years of experience in organizing esport events and programs, as well as its linkages with reputable esport organizations.

Continue reading below

Since 2012, PESO has been a member in good standing of the International Esports Federation (IESF).

Last March, IESF and Asian Esports Federation (AESF) signed a milestone agreement to promote and advance esports globally, and across the Asian continent.

Under the agreement, the IESF recognizes the AESF as the sole federation for esports in Asia, while the AESF recognizes IESF as the sole federation for esports on the international level.

Spin fans unite at the Spin Viber Community! Join the growing community now and complete the experience by subscribing to the Spin Chatbot.

View original post here:
PESO named official national sports association for esports in the Philippines - Sports Interactive Network Philippines

THE National Sheep Association (NSA) has voiced concerns following the rejection by the House of Commons on a Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill that would force future trade deals to meet UK animal welfare and food safety rules.

The vote, which saw MPs reject the amendment by 332 votes to 279, will potentially allow food products with lower standards than that produced in the UK to be accepted into the country once new trade deals are secured following the UKs departure from the EU.

NSA chief executive Phil Stocker said: This amendment provided an opportunity to uphold and protect our animal welfare standards, some of the highest in the world.

"With this being rejected by MPs last night, there is now the very real risk, despite Governments assurances, that the UKs standards that our nations farmers are proud to work to, could be undermined by lower standard imports.

The Government may have already given a verbal commitment to farmers and consumers that the current high UK standards will not be threatened by imported goods but even if this commitment is upheld, it comes from the current Government only and therefore is for the present Parliamentary term, four years down the line there is a risk this commitment could be lost and the UK farming sector could be left to fight this battle again.

Farming Minister George Eustice has said that the amendment was unnecessary and would be opposed by ministers as it could cause technical issues and disrupt existing trade deals with countries such as South America that already bring small amounts of product into the UK.

Mr Stocker said: Any suggestion by the Government that importing just relatively small quantities of lower standard products is worth it in order to safeguard other trade flies in the face of the UKs stated aim to see animal welfare standards increase across the world.

"We simply will not achieve this if we allow our markets to support standards we wouldnt find acceptable here.

We sincerely hope the British public will get behind the countrys farmers more than ever now in supporting their hard work producing the highest quality, good value farm produce, while caring for their livestock and upholding animal welfare standards at all times.

"As we leave the EU and further trade deals are secured, it will be more important than ever to support UK agriculture and buy British to be assured of food traceability and quality.

See the rest here:
'Risk' that food standards will be lowered by imports, says NSA - Darlington and Stockton Times

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "5G: The Greatest Show on Earth! Vol 13: Needle in a Haystack" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The publisher just completed their thirteenth 5G benchmark study, this time with a focus on the T-Mobile Band n71 5G NR Standalone (SA) network and how it compares with the operator's 5G NR Non-Standalone (NSA) network. They tested in the Dallas area, as well as rural areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Highlights of the Report include the following:

Improved Coverage and Performance: Although it wasn't easy to find locations where the smartphone used [needed] SA, in those regions, the publisher observed 5G NR coverage which didn't exist with the NSA-capable smartphone. They also documented meaningful increases in end-user data speeds, even in cases when the NSA smartphone was using both LTE and 5G NR.

Latency Results were Mixed: The publisher measured handover times, acquisition times, RTT and web page load times. The results were mixed, at best.

Related Challenges: PDCP packet losses, especially with poor LTE coverage remain a big problem that isn't specific to any operator or vendor. Furthermore, they continue to observe smartphones camping on a low-band LTE frequency (i.e., Band 12) instead of leveraging 5G NR in another low-band frequency. The publisher is very familiar with the airplane mode feature which can trigger a different response and the desired outcome.

Sidebar Study: The publisher covered the majority of Wisconsin while testing the top three operator networks. AT&T had the fastest network (by far) while the T-Mobile network had the greatest use of 5G NR. They also captured scanner data to look at operator low-/mid-band LTE coverage and 5G NR coverage.

Key Topics Covered:

1.0 Executive Summary

2.0 Key Observations

3.0 Latency-Related Metrics

4.0 5G NR SA Coverage and Performance

4.1 Wisconsin

4.2 Minnesota

5.0 Test Methodology

6.0 Final Thoughts

7.0 Appendix

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/36q5ic

Go here to see the original:
United States 5G Benchmark Study 2020: T-Mobile Band n71 5G NR Standalone (SA) Network and how it Compares with the Operator's 5G NR Non-Standalone...

The National Sheep Association (NSA) has responded to the vote in the House of Commons on a Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill that would force future trade deals to meet UK animal welfare and food safety rules.

The vote which saw MPs reject the amendment with 332 votes to 279 will potentially allow food products with lower standards than that produced in the UK to be accepted into the country once new trade deals are secured following the UKs departure from the EU.

NSA chief executive Phil Stocker said:

This amendment provided opportunity to uphold and protect our animal welfare standards, some of the highest in the world.

With this being rejected by MPs last night there is now the very real risk, despite governments assurances, that the UKs standards that our nations farmers are proud to work to, could be undermined by lower standard imports.

The government may have already given a verbal commitment to farmers and consumers that the current high UK standards will not be threatened by imported goods.

However, even if this commitment is upheld it comes from the current government only and therefore is for the present Parliamentary term; four years down the line there is a risk this commitment could be lost and the UK farming sector could be left to fight this battle again.

Farming Minister George Eustice last week stated that the amendment was unnecessary and would be opposed by ministers as it could cause technical issues and disrupt existing trade deals with countries such as South America that already bring small amounts of product into the UK.

Stocker continued:

Any suggestion by the government that importing just relatively small quantities of lower standard products is worth it in order to safeguard other trade flies in the face of the UKs stated aim to see animal welfare standards increase across the world.

We simply will not achieve this if we allow our markets to support standards we wouldnt find acceptable here.

We sincerely hope the British public will get behind the countrys farmers more than ever now in supporting their hard work producing the highest quality, good value farm produce whilst caring for their livestock and upholding animal welfare standards at all times.

As we leave the EU and further trade deals are secured it will be more important than ever to support UK agriculture and buy British to be assured of food traceability and quality.

NSA Scottish Region chairman Jen Craig added:

It is incredibly disappointing that the UK government has voted against the amendment to ensure imports to the UK are produced to the same standard as our own.

However, we should not allow this vote to undermine what we do in the UK. We will continue to be world leaders in animal health and welfare whilst producing food to the highest of standards.

This allows our consumers to have the utmost trust and confidence that when they buy Scottish and British food, they can have pride in knowing where it has come from and that it is safe.

RELATED STORIES

Visit link:
Agriculture Bill rejection leaves a 'real risk' to UK animal welfare standards - NSA - Agriland.co.uk

In this episode of "Intelligence Matters," Anne Neuberger, Director of the National Security Agency's Cybersecurity Directorate, details her trajectory from the agency's Chief Risk Officer, to the lead on election security in 2018, to the head of the agency's newly revamped cybersecurity mission. She tells Morell what lessons were learned about deterring Russia during the 2018 midterm elections and how the Cybersecurity Directorate seeks to help the public and private sectors defend themselves against foreign cyber threats. She also explains why the NSA is looking to shed some of its secretive reputation, and adjust to a rapidly changing technological environment.

HIGHLIGHTS

Download, rate and subscribe here:iTunes,SpotifyandStitcher.

Intelligence Matters: Anne Neuberger

Producer: Olivia Gazis

MICHAEL MORELL: Anne, welcome to Intelligence Matters. It is great to have you on the show.

ANNE NEUBERGER: It's great to be here, thank you.

MICHAEL MORELL: So I think the place to start, Anne, is with your career. Before you joined the National Security Agency, you had a career in the private sector. Can you tell us about that and tell us what you did in the private sector and then what drew you into government service?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Sure, absolutely. So I was running technology at a at a financial services company, and during that time period when financial services companies really moved off mainframe environments to the Web and to client server technology. So that piece of both taking in operations and a mission, and its associated technology and people and culture, really shaped the way I approach a lot of those problems today.

And I was raised in in a family where my dad came as a refugee; all my grandparents came as refugees to the U.S., and they just constantly instilled in us how grateful we should be for the opportunity to be born in America and raised in America with its freedoms, with its ability to pursue one's dreams and and that we owed a debt for that.

And I was driving home from work in 2006. We had just done a large acquisition of a company, of a bank's custodian operations. And on the radio, they were talking about the bombing of a mosque, Samarra mosque in Samarra, Iraq, and just the soldiers dying, civilians dying and the troubles there. And I still don't know why, but I thought of my dad and thought to myself, 'Perhaps now's the time to repay a little bit of of that debt in some way.'

And, when I'd been a graduate student at Columbia, I had a I had a professor tell me about the White House Fellows program and encouraged me to apply. And I have to admit that, with a bit of the New Yorker, 'I can't leave New York, ever,' kind of put that aside. And for whatever reason, I just felt that calling at that moment, called him, and said, 'I'll apply.'

And, fast forward, I was assigned to the Pentagon with zero military background and, you know, learned a lot about the culture, felt very drawn to that shared commitment. And so I spent a year in the Pentagon and worked for the Navy and then came to the NSA a couple of years later.

MICHAEL MORELL: What did they have you doing at the Pentagon and the Navy?

ANNE NEUBERGER: I was the Deputy Chief Management Officer at the Navy. So, essentially the Navy had a number of broad enterprise-wide technology efforts, which they were working to again, bring that people-mission-technology triangle together.

And they asked me to help work on a couple working directly for the Secretary of the Navy figure out why a couple of them were struggling and then help them get on track. So I worked on that. And, you know, I often get asked by people, 'How did you end up at NSA?' It was a pretty funny story in that I had a seven- and six-year-old and I was commuting from Baltimore and the work-life balance was a bit tough.

And I met somebody and he asked me about how I was doing. And I commented that I really loved the work, but it was a little hard for me to do the juggle. And he said, 'I happen to know that the NSA is standing up the Director of NSA is standing up Cyber Command, and I know they need people with your kind of a background. So how about if I make a phone call there?'

And I went for an interview, my commute was 30 minutes. And it sounds so foolish, but that was pretty much what it took.

MICHAEL MORELL: Interesting. So the private sector and then the Department of Defense, which is, as you know, this huge enterprise, and then NSA and this is not an easy question, I know, but: the similarities and differences of those three different experiences?

ANNE NEUBERGER: It all begins with people. In every organization, missions have to adapt and change. They adapt and change in the private sector because perhaps you have a competitor, perhaps the customer space has adapted. Certainly financial services saw that, where the scale of data was just increasing, the scale of trades was increasing, and the traditional manual processes couldn't keep up. So we knew automation was needed to just reduce errors and help us keep on track with where trading was going. Technology could deliver on that, but the business of the organization had to change to fully take advantage of the technology. And the way people did that mission and use technology had to change along the way.

So I think in each of those organizations, it taught me that that triangle has to be kind of guided together to get to an outcome.

Mission, technology, and people. If you really want to be able to fully whether it's take advantage of a market or stay ahead of an adversary in our own mission here in the IC or DOD that triangle has to work together and you have to communicate those three planes together when talking about why the change is needed.

MICHAEL MORELL: So Anne, in your tenure at NSA, you've served as its first Chief Risk Officer, the Assistant Deputy Director of Operations, the head of the Russia Small Group, and now the head of the Cybersecurity Directorate. Can you take us through your trajectory there? How did your responsibilities differ from role to role?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Absolutely. So I came in to NSA on a small team, part of a small team that was standing up Cyber Command. The chief risk officer role was created after the media leaks period of 2013 where we learned that really appreciating risk meant looking at that in a holistic way, across partnership risk, operational risk, technology risk. And we learned that we needed to adapt the way we looked at risk and then change according to that.

So I think in each of those roles, either the adversary was changing around us, the threat was changing around us, or, internally, we wanted to take advantage fully of an opportunity. And I was responsible for taking the big-picture strategic goals and translating those to measurable outcomes and objectives, and communicate the why and then bringing a team of people along to get there.

And each of those efforts was a bit different, but in each of those we talked about the risk of doing and the risk of not-doing, weighing that appropriately. We talked about ensuring that, as we approached new missions, policy and technology move together. And certainly when we looked at the elections work in 2018, the Russia Small Group work, we saw where adversaries have used influence operations since the time of Adam and Eve, but perhaps what had changed was, again, the ability to use social media to both focus and direct it to have larger impact.

MICHAEL MORELL: So focusing on the Russia Small Group for just a second, Anne. What was that? What was the mission and what were your responsibilities with regard to the 2018 elections to the extent that you can talk about that?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Absolutely. So the mission was ensuring the integrity of the 2018 midterm elections: ensuring that we, first, understood the threat. Second, that we appropriately tipped all the information we had about that threat to key partners across the U.S. government, certainly the FBI, from a counter-influence perspective, DHS from a cybersecurity of elections infrastructure perspective, and then, finally, that we would support Cyber Command, if authorized, to impose costs, if there were attempts to disrupt the election.

MICHAEL MORELL: So after the 2018 elections, President Trump publicly confirmed that Cyber Command played a role in deterring the Russians in 2018. Are there important lessons from what happened in 2018 about how we as a country can defend ourselves against this insidious threat?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Yes. So, you know, across the government, we look at two key poles of election integrity. One is, attempts to malignly influence the population, whether that is to highlight social discord, to highlight issues that divide the population or to, you know, share information as part of shaping individuals' ideas.

And then the second is potentially interfering, hacking into elections infrastructure as part of efforts to change the vote.

And I think the first piece is the value of resiliency: the sense that, once trust is lost, it's very hard to regain. So the knowledge for the American public that there are hundreds of people across the U.S. government committed to and working to ensure the integrity of those elections, of our elections.

When it comes to counter-influence, though, the biggest resilience is each of us as Americans. When we're reading something, asking, 'Who might be trying to influence me, what is the source of that information? Am I fully confident in that source of that information?'

And then, finally, the role of technology and the role of public private partnership as part of elections integrity. So for us in the intelligence community, we're constantly watching for which adversaries may be seeking to shape a population's thinking, to shape an election and then rapidly to bring that to partners or to the private sector to ensure that they're both aware of techniques and are countering them on their platforms.

MICHAEL MORELL: So we've since learned, in fact, last week in updates from the DNI that the Russians continue to engage in election interference; the Chinese, the Iranians. And the punchline of all that for me is, it's really hard to deter foreign interference, right. And I'm wondering if it's something special about foreign interference or if it's more about cyber at the end of the day? And the difficulty of seeing cyber, attributing it if you see it. How do you think about that question?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Absolutely. I think it is more about cyber than about elections. From a cyber perspective, when we look at fully both protecting cyber infrastructure, and then to your second point about attribution, there's complexity in laying what we call 'the red' on top of that.

We may see threats that are talked about at a strategic perspective, and then we and partners across the US government are looking to see, 'Where does that present itself? Where are the given vulnerabilities in a given infrastructure?'

The power is when you can lay the two together and say, 'Here is a nation state that has intent to interfere' in whatever that is, in election critical infrastructure, IP theft and then translate that to the tactical level to say, that network scanning or that vulnerability in hardware or software that we see out there may well be used to achieve the objective putting that in place and then, most importantly, preventing it. Because at the end of the day, writing a report about a victim and notifying the victim is far less satisfying than being able to put that together and prevent the adversary achieving their objective.

MICHAEL MORELL: So we've already started to shift now into your new role, right, which was relaunched in October, I believe. It would be great if you could, Anne, if you could explain for our listeners first, what NSA's two main missions are SIGINT and then cybersecurity and the difference between them just to give some folks here a level set.

ANNE NEUBERGER: Absolutely. So, NSA is a foreign intelligence agency. We're responsible for understanding a broad range of threats presented by foreign governments to the United States.

One of those threats include our cyber threats: how nations may be using cyber to achieve their national objectives. As I said, that might be intellectual property theft, for example, to counter the Department of Defense's lethality by accelerating a foreign government's ability to actually productize particular R&D for a weapon; that may be targeting critical infrastructure of a country as part of threatening tat country or as part of putting pressure on a given country. So that is the threat information.

On the second side. NSA has a cybersecurity mission where it's less well known. We build the keys, codes and cryptography that's used to protect all of US government's most sensitive communications: thinking nuclear command and control weapon systems, the president's communications with allies. And we provide technical advice to mitigate those same threats that I talked about.

So the key integration of the two missions is where we think the magic is, where we can say 'Here's what we think adversaries are seeking to do, and here's how, from a cybersecurity perspective, we recommend you protect against that.'

MICHAEL MORELL: So what motivated, Anne, the relaunch of the directorate and has its mission changed at all?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Really good question. So we recognized that we were at a crossroad with national security as both technology and society shifts were happening. We saw all new kinds of technology that people wanted to use, from small satellites to Internet of Things. And each of those presents huge advancements, but they also present cyber security risk.

Along with that, we saw various nation-states to use new technologies think North Korea and cryptocurrency to get around sanctions to achieve their own objectives. And we said, 'We really need to up our game' to more quickly be understanding those threats and ensuring that we could both provide advice to build new technologies as securely as possible, but also to counter adversaries' use of those same technologies to achieve their national security goals.

MICHAEL MORELL: So, Anne, what are the primary areas of focus for your directorate? What kind of people work there? What's their skill set? And what kind of customers do you serve?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Yep, great question. So the first part is operationalizing intelligence: how do we ensure that, from the intelligence that we see, we tip anything that's unique, actionable and timely quickly so that we can prevent the victim? So that's the first piece of work.

Our areas of focus are both understanding that, giving guidance. Encryption. We believe encryption is a key protection, particularly in a telecommunications environment that, in many cases is untrusted. So both in building the government's special encryption, modernizing that, as well as providing advice and insights on how to best use encryption.

The types of people who work here are, like we see in many organizations, a broad gamut. We have intelligence analysts, we have country-specific experts, we have a broad swath of technical experts, encryption network technologies, hardware and software vulnerability analysts as well.

But the power is where that can be integrated, where you can say, 'How do you build on a road of trust all the way through to an end point?' How do you properly defend a network and take a step back and do a risk analysis to say, 'Where are the gaps in your resilience and where should your next dollar of investment be to close those gaps?'

MICHAEL MORELL: And then what about customers? Is it just the Department of Defense? Is that the U.S. government? Is it even broader than that? How do you think about who it is you're working for?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Yeah, great question. So there's a specific set of work we do for what we call national security systems, systems carrying classified information, national security information. The director of NSA is also the national manager for national security systems. So that's the authority under which, as I mentioned, we build the keys, codes and cryptography and we're responsible for distributing threat information as well. So those are across the U.S. government with a particular focus on DOD. weapons systems and related systems.

A second set of key partners and customers are certainly DHS, FBI. DHS in its role supporting critical infrastructure and the sector-specific agencies. And like I said, the real magic of understanding the critical infrastructure, where its key gaps and vulnerabilities are and being able to marry that up with what a foreign government may be intending to do and providing focused insight.

Across the U.S. government, there is broad use of commercial technologies, particularly DOD and national security systems. So you may have seen, when we're issuing advisories, we're also issuing advice on how to secure and configure those commercial technologies well, because we see that those are used all across sensitive systems as well.

MICHAEL MORELL: So Anne, your directorate has issued, I think, a dozen or so advisories about cybersecurity threats. Can you talk about why you guys do that, what the criteria is for putting one of those out? And then, how do you think about the impact they have? Do you keep metrics on that? How do you think about advisories?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Absolutely. So our advisories we really do them for three reasons. One is, if we see a nation-state actor using a particular vulnerability against a system we care about, we find that it really drives urgency of action. People run faster when they're pursued. And if we can say, 'This nation state actor is using this vulnerability, here's the mitigation advice to protect yourself against that,' we see impact, and I'll talk about that, how we measure that impact at the end.

The second thing is, you know, there's a deep expertise here because we build and we break encryption. So encryption-related technologies like VPNs like, you may recall, the Windows 10 cryptographic vulnerability in January, those are areas we focus on because we know those are sometimes hard to understand, technically hard to implement. So if we can give very practical advice, then we'll issue those as well to help that be put in place.

And then the third would be where there is a timely need, and we're getting a lot of questions and we feel that putting out a product helps guide people in thinking about how to think about security. I'll give an example: As COVID pressed a lot of organizations across the U.S. government, particularly DOD as well, to move to telework, we started getting a lot of questions about secure collaboration and which commercial tools were safe to use. And our goal was teaching people how to evaluate what's safe to use. So we issued a product which laid out the different attributes. Like: Code is available for review, its end to end encrypted, and a few other such attributes. And then we rated different secure collaboration, publicly available tools, against them. And the cool part was, we had companies call and say, 'Well, you know, you didn't get something quite right,' or 'Can we be included as well?' And we said, 'Absolutely.' And we issued a second version. And then we have another one coming out next week, because our goal was making it as useful as possible and also helping teach people how to assess different products for security.

You asked the question about, how we measure impact? So there's three different measures we've been using.

The first is, do we see patch rates go up? Do we see, for vulnerabilities that we've talked about, here is a foreign actor that might be using a vulnerability to achieve an objective? Can we watch those patriots go up? And, you know, it was really cool to see, in a number of cases we've watched that increase.

The second piece is there is a very capable and active cybersecurity industry. Has the information shared enabled them to better protect sensitive U.S. government, national security systems, networks? And in the case of the Exim vulnerability that we issued, the advisory where we talked about the particular unit of Russian intelligence using the Exim mail vulnerability, it was really great to see five different cybersecurity entities using that to identify other Russian intelligence infrastructure and then take that down. So that was success for us, that we made it harder for that adversary to achieve its objectives.

And then the third one is really the feedback on the number of downloads and the feedback from network administrators saying, 'This was useful, this was unique, timely and actionable. I could act on it.'

MICHAEL MORELL: And then in in May, you guys took what I thought was an unprecedented step of actually openly attributing the exploitation of a vulnerability to the Russian GRU. And that seemed rare to me. And I'm wondering why you decided to actually name Russia in this instance.

ANNE NEUBERGER: So first, it is rare, because as you noted earlier, implicitly, attribution is hard. You may have seen a prior product where we highlighted one nation state using another country's infrastructure to achieve its objective and that highlighted just how hard attribution is. So when it's done it needs to be done with precision to be confident in that.

And we chose to do it because we see that it makes targeted network owners more quickly patched and secure and build the resilience of their systems. Network administrators have way more vulnerabilities to address than they have time for, or frankly, money for and way more alerts than they can act on. So if we can say, 'This particular vulnerability is being used by a nation-state intelligence service, we see network administrators moving quickly and addressing it. And that's our fundamental goal: our fundamental goal is improving cybersecurity.

MICHAEL MORELL: So Anne, if you kind of step back and look at the big picture here, you know, maybe from a 35,000 foot level: How are we doing against the cyber threat? Are we barely keeping up? Or are we catching up? Are we getting ahead of the game or is it always going to be hard for the defender in this game because the guy on the offense can always come up with something new? How do you think about where we are in the history of the threat of cyber and the defense against it?

ANNE NEUBERGER: I think three points. Overall, technology is getting more secure. Technology is built more securely today. So the fundamental resilience is improving. When you have open source products, you have lots of eyes looking at a given technology and helping find vulnerabilities and address them.

That being said, we're an ever more connected economy and an ever more connected society. And as we build more connections, sometimes the systems that were not necessarily built for those kinds of connections, I think SCADA systems in that way, we bring in introduce new risks.

On the third pole, though, and on the positive side, there's far more awareness about those risks and how to approach addressing them, identifying what are the most important assets to protect and ensuring good practices are in place. And it's far easier than ever to put that in place.

So I think it's a mixed story. On the one hand, more and more technologies built more securely, and there are communities of individuals working together to ensure they're secure. On the other hand, far more technology, some of which is connected in ways that bring risk in ways that we always have to and, I guess the third part, which is where we started adversaries seeking to take advantage of those risks to achieve their objectives.

MICHAEL MORELL: So Anne, if you were standing in front of a large multinational board of directors and you were talking to them about cybersecurity, what's the one or two things that you would absolutely want them to take away from from your conversation?

ANNE NEUBERGER: What is the tangible thing you most want to protect and what's the intangible thing you most want to protect? So if you're a drug company, what is the intellectual property that's going to be your next potentially big drug, big driver of economic growth, big driver of healing?

And then second, what's the biggest intangible thing? Perhaps that's your reputation, the way you treat your employees, the prices that you charge and how much you mark that up. Make sure that you're protecting both carefully because, you make your your cybersecurity commensurate with the risk presented to you if you lose either one.

MICHAEL MORELL: Anne you mentioned SCADA systems, and I'm not sure that all my listeners know what those are. Could you just explain that? And then is there something is there something special about protecting a SCADA system from protecting a normal network?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Absolutely. So SCADA systems are essentially control systems for the core areas of infrastructure in a given country, ina given company. So think power systems, clean water, drug manufacturing and those are those are often complex systems. So what's unique about them is, those systems over the years were often built for reliability in the event of a bad storm, that a power system would come back online with confidence.

As more technologies got connected so, for example, the ability to measure the use of power, the ability to measure confidence in water and chemical levels some of those systems got connected to network systems that provide a way to access them. So there is risk in that.

One of the reasons that one of the joint products we recently issued between NSA and DHS was an ICS product because there had been some public articles about a given attack against SCADA systems in the Middle East. And we wanted to ensure that we, together with DHS, one of our closest partners, was providing technical advice to SCADA entities in the U.S. based on what we were learning about those attacks.

MICHAEL MORELL: So Anne, just a couple of more questions; you've been terrific with your time. There seems to be an effort on the part of NSA to kind of open up the black box and kind of shed the reputation of "No Such Agency," right. Your conversation with me, I think, is an example of that. Why is that a priority for the agency and for General Nakasone?

ANNE NEUBERGER: First, in the cybersecurity mission, fundamentally, if we're not trusted, we can't achieve our impact. People take advice from those they trust -- across the US government, Team USA works cyber. Each organization plays its position within that role. You know, my counterpart at DHS, Chris Krebs, often talks about them being the national risk managers. At NSA, we believe what we can bring uniquely is that integration of intelligence, what adversaries are seeking to do, what their capabilities are, what their infrastructure looks like, and how to defend against it, cybersecurity advice to counter that. And that's always continuing because technologies change, adversaries' goals change, and the resilience always has to be increased to meet that.

So if we want to be trusted to achieve what we believe we can uniquely contribute to Team USA on cyber, the first step to doing that is conveying who we are, conveying the culture that's here, the commitment to American values. And certainly, when a part of our mission is an intelligence mission in a in a democracy, we have an obligation to ensure that the Americans we serve feel they understand the values by which we live.

MICHAEL MORELL: So your former colleague and my really good friend, Glenn Gerstell, wrote an op-ed about a year ago about what he saw as the profound implications of the digital revolution on national security. And he raised a lot of concerns. And among those was the sheer pace and scale and volume of technological change, and data that's going to force intelligence agencies, including NSA, to fundamentally change how they do business.

How is NSA thinking big picture about those kinds of challenges? What are you trying to tackle first? What do the adjustments look like? How do you think about the challenge that Glenn laid out?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Absolutely. So first, from the perspective of large amounts of data and ensuring we can make sense of them, ensuring that we can do big data analysis to help triage the information we identify and determine what our people, our biggest assets, put their time on to determine key threats and how to act on that.

So, for example, we're looking at machine learning to classify malware to help us understand what's routine malware versus what's something new. And we're certainly looking at machine learning, potentially, to help us identify vulnerabilities at scale, particularly when we look at systems that represent 30 years of technology like weapon systems: How do you secure a weapons system that's been out there and represents each phase of technology and have confidence in its resilience and its command and control?

And then finally, we have an obligation to both bring those technologies to be on our mission and understand how adversaries might use that and manage that accordingly. So, for example, as we think about artificial intelligence and the potential to automatically direct a weapon. In the United States, we have strong values around how we would think about automation versus human control. In other countries around the world, there might be different ways that those kinds of decisions are approached.

So how do we ensure that we both bring that integration of values, compliance and technology to the way we pursue it, but also be aware of those gaps and keep an eye on the risks of those gaps?

MICHAEL MORELL: Anne, you mentioned people a couple of times. And just two questions about that. One is, given the competition that you face, right, with all of these cybersecurity firms and, you know, your folks must be very attractive to them and their skills are quite valuable in the private sector. How difficult is it for you to recruit and retain talent?

ANNE NEUBERGER: Really thoughtful question, because you asked two questions in there: recruit and retain. So from the recruit side, we get really great people. On the retain side, we have a really compelling mission. And what brings what keeps people here is the sense that they are contributing to something bigger than themselves that is challenging and fulfilling.

It's on us as organizational leaders to ensure that each person has that opportunity to contribute what they can uniquely bring to that mission. And one of the cool aspects of the cyber security stand-up has been people who have left to call in and say, 'Hey, I'd like to come back. I learned a lot in the private sector, the mission's calling me and I'd like to contribute again.' And, you know, we've hired a number of them back and continue to increase that.

And part of the message we have when people, if people do decide to leave, is to say, 'That is great. You will continue to contribute to the nation's security. You'll learn a lot in the private sector. And if you ever want to come back, the door is open.'

MICHAEL MORELL: Yeah. And then in a related question and last question, Anne, what do you want the American people to know about the women and men who work for you?

ANNE NEUBERGER: That they're committed to the values that this country was established for. That there are significant threats to the United States, our allies and to those values. And that not always can we talk about those threats because, by impact, sometimes the intelligence community, even the cyber security mission, has to operate in the shadows. So, trust our values. Trust that we are proud Americans. We swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States.

And if you do question it, or if you want to learn more, roll up your sleeves and come into the IC for a few years and get to know it yourself. Because each person has unique abilities and a unique ability to contribute to their country in whatever way they choose, whether that's in government or in the private sector. But if you ever doubt it, come on in and work here and raise your voice and be a part of it.

MICHAEL MORELL: It sort of takes you back to what your parents taught you, too.

ANNE NEUBERGER: It really does. My dad grew up in communist Hungary, and in the beginning when I came into government, he would call me on the phone sometimes and switch to a foreign language. And I realized that for him, growing up in another country, there never is that complete trust of government that I, American-born, had. That doesn't mean it's trust and not-verify. It's trust and verify. But there are things that I take for granted growing up in this society that I don't know if he ever will. So being able to look at things through his eyes and through mine make me realize how fortunate we are to be here, and how much we have an obligation to ensure it stays that way.

MICHAEL MORELL: Anne, thank you so much for joining us. And thank you for your service.

ANNE NEUBERGER: Thank you so much for your time.

Go here to read the rest:
NSA Cybersecurity Directorate's Anne Neuberger on protecting the elections - CBS News

NEW YORK, Aug. 21, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- ASGARD Partners & Co. ("ASGARD"), an investment firm based in New York, announced today that it has sold Wild Things, LLC ("Wild Things" or the "Company") to National Safety Apparel, Inc. ("NSA").

Wild Things is a leader in the design and manufacture of highly technical outdoor apparel and gear for the military and law enforcement communities across the globe.

When ASGARD acquired Wild Things in 2018, the Company was struggling with limited liquidity and had suffered years of underinvestment in both the brand and the infrastructure of the business. Immediately post close ASGARD brought on an industry leading management team, led by CEO Amy Coyne, to drive the Wild Things transformation, through the revival of its highly respected legacy brand and the renewal of its reputation for exceptional design, quality, and performance.

Under ASGARD's ownership, the Company reinvigorated customer relationships with key industry distribution leaders, diversified its customer base, introduced new sales channels, re-established relations with key military agencies and influential end user groups, expanded sales infrastructure and new sales representation, and recruited top industry talent. Wild Things also went through training in ASGARD's frameworks of operational excellence, centered around both culture and execution.

Karan Rai, Managing Partner of ASGARD, stated, "Wild Things exemplifies ASGARD's operationally focused investment strategy and intention to be in service of great companies through true partnership. We congratulate Amy and the entire Wild Things team for their passion for excellence and impressive execution. Additionally, we'd like to congratulate NSA on the acquisition of a great company."

"We are proud of the extraordinary transformation of Wild Things under our ownership. Our goals of stabilizing the Company, re-establishing the Wild Things brand in the marketplace and end-user community, and achieving material growth metrics were incredibly successful. We are excited for the Company's next stage of growth under NSA's ownership," said Christian Cantalupo, Partner at ASGARD.

"Working in partnership with ASGARD, Wild Things has become a business with a clear strategic vision and a focus on execution. NSA is now the perfect steward and strategic partner to help advance the Company's strategic objectives and maximize its growth potential. This acquisition will enable Wild Things to tap into a world class organization where it can leverage existing manufacturing resources and supply chain partnerships, expand its capabilities, and achieve long term growth. I am truly excited for the team and the future that lies ahead for Wild Things. We thank our customers, suppliers and employees for their contributions to our success," added Amy Coyne, CEO of Wild Things.

About ASGARD

ASGARD Partners & Co. is a private equity firm based in New York that primarily invests in founder, family, and management-owned companies with defensible value propositions and strong growth prospects. ASGARD predominantly focuses on manufacturing, services and distribution businesses, with ties to defense, government or aerospace markets, located in North America. The partners at ASGARD form a cohesive team, with decades of investing and operating experience, wellsuited to drive value and assist companies with transformational change. The firm invests in all forms of corporate divestitures, management buyouts, recapitalizations, generational ownership transitions, and going-private transactions. ASGARD believes business is a powerful platform that can change the world for the better and is committed to serving entrepreneurs, companies, and investors that share this belief. For more information about the firm, please visit https://asgardpartners.com.

About Wild Things

Wild Things (www.wildthingsgear.com) is a leading brand and manufacturer of premium technical outerwear and gear for extreme outdoor conditions, primarily serving the military, special forces, and law enforcement communities both domestically and internationally. The Company is headquartered in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

SOURCE ASGARD Partners & Co.

Home

Follow this link:
ASGARD Partners & Co. sells Wild Things, LLC to National Safety Apparel, Inc. - PRNewswire

WESTGATE@CRANE Technology Park The White River Military Coordination Alliance welcomed two new commanding officers of NSA Crane and NSWC Crane during the Alliances third-quarter meeting in early August.

Commander James L. Smith, commanding officer of NSA Crane, and Captain Thomas (Duncan) McKay, commanding officer of NSWC Crane, both started their new positions at the southern Indiana installation in July 2020. Smith will represent Crane in the Alliances efforts to strengthen the relationship between Crane and the community.

NSA Crane is committed to working with the Alliance collaboratively toward the mutual goals of protecting the Installations ability to perform its mission in support of the warfighter, Smith said. At the same time, we work to ensure that we have the opportunity for economic prosperity in the region and in the state of Indiana.

Smith and McKay both recognized the Alliances achievements in increasing communication with the surrounding communities and creating new regional economic growth opportunities.

The tremendous level of support the Alliance has for our community is already evident to me, McKay said. Its exciting to see the level of involvement and support that Crane gets from the government at the municipal, state and federal level. We feel incredibly fortunate to have such a significant level of support for our missions.

About Commander James Smith, Commanding Officer, NSA Crane

Commander James Smith is a 2002 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ocean Engineering and was commissioned as an Ensign. He also completed Naval Nuclear Power training and a Master of Science degree in Systems Engineering and Analysis at the Naval Post Graduate School.

Smith completed multiple sea tours in various roles, including Electronic Warfare and Communications Officer, Reactor Laboratories Officer, Combat Systems Officer, Main Propulsion Assistant, and Executive Officer. He served on the staff of the Commander Naval Air Forces Atlantic as the Deputy Officer in Charge of the Surface Nuclear Propulsion Mobile Training Team, and most recently served as an Opposition Force Director for Commander Carrier Strike Group 15.

His personal awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, and various unit and campaign awards.

About Captain Duncan McKay, Commanding Officer, NSWC Crane Division

Captain Duncan McKay graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Physics from Florida State University in 1996, and was commissioned as an Ensign the same year after completion of Officer Candidate School. He also earned a Naval Engineers Degree and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2006.

McKays first assignment was to the fast attack submarine USS Alexandria. He reported to Commander Submarine Squadron Eleven as the Battlegroup Operations Officer before beginning his graduate education in 2003. McKays roles following his graduate education included military deputy for submarine maintenance and serving as the repair officer for multiple projects. He most recently served as Production Resources and Operations Officer at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

His personal decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, and various unit awards.

About the White River Military Coordination Alliance

The Alliance is a community organization that was formed in 2018 to promote positive development and growth in the communities that surround Naval Support Activity Crane and Lake Glendora Test Facility (Daviess, Greene, Lawrence, Martin and Sullivan counties) by facilitating two-way communication between the communities, counties, state agencies, and NSA Crane. The focus of our 24-member alliance is to create opportunities for economic prosperity and land conservation in the region, safeguard Cranes military mission, and protect community health and safety. We would encourage the community to take our survey about Crane at WRMCAlliance.com. Follow the Alliance on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the original post:
Alliance welcomes new commanding officers of NSA Crane and NSWC Crane - Washington Times Herald

Michael Balsamo and Eric Tucker, Associated Press Published 2:09 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2020 | Updated 8:48 p.m. ET Aug. 21, 2020

The suit doesn't seek a halt to distribution of his book, released in more than 20 countries, but does press for recovery of all proceeds. USA TODAY

WASHINGTON (AP) Attorney General William Barr said he would be vehemently opposed to any attempt to pardon former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, after the president suggested he might consider it.

The attorney generals comments in an interview with The Associated Press come days after President Donald Trump said he would look at whether to pardon Snowden, who was charged under the Espionage Act in 2013 with disclosing details of highly classified government surveillance programs.

There are many, many people it seems to be a split decision that many people think that he should be somehow treated differently, and other people think he did very bad things, Trump said of Snowden at a news conference on Saturday. And Im going to take a very good look at it.

The Justice Departments criminal complaint against him was dated just days after Snowdens name first surfaced as the person who had leaked to the news media that the NSA, in classified surveillance programs, gathered telephone and Internet records to ferret out potential terror plots.

Justice Department suing Edward Snowden over his new memoir 'Permanent Record'(Photo: Getty)

He was a traitor and the information he provided our adversaries greatly hurt the safety of the American people, Barr said. He was peddling it around like a commercial merchant. We cant tolerate that.

Snowden remains in Russia to avoid prosecution even as the federal charges against him are pending.

It was unclear how serious Trump was, particularly given that years earlier he had denounced Snowden as a spy deserving of execution. But Trumps distrust of his own intelligence community has been a staple of his tenure, particularly because of its conclusion that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election on his behalf, and he has at times bemoaned the broad surveillance powers that the intelligence agencies have at their disposal.

Attorney General William Barr(Photo: Jack Gruber/USA TODAY)

Any effort to pardon Snowden would unquestionably infuriate senior intelligence officials, who say his disclosures caused extraordinary damage and will have repercussions for years to come.

In a memoir published last year, Snowden wrote that his seven years working for the NSA and CIA led him to conclude that the U.S. intelligence community had hacked the Constitution and put everyones liberty at risk and that he had no choice but to turn to journalists to reveal it to the world.

I realized that I was crazy to have imagined that the Supreme Court, or Congress, or President Obama, seeking to distance his administration from President George W. Bushs, would ever hold the IC legally responsible for anything, he wrote, using an abbreviation for the intelligence community.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/21/edward-snowden-attorney-general-william-barr-opposed-to-pardon/3410460001/

View post:
AG William Barr says he is 'vehemently opposed' to pardoning Edward Snowden - USA TODAY