RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The Radical Courage of Simone Biles' Exit From the Team USA Olympic Finals Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51595"><span class="small">Eren Orbey, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Wednesday, 28 July 2021 12:57

Orbey writes: "Biles's decision not to compete on Tuesday is, to many spectators, a heartbreak. It is also a welcome example of an athlete setting her own limits."

'We have to protect our minds and our bodies,' Biles said at a press conference after the competition on Tuesday. (photo: Ashley Landis/AP)
'We have to protect our minds and our bodies,' Biles said at a press conference after the competition on Tuesday. (photo: Ashley Landis/AP)


ALSO SEE: Simone Biles Pulls Out of Olympics
All-Around Gymnastics Final to Focus on Mental Health

The Radical Courage of Simone Biles' Exit From the Team USA Olympic Finals

By Eren Orbey, The New Yorker

28 July 21


Biles’s decision not to compete on Tuesday is, to many spectators, a heartbreak. It is also a welcome example of an athlete setting her own limits.

SA Gymnastics was already on the wrong foot entering the women’s team final at the Tokyo Olympics on Tuesday morning. Over the weekend, Simone Biles had stumbled during the qualifying rounds, bouncing not just out of bounds but off the mat after her second-to-last floor pass and flubbing landings on the vault and the beam. The U.S. women qualified in second place, behind Russia. Still, there was hope that, as in the past, they would end up indomitable in finals competition, in large measure because of Biles, who is rightly recognized as the greatest athlete in the sport’s history. Her skills, especially on the vault, are so advanced that the International Gymnastics Federation has scored their difficulty levels conservatively, for fear of incentivizing other athletes to put themselves in danger following her lead. The American women have not lost an international team meet since 2010, and, in recent years, Biles’s success has allowed them to win competitions by entire points in a sport often determined by tenths or hundredths. “I don’t think it’s going to come down to tenths of a point in Tokyo,” Tom Forster, the U.S. high-performance director, told the press in June, after the Olympic trials.

So it was shocking, during the first rotation of Tuesday’s final, to realize that Biles had bailed midair on her standard vault, a two-and-a-half twisting Yurchenko, which she usually completes with ease. In flight, she appeared to lose track of her own motion, finishing just one and a half twists. She landed in a squat so deep that she almost sat on the mat, and then she took a hefty step forward. Her score, of 13.766, was the lowest showing of the three U.S. women who competed in that rotation. Entering the second rotation, the U.S. women were more than a point behind Russia—on what was supposed to be their strongest event. Biles was escorted off the floor by a trainer, and she returned, without grips, wearing a white sweatsuit over her leotard. News soon reached the stadium: she was withdrawing from the team competition “due to a medical issue,” USA Gymnastics said in a statement. Without Biles, the team’s chances at the gold quickly dwindled, and, in the end, they took the silver. The Russian women finished first, by a margin of more than three points, securing their first Olympic team victory since the 1992 Games. (Great Britain, which had qualified in sixth, took the bronze.)

Anyone who has followed the tumult of USA Gymnastics in recent years knows the immense, inhumane pressure that Biles and her teammates have borne. Since the revelations of Larry Nassar’s abuse, athletes say they have struggled to get reassurance, from both the sport’s governing body and the United States Olympic Committee, that their health and well-being is a priority. USA Gymnastics has relied on Biles to buoy its reputation in the midst of scandal and to boost its scores in international competition. At qualifications, despite several uncharacteristic errors, Biles finished first as an all-around competitor. (If she decides to compete in that final, on Thursday, she is still the favorite to win.) But, as the qualifying round revealed, counting on Biles as a buffer is not always enough to guarantee victory for the women’s team—nor should it be. On Monday, before the team final, Biles wrote on Instagram that she felt “the weight of the world” bearing down on her: “I know I brush it off and make it seem like pressure doesn’t affect me but damn sometimes it’s hard hahaha! The olympics is no joke!” The endless praise that Biles receives for her “superhuman” abilities can lead to a kind of dehumanization, enforcing an incessant expectation that she not only perform but outperform and a sense of bafflement in the rare instances that she doesn’t.

On Sunday night, NBC’s primetime broadcast of the women’s qualifications largely elided routines by Biles’s teammates and lingered on her mistakes, in an effort to explain Russia’s surprising lead. “The big reason?” Tim Daggett, a veteran commentator who competed in the 1984 Olympics, said. “Because Simone Biles is not being Simone Biles-like today.” And yet a remarkable element of Tuesday’s competition was the grace with which Biles’s teammates, a trio of first-time Olympians, collected themselves to complete the meet without their leader. Sunisa Lee, an eighteen-year-old, nailed a dizzying connection that she had missed on the uneven bars during qualifications and stuck her dismount, a full-twisting double tuck. Grace McCallum, also eighteen, anchored the team with clean routines on every apparatus. Perhaps the most moving competitor to watch was Jordan Chiles, a twenty-year-old, who had at one point considered quitting gymnastics after failing to qualify for an international roster. “I didn’t think the sport wanted me anymore,” she recently told the Times. Instead, she moved to Texas to train with Biles, and the duo—“Chiles and Biles,” as they have been called—established themselves as sisters on and off the floor. Last weekend, Chiles, too, made several errors in the Tokyo qualifications. But, on Tuesday, when Biles withdrew, Chiles readied herself at a moment’s notice and delivered a hit routine on the uneven bars. On the beam, in the next rotation, she maintained her poise, and wisely decided to end her routine with a simpler dismount, a double pike instead of a full-twisting tuck, to guarantee a steady performance.

In a conversation last week, the gymnast Aly Raisman, a two-time Olympian and a former teammate of Biles’s, told me, “Gold medals shouldn’t be the most important thing.” Gymnastics is a notoriously punishing sport: as Raisman explained, athletes are often encouraged, if not forced, to compete despite injuries. Perhaps the most famous athlete to do so was Kerri Strug, who, in the 1996 Olympic team final, performed a second vault on an injured ankle before being escorted off the mat by her coaches and by Larry Nassar, a team trainer at the time. That year, the U.S. women won gold, and the moment has since been mythologized as an exemplar of athletic grit. Today, though, Krug’s painful hop landing reads differently, less as a heroic sacrifice than as an unnecessary and essentially career-ending strain. To many spectators, Biles’s decision not to compete on Tuesday is a heartbreak, but it is also a welcome example of an athlete setting her own limits.

After Biles’s rocky vault performance, some observers speculated that she had been suffering from “the twisties,” a gymnast’s term for a loss of air awareness during routines. Continuing to compete in that state would have been downright dangerous; it’s easy to forget that the skills gymnasts strain to render seemingly effortless could, with even minor slips, leave them paralyzed or worse. At a press conference later in the morning, standing beside her three teammates, Biles said that she had exited the competition because the pressure had become too much. She cited as inspiration Naomi Osaka, the Japanese American tennis champion who withdrew from two Grand Slam tournaments earlier this year to prioritize her mental health. “We have to protect our minds and our bodies, and not just go out and do what the world wants us to do,” Biles said. Her withdrawal from the team final was not the handy victory that the public, or USA Gymnastics, was expecting from her at the Olympics. But it was its own kind of achievement, one that has the potential to affect the next generation of gymnasts more than any single medal could.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bolsonaro's Amazon Railway Will Cause Climate Chaos. It Must Be Stopped Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50357"><span class="small">David Miranda, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Wednesday, 28 July 2021 12:55

Miranda writes: "This project would rapidly deforest large areas of the Amazon, which would wreak havoc on the planet."

Today, almost 15% of the Amazon rainforest has already been deforested. When this number reaches 20%, the entire Amazonian system will collapse.' (photo: Leo Correa/AP)
Today, almost 15% of the Amazon rainforest has already been deforested. When this number reaches 20%, the entire Amazonian system will collapse.' (photo: Leo Correa/AP)


Bolsonaro's Amazon Railway Will Cause Climate Chaos. It Must Be Stopped

By David Miranda, Guardian UK

28 July 21


This project would rapidly deforest large areas of the Amazon, which would wreak havoc on the planet

espite increasing global concern, Jair Bolsonaro is determined to expand his exploitation of Brazil’s crucial natural resources. His latest project, one of the most destructive yet, would rapidly deforest large areas of the Amazon.

Bolsonaro’s plan? To construct a 1,000km railway system extending right into the heart of the Amazon rainforest – with trains passing within 500 metres of 726 official environmentally protected areas. The new railway, called Ferrogrão, would also entail construction within 10km of another 18 priority conservation areas established by the ministry of the environment.

The pretext for Bolsonaro’s environment-destroying plan is a problem that, while real, could be easily addressed through far less harmful measures. Currently, soybeans and other grains grown in the Brazilian midwest must travel a considerable distance – 2,000km – to reach seaports in the states of São Paulo and Paraná. The proposed railway would reduce transport costs and increase the competitiveness of these products in the international or national market by roughly 8%.

This underscores a key point of tension between Brazil and the international community. One reason the Amazon, a massive carbon bank, is so crucial to global climate policy is that countries in the global north became rich by exploiting their own natural resources, including through massive deforestation. Now that western European and North American countries are economically developed, they demand that Brazilians not do what they did: exploit our environmental resources so that we, too, can thrive economically. Many Brazilians, understandably, resent the hypocrisy.

It is true that Ferrogrão, like so many of Bolsonaro’s projects, will result in serious environmental harm to the Amazon and thus the world. Yet it is not enough for western governments and environmental NGOs to lecture Brazil; they should compensate us for the economic costs of the environmental protection we must undertake on the whole planet’s behalf.

According to research by the Climate Policy Initiative and PUC-Rio, a Brazilian university, constructing Ferrogrão won’t just consume massive amounts of land; it will also encourage development on land around the railway. Under Bolsonaro’s current plan, this construction project will result in up to 2,043 sq meters of deforestation – about 285,000 soccer fields – which will increase carbon emissions by 75m tonnes. There are economic costs, too: according to World Bank projections, each tonne of emission costs US$25 – so Brazil would lose at least $1.9bn with this project. And that forecast is conservative.

Since Bolsonaro was inaugurated in 2019, deforestation has been the centerpiece of his environmental policies. In 2019, deforestation grew 85%, a record high in the past five years. In 2020 the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), a federal agency relentlessly attacked by Bolsonaro, recorded new increases of 9.5% in devastated areas. And INPE has announced that deforestation rate in April was the worst for that month in the past six years.

Opponents of Ferrogrão may have the law on their side. By altering the territorial limits of the Jamanxim National Park, the project may violate the Brazilian constitution. My political party, the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), brought a constitutional challenge before the federal supreme court, which has temporarily suspended Ferrogrão pending further proceedings. Brazilian law also requires prior approval of the project by the federal audit court. Brazilian civil society and indigenous groups have mobilized against judicial approval.

Bolsonaro’s plan has completely excluded the indigenous tribes most affected. That is not only unethical but an added opportunity to induce a court to stop the project: an agreement signed by Brazil requires indigenous tribes be consulted on public policies that affect their lives and territories. This hasn’t happened.

Brazilian law also requires that environmental impact studies be prepared for any significant new project. The environmental impact study for Ferrogrão found that it would have a disastrous impact on the lives of indigenous peoples and on the environment. Environmental harms include interference in environmental protection areas, disturbance of fauna (the affected region includes at least 14 species at risk of extinction), fragmentation of habitats, destruction of native flora and contamination of water. The railroad would also increase the flow of cargo across the Xingu Indigenous Park, disrupting the lives of the Kayaopós people.

Standard environmental mitigation projects might be able to reduce some of these harms. But that is unimaginable in the current Brazilian political context: the Bolsonaro government has proved countless times its indifference to environmental issues and contempt for indigenous peoples. Bolsonaro governs according to the agribusiness interests that played a crucial role in financing his 2018 campaign and will no doubt help determine the success of his 2022 re-election bid.

Ironically, the titans of agribusiness should want to preserve forests. The rain that falls over the midwest of the country, up to the La Plata basin, is in part a product of the Amazon. Roughly 390 billion trees constantly pump water from the Atlantic into the atmosphere, creating so-called “flying rivers”. This moisture flows to the Andes, then forms rain, which supplies Brazil’s main hydrographic basins. Fewer trees mean less rain, and therefore less productivity and profit for agriculture.

Given the international interest in protecting the Amazon, it is not enough that only Brazilians fight the construction of Ferrogrão. Following a letter we sent US senator Bernie Sanders, members of the Progressive International are arriving in Brazil on 15 August. The Amazon forest affects the whole world’s climate. Brazil has the largest tropical forest in the world, and its trees constitute one of the largest carbon banks. The more deforestation that is permitted, the more carbon dioxide goes back into the atmosphere. And we know well the consequences: climate chaos.

Like the global climate itself, the Amazon is on the brink of disaster. The immensity of the Amazon rainforest – 5.5m sq kilometers, 1m sq kilometers larger than the total area of the European Union – makes it easy to believe that it is too large to be meaningfully harmed. But the same “flying rivers” that rain across South America also sustain the forest itself. Today, almost 15% of the Amazon rainforest has already been deforested. When this number reaches 20%, the entire Amazonian system will collapse, with a direct impact on the entire planet. There will be no return.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: A Cri du Coeur From a Doctor-Diplomat Who Knows Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27921"><span class="small">Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 28 July 2021 11:50

Rosenblum writes: "Breakfast with Michel Lavollay at Café Flore, pleasant under any circumstance, was beyond joyful this time."

Dr. Michel Lavollay. (photo: Twitter)
Dr. Michel Lavollay. (photo: Twitter)


A Cri du Coeur From a Doctor-Diplomat Who Knows

By Mort Rosenblum, Reader Supported News

28 July 21

 

ARIS – Breakfast with Michel Lavollay at Café Flore, pleasant under any circumstance, was beyond joyful this time. He is nearly back to himself after seven weeks in a coma. Several times, doctors told his daughter he was about to die.

As a pioneer in the global fight against AIDS, he knew that unless a cure is found for a deadly new disease, the only option is not to catch it. But global mechanisms he helped build to halt runaway pathogens no longer work. Even he caught Covid-19.

“My God,” he said, looking at a happy snap I made with my phone. “I can’t recognize myself.” He lost 30 kilos – 66 pounds. After months of laborious one-day-at-a-time rehab, he is a lanky shadow of his formerly substantial self.

Lavollay, mellow at 72, is a soft-spoken doctor-diplomat who hobnobs with heads of state and captains of industry. He chooses his words carefully. Here is an unvarnished upshot of our conversation:

  • Narrow thinking, feckless self-focused leaders, cruel greed, blame-shifting, mixed media messaging, disorganization and sheer stupidity let a pandemic run wild. Despite vaccines, worse is on the way, with other new scourges to follow.

  • Xi Jinping tried to hide the virus but shared data after noble doctors defied his orders. Rather than work with China, Trump scapegoated Xi to cover his own willful negligence. Michel believes America’s actual death toll surpassed a million by 2021.

  • The overall lesson is hair-raising: If governments, private enterprise and the rest of us who share an imperiled planet cannot unite against a single preventable threat, we can expect mass die-offs, sooner rather than later, as ecosystems collapse.

Michel sees hope in the science. “There is so much we don’t know, so much uncertainty on the evolution of the virus and the next variants,” he said, “and yet tremendous progress has been made very rapidly on vaccines. It’s a mix.”

But he worries about what doctors call long Covid. “Not everyone recovers fully,” he said. “There are a whole set of persisting symptoms.” Researchers are working fast, yet initial lost time led to far-worse mutations that do not stop at borders.

In the end, the threat is much more political than medical. Leaders fearing economic impact and public reaction that might cost them their jobs did too little, too late, and relaxed vigilance too soon. Now harsh measures spark violent pushback.

Reporters are seldom experts in what they cover, but they learn to find those who are. As it happens, I’ve known Michel since he coaxed his Citroën 2CV up the Alps in the 1970s to ski with friends. He is the real deal, a gentle soul with a scientist’s mind.

Out of medical school, eager to do more than ply Parisians with pills, he joined Medecins du Monde. When AIDS erupted, he canvassed Africa and Asia to counsel health ministries and voluntary agencies at GPA – the Global Program on AIDS.

He battled the virus at the U.N. Development Program, then as the French Embassy health attaché in Washington. In 2000, he helped Kofi Annan and U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke persuade the Security Council to take coordinated action, which finally beat back the pandemic.

Michel also worked closely with Jonas Salk until he died in 1995. Salk refused to patent his polio vaccine, declaring: “You do not patent rays of the sun.” Both G7 and G20 statements have asserted that principle, but few leaders follow it in practice.

Now an independent consultant, he is respected as a straight-shooting expert who would rather refuse a paycheck than cover up incompetence. When he accuses an American president of crimes against humanity, it is no idle remark.

I lent Michel my backroad home in Provence while he searched for a place to move from Brussels. He arrived with what seemed like flu. His daughter, Nikki, in Paris, worried when he sounded weak on the phone, then stopped answering. She gave GPS coordinates to medics, who found him collapsed on the floor.

The first thing he remembers, seven weeks after doctors induced a coma, is seeing his wife and daughter – and hearing them say, “Trump is out!”

Trump is hardly the only culprit, Michel said, but with America’s expertise, wealth, and the preparedness Barack Obama left behind, he could have done more than anyone to avert the pandemic. He did the polar opposite.

Obama had dozens of specialists in China, part of a worldwide early-warning team. Had Trump not removed them, they would have sounded alarms. American reporters covered Wuhan well until Trump’s chest-bumping with Xi got them expelled. As Trump told Bob Woodward early on, he chose to deceive Americans. China also hid the initial threat. It’s China. A democracy is different.

Whether Covid-19 came from a lab or a pangolin is a separate issue. The United States, Europeans, and Russia all experiment with killer pathogens, and shit happens. What matters is isolating the threat.

“To deal with China you have to talk to the Chinese,” Michel said, “Trump did not build a relationship.” Clearly true. Before trade talks collapsed, he heaped praise on Xi’s rapid response. Then he harped on “the China virus.”

Trump’s war on the World Health Organization did incalculable damage. And it illustrates why Michel believes that “the world community” has to be more than a soporific cliché.

Our professional paths crossed after 1988, when I reported for Associated Press on Jonathan Mann’s research in Zaire on a mysterious new virus. Mann later set up the GPA in Geneva, funded by governments under WHO oversight. He hired Michel to build grassroots networks and government agencies to control outbreaks.

WHO Director-General Hiroshi Nakajima, a Japanese physician, focused on finding a medical magic bullet. Mann insisted that public awareness was equally urgent. If people protected themselves, it could be contained. He was right. Millions died before researchers found a treatment.

Nakajima resented Mann’s popularity. He ordered GPA to cut back HIV-AIDs work to deal more with less virulent diseases. American and European U.N. delegates opposed his re-election in 1993. With Japanese lobbying, and corruption, he won.

Michel helped me find a secret internal auditor’s memo citing “quite deplorable” cases of Nakajima’s aides using public funds to buy votes in Africa, Latin America and Asia. WHO insiders told of bribery and threats.

Lawrence Eagleburger, who had just left office as secretary of state, was furious. “If this election was as it looks,” he told me, “it ought to embarrass a lot of countries that should know better. We’ve got to demonstrate this sort of thing is not acceptable. If this continues in other UN institutions, the system is irrelevant.

Mann died in a plane crash soon after. Michel moved on to the U.N. Development Program but later left, frustrated at lack of progress against HIV-AIDS.

Three decades later, the system remains largely irrelevant. The General Assembly answers to 193 governments. A single Security Council veto blocks action. At U.N. agencies, a self-serving Nakajima can let ambition and jealousy stymie badly needed policies.

WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom, if hardly perfect, tried hard to curb Covid-19. He provided tests to all countries that asked and, pushing limits of decorum, pointed fingers. But he had only the data and access that China gave him. Trump cut U.S. funding at the worst possible moment.

World leaders have yet to heed a landmark report by the GPA Management Committee in 1992: “No single agency is capable of responding to the totality of the problems posed … and, as never before, a cooperative effort, which is broadly based but guided by a shared sense of purpose, is essential.”

That was about AIDS. Covid dwarfs that challenge. The line graph of infections in America looks like a sketch of the Himalayas. It reached 250,000 a day in early January, then dropped to 13,000 after Joe Biden took office. Now it is climbing back toward the peak as mutations arrive from abroad.

Tom Friedman, CDC director until 2017, and Jerome Adams, Trump’s surgeon-general, warn of a sharp spike as schools reopen. But many states flout medical advice. Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona, for one, last month prohibited schools from mandating masks or vaccinations.

Fox News, which quietly imposed its own internal anti-Covid measures, is only one of countless purveyors of disinformation. Looking back across the Atlantic, it is hard to believe how many politicians, false prophets and faux-journalists continue to put a supposedly educated nation at such grave risk.

Here in Paris, riot police just fought pitched battles with mobs on the Champs-Elysées that protested stringent new measures. Many Frenchmen who wear masks use them as neckwear or leave their noses uncovered.

Watching other European protests, I heard an elderly Italian woman bemoan new rules. “Why should I give up my privacy and have to show personal data to the authorities?” Obvious enough: to help stop killing others.

Pandemic tracking focuses on the numbers — underestimated guesswork at best — but ignores the wider impact on global security, food production, industry, economic patterns and familiar ways of life that may never be the same.

The abyss between rich and desperate is widening fast. Millions already hammered by chaotic climatic patterns join human waves that besiege sealed borders in Europe and America. Terror groups, guerrilla bands and criminal gangs flourish.

Covid dominates the news, muscling aside such vital stories as an overheated Middle East, now bereft of a stabilizing Lebanon, with an existential threat to Israel. Not only neo-Nazis but also freak flooding imperil Germany. As seas rise, it will take more than Hans Brinker’s finger in the dike to protect the Netherlands.

Travel is a lottery as airline routes suddenly have to shift or close down, and airports are a nightmare. Health controls are hardly new. Since my first international flight in 1962, a standardized vaccine card has been as essential as a passport. That is how smallpox was eradicated and yellow fever was kept under control.

Governments now set their own confusing rules, often arbitrary at last minute. A photographer friend and his brother, both British, flew into London with proof of Pfizer shots. One, who’d been vaccinated in Britain, breezed through. The other, who was injected in America, was quarantined for 10 days.

Beyond annoying absurdity, the cost is often heavy. Citizens can be refused entry to their own countries. More than 30,000 Australians have been stranded abroad, some for more than a year at ruinous expense. Even with vaccinations and negative tests, they face strict entry quotas.

Covid-19 caught the world unaware. It took months to retool industries to make protective gear and hospital essentials. In the face of denial, actual experts made crystal clear exactly what we were all up against.

Michael Osterholm at the University of Minnesota wrote “Preparing for the Next Pandemic” in Foreign Affairs back in 2005. His two fresh pieces in 2020 explained what went wrong and what to do about it. He was all over TV networks with calm, colorful guidance.

In short, he repeated a simple metaphor: This is an uncontrolled forest fire; as long as it finds wood to burn, it will keep going.

And yet rich countries still shoulder aside poor ones. They destroy vaccines refused at home while Africans, Asians and Latin Americans plead for protection. Companies insist on proprietary rights, and public aid is nowhere near enough.

That is as if self-obsessed people plugged leaks in their corner of a sinking lifeboat and ignored widening holes in the rest of the hull. Until all countries have vaccines, protective gear and systems to deliver them, everyone, everywhere, is at risk.

As Michel Lavollay has been saying for three decades now, the only way to contain a deadly pathogen is to make sure that people do not catch it.



Mort Rosenblum has reported from seven continents as Associated Press special correspondent, edited the International Herald Tribune in Paris, and written 14 books on subjects ranging from global geopolitics to chocolate. He now runs MortReport.org.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Insecurity Industry Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=60292"><span class="small">Edward Snowden, Edward Snowden's Substack</span></a>   
Wednesday, 28 July 2021 10:47

Snowden writes: "The greatest danger to national security has become the companies that claim to protect it."

Edward Snowden. (photo: Yuriy Chichkov/Der Spiegel)
Edward Snowden. (photo: Yuriy Chichkov/Der Spiegel)


The Insecurity Industry

By Edward Snowden, Edward Snowden's Substack

28 July 21


The greatest danger to national security has become the companies that claim to protect it

he first thing I do when I get a new phone is take it apart. I don’t do this to satisfy a tinkerer’s urge, or out of political principle, but simply because it is unsafe to operate. Fixing the hardware, which is to say surgically removing the two or three tiny microphones hidden inside, is only the first step of an arduous process, and yet even after days of these DIY security improvements, my smartphone will remain the most dangerous item I possess.

Prior to this week’s Pegasus Project, a global reporting effort by major newspapers to expose the fatal consequences of the NSO Group—the new private-sector face of an out-of-control Insecurity Industry—most smartphone manufacturers along with much of the world press collectively rolled their eyes at me whenever I publicly identified a fresh-out-of-the-box iPhone as a potentially lethal threat.

Despite years of reporting that implicated the NSO Group’s for-profit hacking of phones in the deaths and detentions of journalists and human rights defenders; despite years of reporting that smartphone operating systems were riddled with catastrophic security flaws (a circumstance aggravated by their code having been written in aging programming languages that have long been regarded as unsafe); and despite years of reporting that even when everything works as intended, the mobile ecosystem is a dystopian hellscape of end-user monitoring and outright end-user manipulation, it is still hard for many people to accept that something that feels good may not in fact be good. Over the last eight years I’ve often felt like someone trying to convince their one friend who refuses to grow up to quit smoking and cut back on the booze—meanwhile, the magazine ads still say “Nine of Ten Doctors Smoke iPhones!” and “Unsecured Mobile Browsing is Refreshing!”

In my infinite optimism, however, I can’t help but regard the arrival of the Pegasus Project as a turning-point—a well-researched, exhaustively-sourced, and frankly crazy-making story about a “winged” “Trojan Horse” infection named “Pegasus” that basically turns the phone in your pocket into an all-powerful tracking device that can be turned on or off, remotely, unbeknownst to you, the pocket’s owner.

Here is how the Washington Post describes it:


In short, the phone in your hand exists in a state of perpetual insecurity, open to infection by anyone willing to put money in the hand of this new Insecurity Industry. The entirety of this Industry’s business involves cooking up new kinds of infections that will bypass the very latest digital vaccines—AKA security updates—and then selling them to countries that occupy the red-hot intersection of a Venn Diagram between “desperately craves the tools of oppression” and “sorely lacks the sophistication to produce them domestically.”

An Industry like this, whose sole purpose is the production of vulnerability, should be dismantled.

2.

Even if we woke up tomorrow and the NSO Group and all of its private-sector ilk had been wiped out by the eruption of a particularly public-minded volcano, it wouldn’t change the fact that we’re in the midst of the greatest crisis of computer security in computer history. The people creating the software behind every device of any significance—the people who help to make Apple, Google, Microsoft, an amalgamation of miserly chipmakers who want to sell things, not fix things, and the well-intentioned Linux developers who want to fix things, not sell things—are all happy to write code in programming languages that we know are unsafe, because, well, that’s what they’ve always done, and modernization requires a significant effort, not to mention significant expenditures. The vast majority of vulnerabilities that are later discovered and exploited by the Insecurity Industry are introduced, for technical reasons related to how a computer keeps track of what it’s supposed to be doing, at the exact time the code is written, which makes choosing a safer language a crucial protection... and yet it’s one that few ever undertake.

If you want to see change, you need to incentivize change. For example, if you want to see Microsoft have a heart attack, talk about the idea of defining legal liability for bad code in a commercial product. If you want to give Facebook nightmares, talk about the idea of making it legally liable for any and all leaks of our personal records that a jury can be persuaded were unnecessarily collected. Imagine how quickly Mark Zuckerberg would start smashing the delete key.

Where there is no liability, there is no accountability... and this brings us to the State.

3.

State-sponsored hacking has become such a regular competition that it should have its own Olympic category in Tokyo. Each country denounces the others’ efforts as a crime, while refusing to admit culpability for its own infractions. How, then, can we claim to be surprised when Jamaica shows up with its own bobsled team? Or when a private company calling itself “Jamaica” shows up and claims the same right to “cool runnings” as a nation-state?

If hacking is not illegal when we do it, then it will not be illegal when they do it—and “they” is increasingly becoming the private sector. It’s a basic principle of capitalism: it’s just business. If everyone else is doing it, why not me?

This is the superficially logical reasoning that has produced pretty much every proliferation problem in the history of arms control, and the same mutually assured destruction implied by a nuclear conflict is all-but guaranteed in a digital one, due to the network’s interconnectivity, and homogeneity.

Recall our earlier topic of the NSO Group’s Pegasus, which especially but not exclusively targets iPhones. While iPhones are more private by default and, occasionally, better-engineered from a security perspective than Google’s Android operating system, they also constitute a monoculture: if you find a way to infect one of them, you can (probably) infect all of them, a problem exacerbated by Apple’s black-box refusal to permit customers to make any meaningful modifications to the way iOS devices operate. When you combine this monoculture and black-boxing with Apple’s nearly universal popularity among the global elite, the reasons for the NSO Group’s iPhone fixation become apparent.

Governments must come to understand that permitting—much less subsidizing—the existence of the NSO Group and its malevolent peers does not serve their interests, regardless of where the client, or the client-state, is situated along the authoritarian axis: the last President of the United States spent all of his time in office when he wasn’t playing golf tweeting from an iPhone, and I would wager that half of the most senior officials and their associates in every other country were reading those tweets on their iPhones (maybe on the golf course).

Whether we like it or not, adversaries and allies share a common environment, and with each passing day, we become increasingly dependent on devices that run a common code.

The idea that the great powers of our era—America, China, Russia, even Israel—are interested in, say, Azerbaijian attaining strategic parity in intelligence-gathering is, of course, profoundly mistaken. These governments have simply failed to grasp the threat, because the capability-gap hasn’t vanished—yet.

4.

In technology as in public health, to protect anyone, we must protect everyone. The first step in this direction—at least the first digital step—must be to ban the commercial trade in intrusion software. We do not permit a market in biological infections-as-a-service, and the same must be true for digital infections. Eliminating the profit motive reduces the risks of proliferation while protecting progress, leaving room for publicly-minded research and inherently governmental work.

While removing intrusion software from the commercial market doesn’t also take it away from states, it does ensure that reckless drug dealers and sex-criminal Hollywood producers who can dig a few million out of their couch cushions won’t be able to infect any or every iPhone on the planet, endangering the latte-class’ shiny slabs of status.

Such a moratorium, however, is mere triage: it only buys us time. Following a ban, the next step is liability. It is crucial to understand that neither the scale of the NSO Group’s business, nor the consequences it has inflicted on global society, would have been possible without access to global capital from amoral firms like Novalpina Capital (Europe) and Francisco Partners (US). The slogan is simple: if companies are not divested, the owners should be arrested. The exclusive product of this industry is intentional, foreseeable harm, and these companies are witting accomplices. Further, when, a business is discovered to be engaging in such activities at the direction of a state, liability should move beyond more pedestrian civil and criminal codes to invoke a coordinated international response.

5.

Imagine you’re the Washington Post’s Editorial Board (first you’ll have to get rid of your spine). Imagine having your columnist murdered and responding with a whispered appeal to the architects of that murder that next time they should just fill out a bit more paperwork. Frankly, the Post’s response to the NSO scandal is so embarrassingly weak that it is a scandal in itself: how many of their writers need to die for them to be persuaded that process is not a substitute for prohibition?

Saudi Arabia, using “Pegasus,” hacked the phones of Jamal Khashoggi’s ex-wife, and of his fiancée, and used the information gleaned to prepare for his monstrous killing and its subsequent cover-up.

But Khashoggi is merely the most prominent of Pegasus’ victims — due to the cold-blooded and grisly nature of his murder. The NSO Group’s “product” (read: “criminal service”) has been used to spy on countless other journalists, judges, and even teachers. On opposition candidates, and on targets’ spouses and children, their doctors, their lawyers, and even their priests. This is what people who think a ban is “too extreme” always miss: this Industry sells the opportunity to gun down reporters you don’t like at the car wash.

If we don’t do anything to stop the sale of this technology, it’s not just going to be 50,000 targets: It’s going to be 50 million targets, and it’s going to happen much more quickly than any of us expect.

This will be the future: a world of people too busy playing with their phones to even notice that someone else controls them.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
GOP to Punish Cheney and Kinzinger by Forcing Them to Spend Hour With Ted Cruz Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 27 July 2021 12:59

Borowitz writes: "Furious at Representative Liz Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger for participating in the January 6th commission, the G.O.P. leadership in the House is punishing the two rogue Republicans by forcing them to spend an hour with Ted Cruz."

Ted Cruz. (photo: Getty Images)
Ted Cruz. (photo: Getty Images)


GOP to Punish Cheney and Kinzinger by Forcing Them to Spend Hour With Ted Cruz

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

27 July 21

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


urious at Representative Liz Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger for participating in the January 6th commission, the G.O.P. leadership in the House is punishing the two rogue Republicans by forcing them to spend an hour with Ted Cruz.

Speaking to reporters, the House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, said that the decision to subject the two dissidents to an hour with Cruz “should leave no doubt about how seriously we take their offense.”

“Make no mistake,” he said, “an hour with Ted Cruz is the ultimate punishment.”

According to McCarthy, Cheney and Kinzinger will be locked in a room with Cruz, who will then speak, uninterrupted, for an hour on a topic of his choosing.

“Ten minutes in, they’ll come to regret what they’ve done,” McCarthy predicted. “No one has lasted fifteen.”

McCarthy’s decision to subject the two Republicans to an hour of Cruz drew a strong rebuke from Representative Cheney’s father, the former Vice-President Dick Cheney. “Much as I have been a longtime supporter of torture, this goes too far,” he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next > End >>

Page 38 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN