|
Russia Is Pushing to Control Cyberspace. We Should All Be Worried. |
|
|
Thursday, 26 October 2017 08:35 |
|
Ignatius writes: "Russia's cyber-meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has been accompanied by what U.S. and European experts describe as a worrisome Kremlin campaign to rewrite the rules for global cyberspace."
Russian president Vladimir Putin. (photo: Sergei Chirikov/Reuters)

Russia Is Pushing to Control Cyberspace. We Should All Be Worried.
By David Ignatius, The Washington Post
26 October 17
ussia’s cyber-meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has been accompanied by what U.S. and European experts describe as a worrisome Kremlin campaign to rewrite the rules for global cyberspace.
A draft of a Russian proposal for a new “United Nations Convention on Cooperation in Combating Information Crimes” was recently shown to me by a security expert who obtained a copy. The 54-page document includes 72 proposed articles, covering collection of Internet traffic by authorities, “codes of conduct” for cyberspace and “joint investigation” of malicious activity. The language sounds bureaucratic and harmless, but experts say that if adopted, it would allow Russia to squeeze cyberspace even more.
The Kremlin’s proposed convention would enhance the ability of Russia and other authoritarian nations to control communication within their countries, and to gain access to communications in other countries, according to several leading U.S. cyber experts. They described the latest draft as part of Moscow’s push over the past decade to shape the legal architecture of what Russian strategists like to call the “information space.”
The proposal was floated by the Kremlin early this year, and outlined in an April 4 article in Kommersant. The Moscow daily reported that the Russian Foreign Ministry had described the convention as an “innovative” and “universal” attempt to replace the 2001 Budapest Convention, which has been signed by the United States and 55 other countries but rejected by Russia. Kommersant said “Russian authorities saw a threat to the sovereignty of the country” in the Budapest pact.
Russia’s bid to rewrite global rules through the United Nations was matched by a personal pitch on cyber-cooperation in July from President Vladimir Putin to President Trump at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg. Putin “vehemently denied” to Trump that Russia had interfered in the U.S. election, Trump said in a tweet. Trump then floated a mystifying proposal: “Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe.”
Trump’s suggestion that America join Russia in cyberdefense provoked an uproar in the United States. One Twitter commentator wrote: “This is like the FBI asking the Mafia to form an anti-crime unit together.”
The White House quickly backtracked after Trump’s tweet. Homeland security adviser Tom Bossert told reporters on July 14: “I don’t believe that the U.S. and Russia have come to that point yet in cyberspace. And until we do, we wouldn’t have the conversation about partnership.”
Many U.S. cyber experts share Bossert’s view that although any formal treaty or partnership with Moscow now is unwise, quiet confidence-building discussions might be useful. Those could include military-to-military or technical contacts to explore how to avoid catastrophic cyber-events that might cripple strategic systems or pose systemic risk.
U.S. and Russian officials had maintained such a dialogue to explore norms for the Internet, but so far it has been a dead end. The Russians were led by Andrey Krutskikh, a foreign ministry official who is Putin’s cyber adviser; and on the U.S. side, by Christopher Painter, who was White House cyber chief under President Barack Obama and then cyber coordinator at the State Department, a post he left this year.
These contacts are sensible, but they have withered as U.S.-Russia relations have deteriorated. A high-level working group stopped meeting after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. A U.N.-sponsored Group of Governmental Experts on Information Security broke up in June after failing to reach consensus on measures for improving information security. Putin’s bilateral proposal at Hamburg quickly disappeared after Trump’s premature endorsement.
The Russians, meanwhile, continue their campaign to regulate cyberspace on their terms, by mobilizing allies to support their alternative to the Budapest convention; Moscow’s biggest complaint is that the Budapest framework, in Article 32 (b), allows the owners of data to control its use, rather than governments. Moscow wants state control of information.
Russia got some global support for its effort at a September gathering in Xiamen, China, of the so-called BRICS countries: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. In their formal declaration, the countries “recognize the need for a universal regulatory binding instrument on combatting the criminal use of ICTs [information and communications technologies] under the UN auspices.” The countries “acknowledge the initiative” of Russia in seeking such a binding pact.
If the events of the past year have taught us anything, it’s that Russia views information as a decisive political weapon and wants to control this potential battle space. The global regulatory side of this contest gets little attention, but it could help determine whether open information flows survive in the age of the autocrats.

|
|
Trump Signs New Travel Ban Preventing Republican Senators From Fleeing |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 25 October 2017 14:04 |
|
Borowitz writes: "Donald Trump on Wednesday signed an emergency travel ban preventing Republicans from fleeing the United States Senate."
President Donald Trump. (photo: Cheriss May/Getty)

Trump Signs New Travel Ban Preventing Republican Senators From Fleeing
By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
25 October 17
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." 
onald Trump on Wednesday signed an emergency travel ban preventing Republicans from fleeing the United States Senate.
In a sombre Oval Office ceremony, a grim-faced Trump signed the ban, which he said would remain in effect “until we figure out what the hell is going on.”
The executive order calls for the relocation of three hundred Border Patrol officers from the Mexican border to Washington, D.C., in order to form what Trump called “a human ring of steel” around the Capitol Building.
Under the travel ban, Republican senators will be permitted to leave their seats in the Senate chamber for meals and bathroom breaks but will be strictly forbidden from speaking to journalists in the building’s corridors.
Susan Collins, of Maine, one of the Republicans affected by the ban, called attention to the growing humanitarian crisis inside the Capitol. “If you have a shred of decency, Mr. President, let us leave the Senate,” Collins said. “Let us follow our dream of a better life.”
In retaliation, Trump reportedly told Border Patrol agents that if Collins is caught trying to escape she should be returned to the Senate and forced to sit next to Ted Cruz.

|
|
|
FOCUS: Jeff Sessions Is All Wrong on Halfway Houses |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 25 October 2017 13:11 |
|
Kiriakou writes: "The Justice Department and its Bureau of Prisons (BOP) late last week quietly began to close halfway houses, those for-profit entities where nearly all federal prisoners go before they are permitted to go home near the formal end of their sentences."
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (photo: Getty)

Jeff Sessions Is All Wrong on Halfway Houses
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
25 October 17
he Justice Department and its Bureau of Prisons (BOP) late last week quietly began to close halfway houses, those for-profit entities where nearly all federal prisoners go before they are permitted to go home near the formal end of their sentences. The move, which has gone largely unnoticed, means several things in the near term: fewer federal prisoners will get access to classes and programs to help them reintegrate into society, prison sentences effectively will be longer, and federal prisons will remain grossly overcrowded. An even more important point is that the Obama administration’s efforts to reform the criminal justice system are now dead under Donald Trump.
The move comes in the wake of Attorney General Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III’s insistence that mandatory minimum sentences be lengthened and his appointment of Army General Mark Inch, the former head of U.S. military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the notorious Abu Ghraib, as the new director of the BOP.
Most Americans really don’t have a clear idea of what a halfway house is. I’ll give you a personal example. When I was released from prison in early 2015, I was assigned to report to the Hope Village halfway house in Washington, DC. Hope Village is notorious for its well-documented failures. Many of us called it “Hopeless Village” or “Abandon All Hope Village.” But the truth is that, even with its problems, it taught many soon-to-be-released prisoners valuable skills as they sought to reenter society, including how to write a resume, how to balance a checkbook, and how to get through a job interview. There were classes on parenting, suicide prevention, and domestic violence prevention. I didn’t need any those classes, but many prisoners do.
Even more crucially, all federal prisoners are eligible to spend between one and 12 months in a halfway house. Those who need more of a helping hand to become productive citizens get more time. (I got one day. Thanks a lot.) All prisoners must finish a dozen “life skills” classes, get a job, and undergo drug testing. Once they prove to their case managers that they can keep a job and follow the rules, they are sent home to be with their family, and the remainder of their sentence is converted to home confinement, with provisions to leave home to go to work, to the doctor, and to “family events” on the weekends.
The Justice Department claims that the halfway house closures will affect only underutilized facilities in small towns. That’s nonsense. The BOP already has closed the only halfway houses in cities like Dayton, Ohio, and Columbia, Missouri, cities where the venues were full of recently released prisoners.
Protestations that halfway houses are too much of a drain on the federal budget are also patently false. As I mentioned, halfway houses are for-profit entities. Again, let’s look at Hope Village as an example. Even though I never spent a single night there, I had to “rent” a bed. My rent was 25 percent of my gross pay, and I had to pay it every Friday. Hope Village makes a profit by renting the bed out to four, five, or even ten men at the same time, all but one of whom are already home. It also uses the money to fund the reentry programs I mentioned above. There is no aid coming from the Justice Department. So closing halfway houses doesn’t save the American taxpayer a single dollar. It’s just a way to keep more people locked up for longer periods of time.
If Sessions were serious about saving taxpayer money, he would instead close the BOP’s minimum-security work camps. The camps are sometimes called “Club Fed,” although I can attest that there is nothing about prison at any level that resembles a country club. With that said, camp prisoners are classified by the Justice Department as “out custody” prisoners. That means that they are free to come and go as they please so long as they do not abscond, there are no bars on the windows, the facility doors remain unlocked, and most prisoners work in town or for private contractors. If you get sick, it’s no problem. Another prisoner will drive you to the doctor’s office, drop you off, and pick you up when you’re done. It’s the honor system. Most of the prisoners there are crooked lawyers, bankers, and politicians, or drug offenders who have worked their way down from higher-custody prisons through good behavior.
My question, then, is that if your crime is so minor and you are at such a low risk of running away or of committing another crime, why are you in prison in the first place? Minimum-security camps should be closed immediately and all of the prisoners there should be sent either to halfway houses or to home confinement. It would save the government millions of dollars annually, it would reunite families, and it would put prisoners back to work when they otherwise would be drains on the federal system.
This isn’t a very complicated issue. There’s a clear-cut right way and a clear-cut wrong way to reform the system. Unfortunately, Jeff Sessions is wrong. He’s clearly and obviously wrong. His wrongness is more than just stubbornness or ideology. His wrongness is breaking up families and contributing mightily to criminal recidivism. If somebody is getting out of prison, which nearly every federal prisoner eventually will, and he has no education, no job training, and no life skills, he’s going to do the only thing he knows how to do. He’s going to commit crimes again. The next time it’ll be on Jeff Sessions.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act - a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration’s torture program.
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.

|
|
FOCUS: Here's What Happened Among Republicans a Few Hours After Jeff Flake's Speech |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 25 October 2017 12:39 |
|
Pierce writes: "You would have thought that Senator Jeff Flake would have basked a little longer in the applause he got for scarpering out of the Senate before he got around to the business of emptying his words of any significant meaning they ever had."
Senator Jeff Flake. (photo: Getty Images)

Here's What Happened Among Republicans a Few Hours After Jeff Flake's Speech
By Charles Pierce, Esquire
25 October 17
Specifically, among those seeking reelection.
ou would have thought that Senator Jeff Flake would have basked a little longer in the applause he got for scarpering out of the Senate before he got around to the business of emptying his words of any significant meaning they ever had. Instead, Flake—along with fellow brave truth-tellers Bob Corker, Ben Sasse and, significantly, John McCain—joined with every other Republican (including Mike Pence, The Great Tiebreaker) to arrange for the screwing of countless Americans and their families.
In the dead of Tuesday night, with the applause still ringing in his ears, Flake voted to strip the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau of a rule that allowed Americans to file class-action suits against banks rather than being forced into an arbitration process that generally is as rigged as a North Korean election. From The Los Angeles Times:
The rule was unveiled in July by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and praised by Democrats and consumer advocates as giving average people more power to fight industry abuses, such as Wells Fargo & Co.’s creation of millions of unauthorized accounts. But banking lobbyists argued that the rule would unleash a flood of class-action lawsuits, and that the cost of fighting those suits would be passed on to consumers. Republicans quickly moved to repeal the regulation.
You have to love their timing, too. This move comes hard on the heels of the Equifax calamity, and just as the Congress is shilling for a massive upward shift in the country’s wealth that is disguised as a “middle-class tax cut.” Further, it proves that our political system learned absolutely nothing from what happened in 2008, when the masters of the universe nearly blew up the entire world economy.
Set to take effect in March, the rule would not have banned clauses in checking account, credit card and other banking agreements that say disputes between companies and customers must be dealt with privately or in small claims court. Instead, there would have been a ban on provisions that block consumers from banding together to bring class-action cases. The CFPB argued that such cases help hold banks accountable. The determinations of an arbitrator are binding and consumer advocates say most decisions favor the company. The private proceedings also allow banks to deal with individual problems quietly rather than address widespread abuses. George Slover, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, said the vote “means that big financial companies can lock the courthouse doors and prevent consumers who’ve been mistreated from joining together to seek the relief they deserve under the law.”
You know who’s going to get hosed now, Senator McCain? All those veterans and military families that you’re always so tender about. You know who’s going to take it in the ear, Senators Corker, Flake, and Sasse? All those middle-class people in all those little towns that you spend most of your time praising as the reservoir of Real American Values. None of those people mattered a damn to you Tuesday night, and it wasn’t the president* that forced you to make this vote. You did it with cold deliberation and calculated forethought.
And it’s not as though we don’t already know how stacked a deck the mandatory arbitration process is.
For years, Wells Fargo used arbitration clauses to block lawsuits from customers who alleged that unauthorized accounts had been opened in their names. Ultimately, the bank estimated that as many as 3.5 million such accounts were opened.
Just gaze in awe. Wells Fargo opened three-and-a-half million unauthorized accounts in the names of actual customers. To hell with a class action suit, these people should have been keelhauled under the Staten Island Ferry for a year. Now, though, Wells Fargo and the other banks, and their armies of lobbyists, have choked off the most effective way through which the people so swindled could get some form of justice.
Three-and-a-half million phony accounts. More than twice as many phony accounts as there are actual people living in the borough of Manhattan, wherein Wall Street lies. A little more than three times as many actual people as live in Boston, where Wells Fargo has its headquarters. And the U.S. Senate, an otherwise torpid beast unable to get anything done, bestirs itself to make sure that these swindlers never are called to a proper account. The vice president stays up past his usual bedtime just to make sure. Tell me again who the real owners of the country are.

|
|