Two dead after Russian military plane crashes in Mediterranean
By Mary Ilyushina, CNN
Updated 1051 GMT (1851 HKT) May 3, 2018
A Russian Su-30 fighter -- like the one that crashed in the Mediterranean -- at the International Aviation and Space Show in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow, in 2013.
A Russian Su-30 fighter -- like the one that crashed in the Mediterranean -- at the International Aviation and Space Show in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow, in 2013.
Moscow (CNN)A Russian military aircraft crashed in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Syria, killing both pilots on board, state media said Thursday.
The plane may have been affected by a bird flying into its engine, news agency RIA-Novosti reported, quoting a statement from the defense ministry,
The plane was gaining altitude after taking off from Hmeimim airbase in Syria before it crashed, the ministry said.
Eyewitnesses reported seeing a Russian military jet fall in the water off the coast of the town of Jableh, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Hmeimim, which is near Latakia, about 241 kilometers (150 miles) north of Damascus, is Russia's largest airbase in Syria.
A Russian Kamov helicopter flies near an S-300 missile system at the Hmeimim military base in Latakia province, Syria.
A Russian Kamov helicopter flies near an S-300 missile system at the Hmeimim military base in Latakia province, Syria.
In March, 39 people, including military personnel, were killed when a Russian transport plane crashed while trying to land at Hmeimin, Russian state media reported.
All 33 passengers and six crew members were killed in the crash, RIA-Novosti reported, citing the Defense Ministry.
In December 2016, a Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft crashed after taking off from the Adler airport near the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, killing 84 passengers and eight crew members. The plane was carrying more than 60 members of the Alexandrov Ensemble, the Russian army's official dance and choir company, on its way to Syria to give a holiday performance for troops.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
BITCOIN TRADING COMES TO GOLDMAN SACHS AFTER INVESTMENT BANK HIRES FIRST CRYPTOCURRENCY TRADER - Independent
May 3, 2018
BITCOIN TRADING COMES TO GOLDMAN SACHS AFTER INVESTMENT BANK HIRES FIRST CRYPTOCURRENCY TRADER
The investment bank recognised bitcoin's potential as a store of value, similar to gold
Donald Trump's trade war with China already hurting American farmers
ANTHONY CUTHBERTSON
@ADCuthbertson
Goldman Sachs will finally launch its widely-rumoured bitcoin trading operation after the investment banking giant succumbed to pressure from clients enthusiastic about cryptocurrency.
The move is set to make Goldman Sachs the first major Wall Street bank to open a bitcoin trading desk, however it will only offer a limited numbers of derivatives at first.
The creation of the trading platform, first reported by The New York Times, came after senior figures at Goldman Sachs concluded that bitcoin is not a fraud or simply a speculative bubble.
Bitcoin: Is the virtual currency the new gold standard?
The operation, led by the firm's first ever "digital assets" trader Justin Schmidt, is expected to begin within the next few weeks, though an exact date has not been set. When it launches, Goldman Sachs will use its own funds to trade bitcoin futures on behalf of clients.
“This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to cryptocurrencies over the last 18 months. Any forward-looking financial institution needs to understand this technology and accept its enormous potential," Matthew Newton, an analyst at cryptocurrency retailer eToro, told The Independent.
“Despite some initial posturing, the reality is most big banks have already invested significant amounts in research and development into blockchain technology, and cryptocurrencies themselves. It will still take time for institutional investors to fully come around – and the fact that Goldman won’t be buying or selling actual coins suggest some scepticism remains – but there’s a growing acceptance that these assets are here to stay.”
The investment bank will likely wait until there is more regulatory certainty surrounding bitcoin and other virtual currencies before it begins directly trading cryptocurrency.
The news of Goldman Sachs' latest initiative comes as the head of Barclays dismissed rumours that the British banking giant is planning to launch its own cryptocurrency trading desk.
gettyimages-914860904.jpg
Goldman Sachs is set to launch a new bitcoin trading platform after the investment bank's board of directors agreed to the initiative (AFP/Getty Images)
Barclays CEO Jes Staley noted the potential of cryptocurrency to transform finance, however said that he was still weary of its reputation of being used for criminal activities.
"Cryptocurrency is a real challenge for us because, on the one hand, there is the innovative side of it wanting to stay in the forefront of technology's improvement in finance," Mr Staley said at a meeting with shareholders on Tuesday.
"On the other side of it, there is the possibility of cryptocurrencies being used for activities that the bank wants no part of."
These same concerns were raised by Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in an official blogpost in March.
What is ethereum? How bitcoin’s biggest rival could overtake it
Bitcoin will replace gold and hit $700,000, says major investor
In it, Ms Lagarde said that the semi-anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies meant they were potentially a major new vehicle for money laundering and even financing terrorism.
Just over a month later, however, Ms Lagarde called for an "even-handed approach" to cryptocurrencies in a follow-up blogpost.
Ms Lagarde said that the transformative potential of the technology could have a "significant impact" on the way people save, invest and pay bills.
“Before crypto-assets can transform financial activity in a meaningful and lasting way, they must earn the confidence and support of consumers and authorities,” Ms Lagarde said.
“An important initial step will be to reach a consensus within the global regulatory community on the role crypto-assets should play. Because crypto-assets know no boundaries, international cooperation will be essential.”
BITCOIN TRADING COMES TO GOLDMAN SACHS AFTER INVESTMENT BANK HIRES FIRST CRYPTOCURRENCY TRADER
The investment bank recognised bitcoin's potential as a store of value, similar to gold
Donald Trump's trade war with China already hurting American farmers
ANTHONY CUTHBERTSON
@ADCuthbertson
Goldman Sachs will finally launch its widely-rumoured bitcoin trading operation after the investment banking giant succumbed to pressure from clients enthusiastic about cryptocurrency.
The move is set to make Goldman Sachs the first major Wall Street bank to open a bitcoin trading desk, however it will only offer a limited numbers of derivatives at first.
The creation of the trading platform, first reported by The New York Times, came after senior figures at Goldman Sachs concluded that bitcoin is not a fraud or simply a speculative bubble.
Bitcoin: Is the virtual currency the new gold standard?
The operation, led by the firm's first ever "digital assets" trader Justin Schmidt, is expected to begin within the next few weeks, though an exact date has not been set. When it launches, Goldman Sachs will use its own funds to trade bitcoin futures on behalf of clients.
“This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to cryptocurrencies over the last 18 months. Any forward-looking financial institution needs to understand this technology and accept its enormous potential," Matthew Newton, an analyst at cryptocurrency retailer eToro, told The Independent.
“Despite some initial posturing, the reality is most big banks have already invested significant amounts in research and development into blockchain technology, and cryptocurrencies themselves. It will still take time for institutional investors to fully come around – and the fact that Goldman won’t be buying or selling actual coins suggest some scepticism remains – but there’s a growing acceptance that these assets are here to stay.”
The investment bank will likely wait until there is more regulatory certainty surrounding bitcoin and other virtual currencies before it begins directly trading cryptocurrency.
The news of Goldman Sachs' latest initiative comes as the head of Barclays dismissed rumours that the British banking giant is planning to launch its own cryptocurrency trading desk.
gettyimages-914860904.jpg
Goldman Sachs is set to launch a new bitcoin trading platform after the investment bank's board of directors agreed to the initiative (AFP/Getty Images)
Barclays CEO Jes Staley noted the potential of cryptocurrency to transform finance, however said that he was still weary of its reputation of being used for criminal activities.
"Cryptocurrency is a real challenge for us because, on the one hand, there is the innovative side of it wanting to stay in the forefront of technology's improvement in finance," Mr Staley said at a meeting with shareholders on Tuesday.
"On the other side of it, there is the possibility of cryptocurrencies being used for activities that the bank wants no part of."
These same concerns were raised by Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in an official blogpost in March.
What is ethereum? How bitcoin’s biggest rival could overtake it
Bitcoin will replace gold and hit $700,000, says major investor
In it, Ms Lagarde said that the semi-anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies meant they were potentially a major new vehicle for money laundering and even financing terrorism.
Just over a month later, however, Ms Lagarde called for an "even-handed approach" to cryptocurrencies in a follow-up blogpost.
Ms Lagarde said that the transformative potential of the technology could have a "significant impact" on the way people save, invest and pay bills.
“Before crypto-assets can transform financial activity in a meaningful and lasting way, they must earn the confidence and support of consumers and authorities,” Ms Lagarde said.
“An important initial step will be to reach a consensus within the global regulatory community on the role crypto-assets should play. Because crypto-assets know no boundaries, international cooperation will be essential.”
Trump Turning More Aggressive on Mueller Probe as Cobb Leaves - Times of London
Trump Turning More Aggressive on Mueller Probe as Cobb Leaves
By Shannon Pettypiece
May 3, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10
Cobb was most determined advocate of cooperation on legal team
President nearing key decision on interview with Mueller
Donald Trump signaled a more aggressive posture toward Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as the president rid his legal team of its most determined advocate of cooperation with the Russia probe.
White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who will leave at the end of the month, was one of the few at Trump’s side urging the president to refrain from personally attacking Mueller and to comply with the prosecutor’s requests. His replacement, Emmet Flood, who assisted in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense and President George W. Bush’s response to politically charged congressional inquiries, brings experience asserting constitutional prerogatives to fend off investigative demands.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who joined Trump’s legal team last month, has been a frequent and vociferous critic of former FBI Director James Comey, whose firing by Trump makes him a key figure in any obstruction of justice investigation. Giuliani also signaled his assertive new role by disclosing for the first time Wednesday that Trump reimbursed his personal lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush payment to porn film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Hours before Cobb’s departure was made public, Trump suggested he might use his executive authority to intervene in a fight over Justice Department documents sought by House Republican critics of the probe. “At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!” he tweeted on Wednesday.
Trump is moving closer to a confrontation with Mueller as talks with investigators reach a critical point. His lawyers are trying to negotiate terms of an interview between Mueller and Trump, an effort that was complicated by the leak this week to the New York Times of proposed questions.
Court Confrontation?
Mueller told Trump’s lawyers in March that if they didn’t agree to an interview he would consider issuing a subpoena compelling Trump to appear before a grand jury. That could trigger a court battle over executive privilege if Trump responds by refusing to answer investigators’ questions.
Rudy GiulianiPhotographer: Anthony Behar/Pool via Bloomberg
Trump’s lawyers have said they are continuing to cooperate with Mueller’s team as they work to negotiate the terms of an interview. Giuliani said the president’s legal team is still considering a voluntary interview with Mueller -- provided the lawyers feel the questions are fair and limited in scope.
“We would be inclined to do it,” Giuliani said of a potential interview, which could touch on Trump’s firing of Comey. “But if we came to the conclusion they have already made up their mind and Comey is telling the truth -- that is a joke, Comey hasn’t told the truth in years -- then we would just be leading him into the lion’s den.”
Moderating Force
Cobb had been a major advocate in the White House for Trump to sit for an interview while many of those close to Trump, including his former lawyer John Dowd, warned against it. Cobb argued that Trump had nothing to hide and it was the quickest way to clear his name. Those opposed worried Trump would put himself in legal jeopardy by making false statements to investigators.
Inside the White House, Cobb also acted as a moderating force on issues concerning the Justice Department. He spoke to Trump almost daily on a range of matters. While his advice wasn’t always taken, Cobb repeatedly warned Trump to pull his punches and keep quiet on matters relating to the Justice Department and the investigation.
Cobb had told White House Chief of Staff John Kelly several weeks ago that he was interested in stepping back from his role as the lead lawyer within the White House handling requests from Mueller, but the timing of his replacement took some by surprise. The New York Times reported in March that Trump was talking to Flood about a potential role.
Flood’s Role
It’s unclear whether Flood will take the same approach or have the same rapport with Trump. While Flood’s views on how to handle the Russia probe aren’t clear, he brings vast experience in the very specialized legal niche of defending a president. Flood didn’t immediately respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment.
Trump has been growing increasingly combative toward Mueller since March, when investigators raised the possibility of a grand jury subpoena. Trump’s frustration with the investigation was further fueled when the home and office of his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen were raided, which enraged Trump and caused him to openly discuss firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Mueller probe.
Allies Attack
While Trump’s anger was eased some by an assurance from Rosenstein that he wasn’t a target of the Russia or Cohen investigations, the president’s attacks on the Justice Department have continued. His reference to intervening was taken by Democrats as a threat to fire Rosenstein, whose replacement would have the power to oust Mueller or rein in the scope of his investigation.
“Mr. President, the powers of the Presidency do not give you the right to interfere with or shut down the Russia investigation,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a tweet. “Firing the Deputy AG or Director Mueller would create a constitutional crisis.”
House Republicans allied with Trump have been ramping up attacks on Rosenstein. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows and some other members of the group have drafted proposed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. Meadows is one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress and talks to him by phone several times a week. Rosenstein responded Tuesday, calling threats against the Justice Department extortion.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric attacking the investigation that he often calls a “witch hunt,” his lawyers and Mueller’s team have maintained a respectful, professional relationship behind the scenes. The two sides regularly talked, and Cobb had convinced Trump that the quickest way to resolve the probe was to cooperate and keep tensions low, encouraging him to waive executive privilege on interviews with dozens of White House staffers and thousands of pages of documents.
Trump has previously said he’d like to sit down with Mueller but he’d defer to the advice of his lawyers.
List of Questions
Earlier this week, the Times published a list of more than 40 questions it said that Mueller’s team wanted the president to answer. The questions focused on conversations between the Russian government and his campaign, as well as actions Trump took related to possible obstruction of justice.
“These are all questions intended to trap him,” Giuliani said Wednesday night in an interview with Fox News. “Every lawyer in America thinks he shouldn’t” grant an interview.
In the interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani said Cohen paid money to Daniels. the porn actress, by funneling it “through the law firm, and then the president repaid it.” Last month, Trump denied knowing about the payment to Daniels to stay silent about an alleged affair with him.
— With assistance by Toluse Olorunnipa
By Shannon Pettypiece
May 3, 2018, 6:00 PM GMT+10
Cobb was most determined advocate of cooperation on legal team
President nearing key decision on interview with Mueller
Donald Trump signaled a more aggressive posture toward Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as the president rid his legal team of its most determined advocate of cooperation with the Russia probe.
White House lawyer Ty Cobb, who will leave at the end of the month, was one of the few at Trump’s side urging the president to refrain from personally attacking Mueller and to comply with the prosecutor’s requests. His replacement, Emmet Flood, who assisted in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense and President George W. Bush’s response to politically charged congressional inquiries, brings experience asserting constitutional prerogatives to fend off investigative demands.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who joined Trump’s legal team last month, has been a frequent and vociferous critic of former FBI Director James Comey, whose firing by Trump makes him a key figure in any obstruction of justice investigation. Giuliani also signaled his assertive new role by disclosing for the first time Wednesday that Trump reimbursed his personal lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush payment to porn film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Hours before Cobb’s departure was made public, Trump suggested he might use his executive authority to intervene in a fight over Justice Department documents sought by House Republican critics of the probe. “At some point I will have no choice but to use the powers granted to the Presidency and get involved!” he tweeted on Wednesday.
Trump is moving closer to a confrontation with Mueller as talks with investigators reach a critical point. His lawyers are trying to negotiate terms of an interview between Mueller and Trump, an effort that was complicated by the leak this week to the New York Times of proposed questions.
Court Confrontation?
Mueller told Trump’s lawyers in March that if they didn’t agree to an interview he would consider issuing a subpoena compelling Trump to appear before a grand jury. That could trigger a court battle over executive privilege if Trump responds by refusing to answer investigators’ questions.
Rudy GiulianiPhotographer: Anthony Behar/Pool via Bloomberg
Trump’s lawyers have said they are continuing to cooperate with Mueller’s team as they work to negotiate the terms of an interview. Giuliani said the president’s legal team is still considering a voluntary interview with Mueller -- provided the lawyers feel the questions are fair and limited in scope.
“We would be inclined to do it,” Giuliani said of a potential interview, which could touch on Trump’s firing of Comey. “But if we came to the conclusion they have already made up their mind and Comey is telling the truth -- that is a joke, Comey hasn’t told the truth in years -- then we would just be leading him into the lion’s den.”
Moderating Force
Cobb had been a major advocate in the White House for Trump to sit for an interview while many of those close to Trump, including his former lawyer John Dowd, warned against it. Cobb argued that Trump had nothing to hide and it was the quickest way to clear his name. Those opposed worried Trump would put himself in legal jeopardy by making false statements to investigators.
Inside the White House, Cobb also acted as a moderating force on issues concerning the Justice Department. He spoke to Trump almost daily on a range of matters. While his advice wasn’t always taken, Cobb repeatedly warned Trump to pull his punches and keep quiet on matters relating to the Justice Department and the investigation.
Cobb had told White House Chief of Staff John Kelly several weeks ago that he was interested in stepping back from his role as the lead lawyer within the White House handling requests from Mueller, but the timing of his replacement took some by surprise. The New York Times reported in March that Trump was talking to Flood about a potential role.
Flood’s Role
It’s unclear whether Flood will take the same approach or have the same rapport with Trump. While Flood’s views on how to handle the Russia probe aren’t clear, he brings vast experience in the very specialized legal niche of defending a president. Flood didn’t immediately respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment.
Trump has been growing increasingly combative toward Mueller since March, when investigators raised the possibility of a grand jury subpoena. Trump’s frustration with the investigation was further fueled when the home and office of his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen were raided, which enraged Trump and caused him to openly discuss firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Mueller probe.
Allies Attack
While Trump’s anger was eased some by an assurance from Rosenstein that he wasn’t a target of the Russia or Cohen investigations, the president’s attacks on the Justice Department have continued. His reference to intervening was taken by Democrats as a threat to fire Rosenstein, whose replacement would have the power to oust Mueller or rein in the scope of his investigation.
“Mr. President, the powers of the Presidency do not give you the right to interfere with or shut down the Russia investigation,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a tweet. “Firing the Deputy AG or Director Mueller would create a constitutional crisis.”
House Republicans allied with Trump have been ramping up attacks on Rosenstein. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows and some other members of the group have drafted proposed articles of impeachment against Rosenstein. Meadows is one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress and talks to him by phone several times a week. Rosenstein responded Tuesday, calling threats against the Justice Department extortion.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric attacking the investigation that he often calls a “witch hunt,” his lawyers and Mueller’s team have maintained a respectful, professional relationship behind the scenes. The two sides regularly talked, and Cobb had convinced Trump that the quickest way to resolve the probe was to cooperate and keep tensions low, encouraging him to waive executive privilege on interviews with dozens of White House staffers and thousands of pages of documents.
Trump has previously said he’d like to sit down with Mueller but he’d defer to the advice of his lawyers.
List of Questions
Earlier this week, the Times published a list of more than 40 questions it said that Mueller’s team wanted the president to answer. The questions focused on conversations between the Russian government and his campaign, as well as actions Trump took related to possible obstruction of justice.
“These are all questions intended to trap him,” Giuliani said Wednesday night in an interview with Fox News. “Every lawyer in America thinks he shouldn’t” grant an interview.
In the interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani said Cohen paid money to Daniels. the porn actress, by funneling it “through the law firm, and then the president repaid it.” Last month, Trump denied knowing about the payment to Daniels to stay silent about an alleged affair with him.
— With assistance by Toluse Olorunnipa
Palestinian Leader Incites Uproar With Speech Condemned as Anti-Semitic - Times of London
Palestinian Leader Incites Uproar With Speech Condemned as Anti-Semitic
By ISABEL KERSHNERMAY 2, 2018
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, center, opened a rare gathering of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s legislative body in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Monday. Credit Abbas Momani/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinian leader’s long, rambling speech was laced with deeply anti-Semitic tropes, including that the Jews of Europe brought persecution and the Holocaust upon themselves because of usury, banking and their “social function.”
Israel, he said, grew out of a European colonial project that had nothing to do with Jewish history or aspirations.
And citing a widely discredited book from the 1970s by Arthur Koestler called “The Thirteenth Tribe,” he posited that Ashkenazi Jews were descended not from the biblical Israelites but from the Khazars, a Turkic people who converted to Judaism in the eighth century.
Opening a rare gathering of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s legislative body in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Monday night, Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the group and the president of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, also declared that he wanted the Palestinians to live in peace in an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
But instead of stirring international sympathy for his cause, he stirred outrage. The furor following his speech underscored what many critics view as the increasing irrelevance of Mr. Abbas, now in his 80s, the bankruptcy of the organization he leads, and the chasm between his stated goal and any imminent prospect of the Palestinians achieving it.
Pompeo and Palestinians Have ‘Nothing to Discuss’ Amid Gaza Crisis APRIL 29, 2018
Abbas Spars With Israel at U.N., as Kushner Listens On FEB. 20, 2018
“Such statements are unacceptable, deeply disturbing and do not serve the interests of the Palestinian people or peace in the Middle East,” said Nickolay E. Mladenov, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, in a statement on Wednesday.
“Leaders have an obligation to confront anti-Semitism everywhere and always, not perpetuate the conspiracy theories that fuel it,” Mr. Mladenov added.
“Apparently the Holocaust-denier is still a Holocaust-denier,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said, apparently referring to Mr. Abbas’s doctoral dissertation, in which he challenged the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and argued that Zionists had collaborated with Nazis to propel more people to what would become Israel — a theme Mr. Abbas alluded to again on Monday.
Jason D. Greenblatt, the White House’s Middle East envoy, wrote on Twitter: “President Abbas’ remarks yesterday in Ramallah at the opening of the Palestinian National Congress must be unconditionally condemned by all. They are very unfortunate, very distressing & terribly disheartening. Peace cannot be built on this kind of foundation.”
David M. Friedman, the United States ambassador to Israel, said Mr. Abbas had “reached a new low,” adding, “To all those who think Israel is the reason that we don’t have peace, think again.”
Mr. Abbas is presiding over the first regular meeting of the Palestine National Council in 22 years. It may well be his last. (The council convened for a more limited, “extraordinary” session in 2009 to replace six members of its 18-member executive committee who had died in the meantime.)
On the eve of the four-day gathering of about 700 council delegates in Ramallah, an Abbas adviser promoted it as a historic meeting dedicated to Palestinian unity, democracy and setting strategy for the coming months and years.
It seemed to have started out as anything but that.
Instead, it was taking place with a deeply splintered Palestinian leadership that has turned away from Washington because of President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and is largely disconnected from its own public. A March opinion poll found that 68 percent of Palestinians want Mr. Abbas to resign from office.
The Palestinian Authority has looked on while its archrival, Hamas, the Islamist militant group that controls Gaza, has seized the popular initiative and focused international attention on the isolated and impoverished coastal enclave with its promotion of the so-called Great Return March. More than 40 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds have been wounded, many shot in the legs, by Israeli snipers over the past month during partly peaceful, partly violent protests along the Gaza border.
Mr. Abbas has long advocated nonviolent popular resistance against the Israeli occupation but is also wary of protests, fearing they could spiral out of control and be detrimental to the cause, or even turn against him, according to experts.
So he has found himself in the awkward position of trying to both pay lip service to, and dampen the enthusiasm for, the Gaza protests. In his speech he warned the children of Gaza to stay away from the border fence because “I do not want a disabled generation.”
Yet the weeks ahead could prove explosive. The United States is scheduled to open its embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, the 70th anniversary of Israel’s foundation, in a move that has infuriated the Palestinians. The Great Return March is expected to peak on May 15, when Palestinians mark the 70th anniversary of what they call the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” of the 1948 war when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left or were expelled from their homes in what is now Israel.
The Israeli military is bracing for a potential mass breach of its border fence with Gaza. The possible fallout in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, coinciding with the start of the holy month of Ramadan, is unpredictable.
Mr. Abbas has, in the meantime, ruled out an American monopoly over brokering Israeli-Palestinian negotiations because of the embassy move, and he has already rejected Mr. Trump’s long-awaited peace plan before it has been presented, expecting less favorable terms than have been offered in the past.
Aging and increasingly frail — Palestinian officials say an ambulance is now part of the president’s traveling detail — Mr. Abbas has offered few inspiring alternatives and a succession battle is already underway.
“It certainly feels like a very low point for the Palestinian national movement,” said Nathan Thrall, director of the International Crisis Group’s Israeli-Palestinian project. “Fragmentation and weakness,” he said, “just pervades the entire meeting.”
Mr. Abbas’s speech, Mr. Thrall said, was “just a simple reflection of an embittered leader at the end of his tenure whose life project has come to failure.”
At the same time, Mr. Thrall said, appearing defiant and having the United States condemn him will not harm Mr. Abbas domestically.
The Palestine National Council had not convened for years because many Palestinians wanted to wait for a genuine reconciliation between Mr. Abbas’s Fatah party and Hamas, which would have granted Hamas substantial representation in the P.L.O. Those efforts have also failed.
Aides to Mr. Abbas said it was necessary to meet now nevertheless, to replace 103 members of the roughly 700-member council, including more than 80 who have died.
The last regular meeting took place in 1996 in Gaza, during what were considered the “good years” of the Oslo peace process, which was meant to lead to a permanent peace settlement by the end of the 20th century.
Since then Mr. Abbas has lost much of the traditional support of many Arab states and has been facing increasingly right-wing Israeli governments that are unwilling to make concessions.
At an international conference organized by the P.L.O. on the eve of the council meeting, Palestinian officials and experts spoke gloomily to a half-empty hall in a Ramallah hotel about what went wrong and bemoaned the fate of the moribund organization.
“Instead of blaming the major powers we should blame ourselves,” said Asad Abdul Rahman, a Jordan-based delegate. After the Oslo accords, he said, “We neglected the P.L.O. and started focusing on the Palestinian Authority, and unfortunately we lost our bridges and contacts with the world.”
Muhammad Shtayyeh, a senior Palestinian official, recounted the P.L.O.’s journey from armed struggle to negotiations and, more recently, to an effort to internationalize the Palestinian struggle by turning to the United Nations and other bodies.
“None of them,” he said, “has liberated Palestine.”
By ISABEL KERSHNERMAY 2, 2018
President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, center, opened a rare gathering of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s legislative body in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Monday. Credit Abbas Momani/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinian leader’s long, rambling speech was laced with deeply anti-Semitic tropes, including that the Jews of Europe brought persecution and the Holocaust upon themselves because of usury, banking and their “social function.”
Israel, he said, grew out of a European colonial project that had nothing to do with Jewish history or aspirations.
And citing a widely discredited book from the 1970s by Arthur Koestler called “The Thirteenth Tribe,” he posited that Ashkenazi Jews were descended not from the biblical Israelites but from the Khazars, a Turkic people who converted to Judaism in the eighth century.
Opening a rare gathering of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s legislative body in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Monday night, Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the group and the president of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, also declared that he wanted the Palestinians to live in peace in an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.
But instead of stirring international sympathy for his cause, he stirred outrage. The furor following his speech underscored what many critics view as the increasing irrelevance of Mr. Abbas, now in his 80s, the bankruptcy of the organization he leads, and the chasm between his stated goal and any imminent prospect of the Palestinians achieving it.
Pompeo and Palestinians Have ‘Nothing to Discuss’ Amid Gaza Crisis APRIL 29, 2018
Abbas Spars With Israel at U.N., as Kushner Listens On FEB. 20, 2018
“Such statements are unacceptable, deeply disturbing and do not serve the interests of the Palestinian people or peace in the Middle East,” said Nickolay E. Mladenov, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, in a statement on Wednesday.
“Leaders have an obligation to confront anti-Semitism everywhere and always, not perpetuate the conspiracy theories that fuel it,” Mr. Mladenov added.
“Apparently the Holocaust-denier is still a Holocaust-denier,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said, apparently referring to Mr. Abbas’s doctoral dissertation, in which he challenged the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust and argued that Zionists had collaborated with Nazis to propel more people to what would become Israel — a theme Mr. Abbas alluded to again on Monday.
Jason D. Greenblatt, the White House’s Middle East envoy, wrote on Twitter: “President Abbas’ remarks yesterday in Ramallah at the opening of the Palestinian National Congress must be unconditionally condemned by all. They are very unfortunate, very distressing & terribly disheartening. Peace cannot be built on this kind of foundation.”
David M. Friedman, the United States ambassador to Israel, said Mr. Abbas had “reached a new low,” adding, “To all those who think Israel is the reason that we don’t have peace, think again.”
Mr. Abbas is presiding over the first regular meeting of the Palestine National Council in 22 years. It may well be his last. (The council convened for a more limited, “extraordinary” session in 2009 to replace six members of its 18-member executive committee who had died in the meantime.)
On the eve of the four-day gathering of about 700 council delegates in Ramallah, an Abbas adviser promoted it as a historic meeting dedicated to Palestinian unity, democracy and setting strategy for the coming months and years.
It seemed to have started out as anything but that.
Instead, it was taking place with a deeply splintered Palestinian leadership that has turned away from Washington because of President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and is largely disconnected from its own public. A March opinion poll found that 68 percent of Palestinians want Mr. Abbas to resign from office.
The Palestinian Authority has looked on while its archrival, Hamas, the Islamist militant group that controls Gaza, has seized the popular initiative and focused international attention on the isolated and impoverished coastal enclave with its promotion of the so-called Great Return March. More than 40 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds have been wounded, many shot in the legs, by Israeli snipers over the past month during partly peaceful, partly violent protests along the Gaza border.
Mr. Abbas has long advocated nonviolent popular resistance against the Israeli occupation but is also wary of protests, fearing they could spiral out of control and be detrimental to the cause, or even turn against him, according to experts.
So he has found himself in the awkward position of trying to both pay lip service to, and dampen the enthusiasm for, the Gaza protests. In his speech he warned the children of Gaza to stay away from the border fence because “I do not want a disabled generation.”
Yet the weeks ahead could prove explosive. The United States is scheduled to open its embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, the 70th anniversary of Israel’s foundation, in a move that has infuriated the Palestinians. The Great Return March is expected to peak on May 15, when Palestinians mark the 70th anniversary of what they call the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” of the 1948 war when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left or were expelled from their homes in what is now Israel.
The Israeli military is bracing for a potential mass breach of its border fence with Gaza. The possible fallout in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, coinciding with the start of the holy month of Ramadan, is unpredictable.
Mr. Abbas has, in the meantime, ruled out an American monopoly over brokering Israeli-Palestinian negotiations because of the embassy move, and he has already rejected Mr. Trump’s long-awaited peace plan before it has been presented, expecting less favorable terms than have been offered in the past.
Aging and increasingly frail — Palestinian officials say an ambulance is now part of the president’s traveling detail — Mr. Abbas has offered few inspiring alternatives and a succession battle is already underway.
“It certainly feels like a very low point for the Palestinian national movement,” said Nathan Thrall, director of the International Crisis Group’s Israeli-Palestinian project. “Fragmentation and weakness,” he said, “just pervades the entire meeting.”
Mr. Abbas’s speech, Mr. Thrall said, was “just a simple reflection of an embittered leader at the end of his tenure whose life project has come to failure.”
At the same time, Mr. Thrall said, appearing defiant and having the United States condemn him will not harm Mr. Abbas domestically.
The Palestine National Council had not convened for years because many Palestinians wanted to wait for a genuine reconciliation between Mr. Abbas’s Fatah party and Hamas, which would have granted Hamas substantial representation in the P.L.O. Those efforts have also failed.
Aides to Mr. Abbas said it was necessary to meet now nevertheless, to replace 103 members of the roughly 700-member council, including more than 80 who have died.
The last regular meeting took place in 1996 in Gaza, during what were considered the “good years” of the Oslo peace process, which was meant to lead to a permanent peace settlement by the end of the 20th century.
Since then Mr. Abbas has lost much of the traditional support of many Arab states and has been facing increasingly right-wing Israeli governments that are unwilling to make concessions.
At an international conference organized by the P.L.O. on the eve of the council meeting, Palestinian officials and experts spoke gloomily to a half-empty hall in a Ramallah hotel about what went wrong and bemoaned the fate of the moribund organization.
“Instead of blaming the major powers we should blame ourselves,” said Asad Abdul Rahman, a Jordan-based delegate. After the Oslo accords, he said, “We neglected the P.L.O. and started focusing on the Palestinian Authority, and unfortunately we lost our bridges and contacts with the world.”
Muhammad Shtayyeh, a senior Palestinian official, recounted the P.L.O.’s journey from armed struggle to negotiations and, more recently, to an effort to internationalize the Palestinian struggle by turning to the United Nations and other bodies.
“None of them,” he said, “has liberated Palestine.”
The 24 Rules for Success Left Behind by a Legendary Wall Street Banker - TIME Business
The 24 Rules for Success Left Behind by a Legendary Wall Street Banker
Posted: 01 May 2018 01:39 PM PDT
Richard Jenrette, who co-founded the investment bank Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette in 1959, spent four decades on Wall Street. When he died last week from complications of cancer at the age of 89, he left behind on his desk 24 rules to succeed — in finance, and in life. The list, titled “What I Learned,” was shared Sunday at an intimate memorial service for family and local friends in Charleston, South Carolina. Here’s what it said:
What I Learned (How to Succeed) (and have a Long and Happy Life)
1. Stay in the game. That’s often all you need to do – don’t quit. Stick around! Don’t be a quitter!
2. Don’t burn bridges (behind you)
3. Remember – Life has no blessing like a good friend! You can’t get enough of them. Don’t leave old friends behind – you may need them
4. Try to be nice and say “thank you” a lot!
5. Stay informed/KEEP LEARNING!
6. Study — Stay Educated. Do Your Home Work!! Keep learning!
7. Cultivate friends of all ages – especially younger
8. Run Scared — over-prepare
9. Be proud — no Uriah Heep for you! But not conceited. Know your own worth.
10. Plan ahead but be prepared to allow when opportunity presents itself.
11. Turn Problems into Opportunities. Very often it can be done. Problems create opportunities for change — people willing to consider change when there are problems.
12. Present yourself well. Clean, clean-shaven, dress “classically” to age. Beware style, trends. Look for charm. Good grammar. Don’t swear so much — it’s not cute.
13. But be open to change — don’t be stuck in mud. Be willing to consider what’s new but don’t blindly follow it. USE YOUR HEAD – COMMON SENSE.
14. Have some fun – but not all the time!
15. Be on the side of the Angels. Wear the White Hat.
16. Have a fall-back position. Heir and the spare. Don’t leave all your money in one place.
17. Learn a foreign language.
18. Travel a lot — around the world, if possible.
19. Don’t criticize someone in front of others.
20. Don’t forget to praise a job well done (but don’t praise a poor job)
21. I don’t like to lose — but don’t be a poor loser if you do.
22. It helps to have someone to love who loves you (not just sex).
23. Keep your standards high in all you do.
24. Look for the big picture but don’t forget the small details.
Facebook’s New ‘Clear History’ Button Is Really About the Company’s Future - TIME
Facebook’s New ‘Clear History’ Button Is Really About the Company’s Future
Posted: 01 May 2018 11:54 AM PDT
At Facebook’s annual F8 developer conference on Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg again found himself the center of attention on a big stage. Though he had more control over the narrative than during his recent grilling before Congress, he used his platform in San Jose to underscore the same message he delivered in D.C.: that Facebook is fundamentally a force for good, even if it is also flawed.
“There’s no guarantee that we get this right, this is hard stuff,” he said of designing technology that “puts people first” and enhances relationships. “We will make mistakes and they will have consequences and we will need to fix them,” Zuckerberg went on. “But what I can guarantee is that if we don’t work on this, the world isn’t moving in this direction by itself. So that is what we are all here to do.”
It was a somber recognition of Facebook’s limitations to begin what is normally a celebratory rollout of cutting-edge features and capabilities, which developers might use to build new products and services. The first update Zuckerberg announced — a feature called Clear History — was also freighted by the context in which he found himself this year, as the company continues to endure fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Just as users have the option of clearing the history in their browsers, which retains information about the websites they’ve visited, they will have an option to erase information Facebook keeps about what they’ve been doing on the platform, Zuckerberg said. “You’re going to be able to use this tool to see the information about the apps and websites you’ve interacted with. You’ll be able to clear all this information from your account. You’ll even be able to turn it off,” he said.
When the CEO was justifying Facebook’s collection of information about users before Congress, he repeatedly said that it creates a better experience for users because it can ensure that they see more relevant ads. His comments about the Clear History feature followed the same logic, with Zuckerberg suggesting that by collecting less information, it might make the experience “worse” for users. In the same breath, he also acknowledged that the company needed to give users more options to choose from when it comes to balancing personalization with privacy.
“When you clear your cookies in a browser,” he said, “you may have to sign back into dozens of websites.” It can be a pain, he implied: “The same is going to be true here. Your Facebook won’t be quite as good as it relearns your preferences. But after going through our systems, this is the kind of control we think people should have.” It was an indication of the new calculus that Facebook and other tech companies will have to keep in mind going forward in order to retain users’ trust and the users themselves.
In what felt like a 10-minute preamble to a typical keynote, Zuckerberg emphasized other moves the company is making to keep people and elections safe, many of which he also touted before Senate and House committees. He acknowledged that the platform was abused by bad actors during the 2016 election, and said the company vowed that “we will never be unprepared for this again.” And he touted the fact that Facebook has been in the process of hiring tens of thousands of people to review content and optimizing artificial intelligence tools that can take down fake accounts before they are able to spread disinformation. “This is an arms race,” he said, “and we’ll be working to stay ahead of our adversaries forever.”
But while some of the material was repeated, the tenor of Zuckerberg’s comments was a far cry from his restrained and tense demeanor at the congressional hearings. As he walked the stage, Zuckerberg sounded more optimistic than defensive. And he was obviously aware of the contrast. As the preamble ended, he announced a new feature called Watch Party, which will allow users to watch video together and chat on the platform. The example projected on the screen behind him was tape of him sitting, ashen and serious, in the halls of the Capitol. “Let’s say your friend is testifying in Congress, for example,” he said to a clapping crowd. “Now you can bring friends together, and you can laugh together and you can cry together.”
“Let’s not do that again any time soon,” he said.
Posted: 01 May 2018 11:54 AM PDT
At Facebook’s annual F8 developer conference on Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg again found himself the center of attention on a big stage. Though he had more control over the narrative than during his recent grilling before Congress, he used his platform in San Jose to underscore the same message he delivered in D.C.: that Facebook is fundamentally a force for good, even if it is also flawed.
“There’s no guarantee that we get this right, this is hard stuff,” he said of designing technology that “puts people first” and enhances relationships. “We will make mistakes and they will have consequences and we will need to fix them,” Zuckerberg went on. “But what I can guarantee is that if we don’t work on this, the world isn’t moving in this direction by itself. So that is what we are all here to do.”
It was a somber recognition of Facebook’s limitations to begin what is normally a celebratory rollout of cutting-edge features and capabilities, which developers might use to build new products and services. The first update Zuckerberg announced — a feature called Clear History — was also freighted by the context in which he found himself this year, as the company continues to endure fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Just as users have the option of clearing the history in their browsers, which retains information about the websites they’ve visited, they will have an option to erase information Facebook keeps about what they’ve been doing on the platform, Zuckerberg said. “You’re going to be able to use this tool to see the information about the apps and websites you’ve interacted with. You’ll be able to clear all this information from your account. You’ll even be able to turn it off,” he said.
When the CEO was justifying Facebook’s collection of information about users before Congress, he repeatedly said that it creates a better experience for users because it can ensure that they see more relevant ads. His comments about the Clear History feature followed the same logic, with Zuckerberg suggesting that by collecting less information, it might make the experience “worse” for users. In the same breath, he also acknowledged that the company needed to give users more options to choose from when it comes to balancing personalization with privacy.
“When you clear your cookies in a browser,” he said, “you may have to sign back into dozens of websites.” It can be a pain, he implied: “The same is going to be true here. Your Facebook won’t be quite as good as it relearns your preferences. But after going through our systems, this is the kind of control we think people should have.” It was an indication of the new calculus that Facebook and other tech companies will have to keep in mind going forward in order to retain users’ trust and the users themselves.
In what felt like a 10-minute preamble to a typical keynote, Zuckerberg emphasized other moves the company is making to keep people and elections safe, many of which he also touted before Senate and House committees. He acknowledged that the platform was abused by bad actors during the 2016 election, and said the company vowed that “we will never be unprepared for this again.” And he touted the fact that Facebook has been in the process of hiring tens of thousands of people to review content and optimizing artificial intelligence tools that can take down fake accounts before they are able to spread disinformation. “This is an arms race,” he said, “and we’ll be working to stay ahead of our adversaries forever.”
But while some of the material was repeated, the tenor of Zuckerberg’s comments was a far cry from his restrained and tense demeanor at the congressional hearings. As he walked the stage, Zuckerberg sounded more optimistic than defensive. And he was obviously aware of the contrast. As the preamble ended, he announced a new feature called Watch Party, which will allow users to watch video together and chat on the platform. The example projected on the screen behind him was tape of him sitting, ashen and serious, in the halls of the Capitol. “Let’s say your friend is testifying in Congress, for example,” he said to a clapping crowd. “Now you can bring friends together, and you can laugh together and you can cry together.”
“Let’s not do that again any time soon,” he said.
Dying Stephen Hawking changed his mind on key theory - Times of London
Dying Stephen Hawking changed his mind on key theory
Oliver Moody, Science Correspondent
May 3 2018, 12:01am,
The Times
Science
Stephen Hawking’s last writing on physics announced a “significant departure” from his theory that the universe was effectively eternal
One of Stephen Hawking’s most famous and charismatic ideas was that the universe had no boundaries and time had no beginning.
However, it emerged yesterday that he had turned his back on the theory in the last paragraph of physics he wrote before his death.
The Cambridge University cosmologist, who died in March at the age of 76, has revised his signature hypothesis about the first instant of the Big Bang in a final, posthumous paper.
Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal, set out jointly in 1983 with the American physicist James Hartle, held that the universe was effectively eternal because time curved back on itself like a sphere. It became so closely associated with Hawking that it furnished a pivotal scene in his 2014 biopic, The Theory of Everything, which turned the theory into a metaphor for his physical determination and courage.
It also left him unsatisfied, because it implied the possible existence of a large number of different universes, each with its own laws of physics. This made it impossible to explain why our universe should behave the way it does.
Hawking’s last scientific work, written with Thomas Hertog, a theoretical physicist at the University of Leuven in Belgium and his collaborator of two decades’ standing, announces a “significant departure” from the theory.
Professor Hertog journeyed frequently to Cambridge to develop the idea, even as it became increasingly difficult for Hawking to communicate. In fact, Hawking’s thinking had come full circle as he returned to the research of his youth, Professor Hertog said.
“There is a single, over-arching question behind all of this work by Hawking,” he said. “It is a deeper understanding of where the laws of physics that we test in our labs come from.”
As a young scientist, shortly after he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, Hawking argued that the Big Bang began with a point beyond the reach of mathematics, where the equations Einstein had coined to describe reality broke down. This was replaced by the no-boundary proposal, his first big breakthrough after he was appointed to the Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge.
Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal became a metaphor for courage in The Theory of Everything, starring Eddie RedmayneHawking’s “no-boundary” proposal became a metaphor for courage in The Theory of Everything, starring Eddie Redmayne
ALLSTAR
The new paper, published in the Journal of High Energy Physics, ditches that hypothesis and states that there is a boundary after all. It also makes for a simpler set of alternative universes.
“The idea of the ‘no boundary’ is gone again,” Professor Hertog said. “At some point 13.8 billion years in the past we had a boundary, where our familiar notion of time ceases to be meaningful and we are left with a kind of timeless state. [Beyond it] there is nothing. No space. No time. Absolutely nothing.”
Marika Taylor, who studied under Hawking and is now professor of theoretical physics at the University of Southampton, said the no-boundary proposal had been a “beautiful” but flawed idea. Hawking’s final theory was a logical evolution of his earlier work and addressed a question to which there is still no conclusive answer, she added.
“I think it’s fair to say this is something which is still at the frontier of study. People believe that there was an inflationary period. What started that off is something that people are still exploring.”
However, Professor Taylor said that Hawking’s last paper was too speculative to ignite a revolution in cosmology: “There’s a core of sharp, rigorous work out there relating gravity to a theory with one less dimension, and they are pushing things beyond that. This is an interesting paper, and it’s Stephen’s last paper, but it’s not a breakthrough.”
The ‘no-boundary’ idea
The no-boundary proposal was one of Stephen Hawking’s most brilliant and troubling ideas. In 1983 he published a paper that appeared to solve the origin of time itself: it had no beginning. The further back you delve, the more time simply dwindles away. He compared it to travelling to the South Pole. By the time you arrive, the word “south” has lost its meaning.
However, the model had an awkward implication. It gave rise to any number of possible universes, most of them hostile to the stable existence of the matter that makes up stars, planets and human beings. Hawking found all this deeply messy. His last paper is an attempt to resolve the problem. Hawking and Thomas Hertog describe a new boundary at the start of a finite universe, which leads logically to reality as we know it.
Oliver Moody, Science Correspondent
May 3 2018, 12:01am,
The Times
Science
Stephen Hawking’s last writing on physics announced a “significant departure” from his theory that the universe was effectively eternal
One of Stephen Hawking’s most famous and charismatic ideas was that the universe had no boundaries and time had no beginning.
However, it emerged yesterday that he had turned his back on the theory in the last paragraph of physics he wrote before his death.
The Cambridge University cosmologist, who died in March at the age of 76, has revised his signature hypothesis about the first instant of the Big Bang in a final, posthumous paper.
Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal, set out jointly in 1983 with the American physicist James Hartle, held that the universe was effectively eternal because time curved back on itself like a sphere. It became so closely associated with Hawking that it furnished a pivotal scene in his 2014 biopic, The Theory of Everything, which turned the theory into a metaphor for his physical determination and courage.
It also left him unsatisfied, because it implied the possible existence of a large number of different universes, each with its own laws of physics. This made it impossible to explain why our universe should behave the way it does.
Hawking’s last scientific work, written with Thomas Hertog, a theoretical physicist at the University of Leuven in Belgium and his collaborator of two decades’ standing, announces a “significant departure” from the theory.
Professor Hertog journeyed frequently to Cambridge to develop the idea, even as it became increasingly difficult for Hawking to communicate. In fact, Hawking’s thinking had come full circle as he returned to the research of his youth, Professor Hertog said.
“There is a single, over-arching question behind all of this work by Hawking,” he said. “It is a deeper understanding of where the laws of physics that we test in our labs come from.”
As a young scientist, shortly after he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, Hawking argued that the Big Bang began with a point beyond the reach of mathematics, where the equations Einstein had coined to describe reality broke down. This was replaced by the no-boundary proposal, his first big breakthrough after he was appointed to the Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge.
Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal became a metaphor for courage in The Theory of Everything, starring Eddie RedmayneHawking’s “no-boundary” proposal became a metaphor for courage in The Theory of Everything, starring Eddie Redmayne
ALLSTAR
The new paper, published in the Journal of High Energy Physics, ditches that hypothesis and states that there is a boundary after all. It also makes for a simpler set of alternative universes.
“The idea of the ‘no boundary’ is gone again,” Professor Hertog said. “At some point 13.8 billion years in the past we had a boundary, where our familiar notion of time ceases to be meaningful and we are left with a kind of timeless state. [Beyond it] there is nothing. No space. No time. Absolutely nothing.”
Marika Taylor, who studied under Hawking and is now professor of theoretical physics at the University of Southampton, said the no-boundary proposal had been a “beautiful” but flawed idea. Hawking’s final theory was a logical evolution of his earlier work and addressed a question to which there is still no conclusive answer, she added.
“I think it’s fair to say this is something which is still at the frontier of study. People believe that there was an inflationary period. What started that off is something that people are still exploring.”
However, Professor Taylor said that Hawking’s last paper was too speculative to ignite a revolution in cosmology: “There’s a core of sharp, rigorous work out there relating gravity to a theory with one less dimension, and they are pushing things beyond that. This is an interesting paper, and it’s Stephen’s last paper, but it’s not a breakthrough.”
The ‘no-boundary’ idea
The no-boundary proposal was one of Stephen Hawking’s most brilliant and troubling ideas. In 1983 he published a paper that appeared to solve the origin of time itself: it had no beginning. The further back you delve, the more time simply dwindles away. He compared it to travelling to the South Pole. By the time you arrive, the word “south” has lost its meaning.
However, the model had an awkward implication. It gave rise to any number of possible universes, most of them hostile to the stable existence of the matter that makes up stars, planets and human beings. Hawking found all this deeply messy. His last paper is an attempt to resolve the problem. Hawking and Thomas Hertog describe a new boundary at the start of a finite universe, which leads logically to reality as we know it.
Not Everyone Gets Why OPEC Is Determined to Stick With Cuts - Bloomberg
Not Everyone Gets Why OPEC Is Determined to Stick With Cuts
By Grant Smith
May 2, 2018, 9:01 AM GMT+10 Updated on May 2, 2018, 10:04 PM GMT+10
New oil investment target may already have been achieved
Major companies are boosting output while restraining capex
OPEC and Russia seem determined to keep on cutting production even after their campaign to rebalance world oil markets achieved its main target. The primary justification for doing so looks shaky.
Sixteen months of output curbs have all but eliminated surplus oil inventories and prices are near a three-year high. But Saudi Arabia says the “mission is not accomplished yet” and is urging fellow producers to keep output restrained to fulfill a new priority: encouraging companies around the world to invest more in future supply.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries isn’t the only voice warning about a lack of spending on new projects. Influential figures from the International Energy Agency to the boss of oil major Total SA have warned a supply shortage could emerge early next decade after a period of deep cuts in spending. Under-investment could push prices as high as $300 a barrel within a few years, prominent hedge-fund manager Pierre Andurand said this week.
Yet there’s also no shortage of people who see OPEC’s concern about investment as a pretext for prolonging a strategy that keeps oil prices as high as possible. First-quarter earnings showed major companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Eni SpA and Chevron Corp. are spending less but still expanding production thanks to cost cuts. U.S. oil drillers are deploying more rigs and maxing out pipelines.
At current prices the industry is already on track to deliver the extra output the world needs, according to Rystad A/S.
OPEC's New Goal May Already Be Achieved
Rystad says global investment is on track to deliver the necessary supplies
“Over the next 10 years, we see that supply will continue to keep up with demand growth,” said Espen Erlingsen, an analyst at Oslo-based consultant Rystad. “The surge in North American shale activity and startup of new fields are the main drivers for this growth.”
Saudi Arabian Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said at a meeting of OPEC ministers last month that the world needs to invest enough to provide 4 million to 5 million barrels of additional daily oil-production capacity each year. That amount -- roughly equivalent to a new Iraq -- is needed to meet growing demand and make up for supplies lost to natural decline.
Investment is the “most important metric” for gauging how long OPEC and Russia’s cuts need to continue, Al-Falih said. The group will examine this proposal along with a “menu” of other possible targets at its next meeting in late June, he said.
There’s little doubt that energy companies have curbed investment in new projects since prices slumped almost four years ago. The IEA says spending dropped about $338 billion, or 44 percent, between 2014 and 2017.
It’s also true that production from existing fields decreases naturally every single year. Supplies equivalent to the whole North Sea were lost to natural decline in 2017, the IEA estimates.
Cheaper Barrels
However, a modest recovery in spending already seems to be under way as crude prices rise, according to the IEA. The downturn has spurred companies to operate more efficiently. In the last few years, decline rates at mature fields have undergone a “remarkable deceleration,” notably in the North Sea and Russia, the agency said.
New projects have become much cheaper after companies pressured suppliers and simplified their designs. BP Plc cut the costs for its Mad Dog oil field in the Gulf of Mexico by 60 percent. Statoil ASA’s Johan Castberg field in Norway will now turn a profit at $35 a barrel, compared with $80 estimated just a few years ago.
The upshot is that it costs less to expand global oil production today than it did back in 2014. Rystad said industry spending in recent years will deliver the necessary 7 percent growth in global oil production to just over 103 million barrels a day by the end of the decade. That trend will continue over the next 10 years if oil remains between $60 and $70 a barrel, it said.
It's Going to be Alright
Oil investments are on track to deliver 103 million b/d in 2020
Even if the projections from Rystad, which also provides data to the IEA, prove to be spot-on, OPEC needs something more immediate as a basis for its decision on whether to continue or phase out production cuts.
Yet the timeliness of hard data on investment is questionable. The oil-inventory numbers from industrialized nations that OPEC has used up until now arrive with a delay of about two months, but the latest figures on spending reflect the state of the market 12 to 24 months ago.
Capex Uncertainty
“We only know capex expenditures when earnings reports are out, and even then forward guidance can be changed,” said Harry Tchilinguirian, head of commodity-markets strategy at BNP Paribas SA in London. “In addition, pinpointing when first production will take place after capex spending is subject to uncertainty. Projects can be delayed for various reasons including budget over-runs, technical hurdles, etcetera.”
This lack of clarity may suit Saudi Arabia.
The kingdom is burdened with weighty domestic spending commitments and military involvement in Yemen, while also keen to get a rich valuation for the partial listing of its state oil company. It’s seeking prices of $80 a barrel, people familiar with the matter say, compared with about $73 for Brent crude currently.
Showing concern about investment is a way to mask OPEC’s main aim, according to Mike Wittner, head of oil-market research at Societe Generale SA.
“Talking about the need for more investment is a way of saying: ‘Hey, world, we’re OPEC and we want higher prices, but we’re actually doing you a favor’,” Wittner said. “In the end, it’s about revenues.”
By Grant Smith
May 2, 2018, 9:01 AM GMT+10 Updated on May 2, 2018, 10:04 PM GMT+10
New oil investment target may already have been achieved
Major companies are boosting output while restraining capex
OPEC and Russia seem determined to keep on cutting production even after their campaign to rebalance world oil markets achieved its main target. The primary justification for doing so looks shaky.
Sixteen months of output curbs have all but eliminated surplus oil inventories and prices are near a three-year high. But Saudi Arabia says the “mission is not accomplished yet” and is urging fellow producers to keep output restrained to fulfill a new priority: encouraging companies around the world to invest more in future supply.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries isn’t the only voice warning about a lack of spending on new projects. Influential figures from the International Energy Agency to the boss of oil major Total SA have warned a supply shortage could emerge early next decade after a period of deep cuts in spending. Under-investment could push prices as high as $300 a barrel within a few years, prominent hedge-fund manager Pierre Andurand said this week.
Yet there’s also no shortage of people who see OPEC’s concern about investment as a pretext for prolonging a strategy that keeps oil prices as high as possible. First-quarter earnings showed major companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Eni SpA and Chevron Corp. are spending less but still expanding production thanks to cost cuts. U.S. oil drillers are deploying more rigs and maxing out pipelines.
At current prices the industry is already on track to deliver the extra output the world needs, according to Rystad A/S.
OPEC's New Goal May Already Be Achieved
Rystad says global investment is on track to deliver the necessary supplies
“Over the next 10 years, we see that supply will continue to keep up with demand growth,” said Espen Erlingsen, an analyst at Oslo-based consultant Rystad. “The surge in North American shale activity and startup of new fields are the main drivers for this growth.”
Saudi Arabian Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said at a meeting of OPEC ministers last month that the world needs to invest enough to provide 4 million to 5 million barrels of additional daily oil-production capacity each year. That amount -- roughly equivalent to a new Iraq -- is needed to meet growing demand and make up for supplies lost to natural decline.
Investment is the “most important metric” for gauging how long OPEC and Russia’s cuts need to continue, Al-Falih said. The group will examine this proposal along with a “menu” of other possible targets at its next meeting in late June, he said.
There’s little doubt that energy companies have curbed investment in new projects since prices slumped almost four years ago. The IEA says spending dropped about $338 billion, or 44 percent, between 2014 and 2017.
It’s also true that production from existing fields decreases naturally every single year. Supplies equivalent to the whole North Sea were lost to natural decline in 2017, the IEA estimates.
Cheaper Barrels
However, a modest recovery in spending already seems to be under way as crude prices rise, according to the IEA. The downturn has spurred companies to operate more efficiently. In the last few years, decline rates at mature fields have undergone a “remarkable deceleration,” notably in the North Sea and Russia, the agency said.
New projects have become much cheaper after companies pressured suppliers and simplified their designs. BP Plc cut the costs for its Mad Dog oil field in the Gulf of Mexico by 60 percent. Statoil ASA’s Johan Castberg field in Norway will now turn a profit at $35 a barrel, compared with $80 estimated just a few years ago.
The upshot is that it costs less to expand global oil production today than it did back in 2014. Rystad said industry spending in recent years will deliver the necessary 7 percent growth in global oil production to just over 103 million barrels a day by the end of the decade. That trend will continue over the next 10 years if oil remains between $60 and $70 a barrel, it said.
It's Going to be Alright
Oil investments are on track to deliver 103 million b/d in 2020
Even if the projections from Rystad, which also provides data to the IEA, prove to be spot-on, OPEC needs something more immediate as a basis for its decision on whether to continue or phase out production cuts.
Yet the timeliness of hard data on investment is questionable. The oil-inventory numbers from industrialized nations that OPEC has used up until now arrive with a delay of about two months, but the latest figures on spending reflect the state of the market 12 to 24 months ago.
Capex Uncertainty
“We only know capex expenditures when earnings reports are out, and even then forward guidance can be changed,” said Harry Tchilinguirian, head of commodity-markets strategy at BNP Paribas SA in London. “In addition, pinpointing when first production will take place after capex spending is subject to uncertainty. Projects can be delayed for various reasons including budget over-runs, technical hurdles, etcetera.”
This lack of clarity may suit Saudi Arabia.
The kingdom is burdened with weighty domestic spending commitments and military involvement in Yemen, while also keen to get a rich valuation for the partial listing of its state oil company. It’s seeking prices of $80 a barrel, people familiar with the matter say, compared with about $73 for Brent crude currently.
Showing concern about investment is a way to mask OPEC’s main aim, according to Mike Wittner, head of oil-market research at Societe Generale SA.
“Talking about the need for more investment is a way of saying: ‘Hey, world, we’re OPEC and we want higher prices, but we’re actually doing you a favor’,” Wittner said. “In the end, it’s about revenues.”
Trump claims immunity, asks court to toss foreign payments suit - Reuters
MAY 3, 2018 / 12:27 AM / UPDATED 11 MINUTES AGO
Trump claims immunity, asks court to toss foreign payments suit
Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has again asked a U.S. court to dismiss a suit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by refusing to separate himself from his business empire while in office, claiming “absolute immunity.”
The lawsuit, filed by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clause that bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other payments from foreign governments without congressional approval. The same clause also bars the president from receiving gifts and payments from individual states.
“If Plaintiffs want to sue the President for acts taken while in office, they must sue him in official capacity. But he is absolutely immune from any suit, including this one, seeking to impose individual liability premised on his assumption of the Presidency itself,” Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy wrote in a court filing on Tuesday.
“The Supreme Court has concluded that the costs to the Nation of allowing such suits to distract the President from his official duties outweigh any countervailing interests. That choice must be respected,” Consovoy added.
Trump’s legal team previously sought to have the case tossed out but U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland, last month let it proceed even as he narrowed the claims only to those related to Trump’s hotel in downtown Washington.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, both Democrats, argued in their suit, filed last June, that local residents were harmed by unfair competition by Trump’s hotel and other businesses. Lawyers for the Republican president previously argued that such harm was speculative and difficult to link directly to Trump.
Trump, whose businesses include a host of real estate properties as well as golf courses and a Virginia winery, handed day-to-day management to two of his sons. But the plaintiffs said Trump has not disentangled himself and is vulnerable to inducements by people, including foreign officials, seeking to curry favor.
Frosh and Racine have indicated they will seek numerous documents related to Trump, including his tax returns. Trump has bucked precedent by not releasing his tax returns during his 2016 presidential campaign or as president.
Trump repaid Cohen for hush money, says Giuliani
A U.S. judge in Manhattan in December threw out a similar lawsuit against Trump brought by another group of plaintiffs.
Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Will Dunham
Trump claims immunity, asks court to toss foreign payments suit
Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has again asked a U.S. court to dismiss a suit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by refusing to separate himself from his business empire while in office, claiming “absolute immunity.”
The lawsuit, filed by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clause that bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other payments from foreign governments without congressional approval. The same clause also bars the president from receiving gifts and payments from individual states.
“If Plaintiffs want to sue the President for acts taken while in office, they must sue him in official capacity. But he is absolutely immune from any suit, including this one, seeking to impose individual liability premised on his assumption of the Presidency itself,” Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy wrote in a court filing on Tuesday.
“The Supreme Court has concluded that the costs to the Nation of allowing such suits to distract the President from his official duties outweigh any countervailing interests. That choice must be respected,” Consovoy added.
Trump’s legal team previously sought to have the case tossed out but U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland, last month let it proceed even as he narrowed the claims only to those related to Trump’s hotel in downtown Washington.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, both Democrats, argued in their suit, filed last June, that local residents were harmed by unfair competition by Trump’s hotel and other businesses. Lawyers for the Republican president previously argued that such harm was speculative and difficult to link directly to Trump.
Trump, whose businesses include a host of real estate properties as well as golf courses and a Virginia winery, handed day-to-day management to two of his sons. But the plaintiffs said Trump has not disentangled himself and is vulnerable to inducements by people, including foreign officials, seeking to curry favor.
Frosh and Racine have indicated they will seek numerous documents related to Trump, including his tax returns. Trump has bucked precedent by not releasing his tax returns during his 2016 presidential campaign or as president.
Trump repaid Cohen for hush money, says Giuliani
A U.S. judge in Manhattan in December threw out a similar lawsuit against Trump brought by another group of plaintiffs.
Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Will Dunham
Deep state has 'weaponized' security clearances against Trump, conservative Pentagon official's lawyer says - Fox News
May 2, 2018
Deep state has 'weaponized' security clearances against Trump, conservative Pentagon official's lawyer says
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Deep state is weaponizing staff security clearances against Trump: Sean Bigley
Tom Dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, and security clearance defense attorney Sean Bigley discuss special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and how the deep state is "weaponizing" the vetting of Trump appointees.
Political opponents of President Donald Trump have "weaponized" the security-clearance process against him in an undemocratic "power grab," stalling his nominations and systematically impeding White House operations, the lawyer for a top Defense Department official wrote Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal.
The charge comes less than a month after U.S. Sen. Rand Paul revealed that two romantically involved FBI officials who were removed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team over a series of anti-Trump text messages still have Top Secret security clearances.
National security attorney Sean Bigley wrote that his client, Adam Lovinger, is just one example of the ongoing war against Trump appointees. Lovinger served for more than a decade as a Pentagon strategist before being tapped to become an analyst for the National Security Council.
"Unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives ..."
- National security attorney Sean Bigley
But shortly after Lovinger turned whistleblower -- by raising concerns about the possible misuse of contractors to perform government functions -- his security clearance was suspended and he lost the NSC post, Bigley wrote.
JARED KUSHNER'S SECURITY CLEARANCE DOWNGRADED
According to Bigley, the Pentagon cited only "[s]pecious, and constantly evolving, claims of misconduct" against his client to justify the punishment. Government officials failed to provide any specific evidence for their claims, and Lovinger remains on administrative leave, the attorney wrote.
"One of Mr. Lovinger’s alleged transgressions was that Pentagon officials had improperly marked an academic report he took aboard an airplane for reading," Bigley wrote.
Republican senator from Kentucky on whether FBI officials caught sending anti-Trump text messages should be allowed to keep their clearances.
The root of the problem, according to Bigley, is systemic partisan bias among career government bureaucrats who have openly expressed their contempt for President Trump.
"In Mr. Lovinger’s case, those weaponizing the security-clearance process include a senior official who remains on the job despite publicly disparaging President Trump as 'unfit' to lead, a Pentagon attorney who instructed colleagues on the importance of concealing retaliatory motives behind their actions, and the Defense Department’s security adjudications chief, who persists in advancing false allegations," Bigley wrote.
"They and other unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives through a litany of seemingly small but slowly compounding abuses of bureaucratic power," he said.
TRUMP-HATING FBI BIGWIGS STILL HAVE TOP-SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE
The White House's handling of security clearances came under fire earlier this year, in the wake of revelations that former White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter had worked for more than a year with only interim clearance.
Porter, whose job gave him constant access to the most sensitive of documents, had been accused of domestic abuse by his two ex-wives. The White House repeatedly adjusted its timeline about who knew what and when about the allegations.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.
Deep state has 'weaponized' security clearances against Trump, conservative Pentagon official's lawyer says
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Deep state is weaponizing staff security clearances against Trump: Sean Bigley
Tom Dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, and security clearance defense attorney Sean Bigley discuss special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and how the deep state is "weaponizing" the vetting of Trump appointees.
Political opponents of President Donald Trump have "weaponized" the security-clearance process against him in an undemocratic "power grab," stalling his nominations and systematically impeding White House operations, the lawyer for a top Defense Department official wrote Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal.
The charge comes less than a month after U.S. Sen. Rand Paul revealed that two romantically involved FBI officials who were removed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team over a series of anti-Trump text messages still have Top Secret security clearances.
National security attorney Sean Bigley wrote that his client, Adam Lovinger, is just one example of the ongoing war against Trump appointees. Lovinger served for more than a decade as a Pentagon strategist before being tapped to become an analyst for the National Security Council.
"Unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives ..."
- National security attorney Sean Bigley
But shortly after Lovinger turned whistleblower -- by raising concerns about the possible misuse of contractors to perform government functions -- his security clearance was suspended and he lost the NSC post, Bigley wrote.
JARED KUSHNER'S SECURITY CLEARANCE DOWNGRADED
According to Bigley, the Pentagon cited only "[s]pecious, and constantly evolving, claims of misconduct" against his client to justify the punishment. Government officials failed to provide any specific evidence for their claims, and Lovinger remains on administrative leave, the attorney wrote.
"One of Mr. Lovinger’s alleged transgressions was that Pentagon officials had improperly marked an academic report he took aboard an airplane for reading," Bigley wrote.
Republican senator from Kentucky on whether FBI officials caught sending anti-Trump text messages should be allowed to keep their clearances.
The root of the problem, according to Bigley, is systemic partisan bias among career government bureaucrats who have openly expressed their contempt for President Trump.
"In Mr. Lovinger’s case, those weaponizing the security-clearance process include a senior official who remains on the job despite publicly disparaging President Trump as 'unfit' to lead, a Pentagon attorney who instructed colleagues on the importance of concealing retaliatory motives behind their actions, and the Defense Department’s security adjudications chief, who persists in advancing false allegations," Bigley wrote.
"They and other unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives through a litany of seemingly small but slowly compounding abuses of bureaucratic power," he said.
TRUMP-HATING FBI BIGWIGS STILL HAVE TOP-SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE
The White House's handling of security clearances came under fire earlier this year, in the wake of revelations that former White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter had worked for more than a year with only interim clearance.
Porter, whose job gave him constant access to the most sensitive of documents, had been accused of domestic abuse by his two ex-wives. The White House repeatedly adjusted its timeline about who knew what and when about the allegations.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.
North Korea-US talks: Who are North Korea's American detainees? - BBC News
May 3, 2018
North Korea-US talks: Who are North Korea's American detainees?
One of the three men who have been reportedly relocated, Kim Dong-chul, was sentenced to 10 years' hard labour after appearing before the media to confess in March 2016
Three Americans detained in North Korea have been relocated to a Pyongyang hotel and are receiving good food and medical care, reports say.
The reports suggest the three may be released as a gesture of good will, amid preparations for a meeting between leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump.
Mr Trump has said the US is "fighting very diligently" to win their freedom.
On Wednesday, he told his followers on Twitter to "stay tuned!" for news.
"As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three hostages to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail," he said.
Two of the detainees were jailed in 2017, after Mr Trump became president.
Just asking! Trump floats Korea border idea
The tricky task of preparing for the Trump-Kim summit
Will we ever know what happened to Otto Warmbier?
The US State Department has said it can not confirm the validity of the reports on the prisoner move, which came from Choi Sung-ryong, a South Korean activist with contacts in the North.
But a spokeswoman said the US was "working to see US citizens who are detained in North Korea come home as soon as possible".
Here's what we know about the three men.
Kim Hak-song
Kim Hak-song worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST) and was held on suspicion of "hostile acts" on 6 May 2017. He was reportedly detained while in Pyongyang Station.
The university, which mostly teaches the children of North Korea's elite, was founded in 2010 by a Korean-American Christian entrepreneur, with much of the costs funded by US and South Korea Christian charities.
Several foreign lecturers are thought to teach there.
Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump: From enemies to frenemies?
Kim Hak-song had previously described himself as a Christian missionary who intended to start an experimental farm at PUST, Reuters news agency reported, citing an online post by Mr Kim.
He is, reports say, an ethnic Korean born just across the North Korean border in China who emigrated to the US in the 1990s. He is said to have gone on to study agriculture in Yanbian, a Chinese prefecture which borders North Korea, before moving to Pyongyang.
Kim Sang-duk/Tony Kim
Two weeks before Kim Hak-song was arrested, Kim Sang-duk - also known as Tony Kim - was detained on espionage charges.
He was trying to leave the country after spending a month working at PUST. South Korean media said he was 55 and had been involved in humanitarian work in the North.
"Some officials at PUST told me his arrest was not related to his work at PUST," the chancellor of the university, Chan-Mo Park, told Reuters news agency.
Tony Kim was detained on espionage charges
"He had been involved with some other activities outside PUST, such as helping an orphanage."
Mr Kim studied accounting at two American universities and had worked as an accountant in the US for more than a decade, his Facebook page says.
He had also taught in Yanbian.
Kim Dong-chul
A South Korea-born US citizen, Kim Dong-chul is a pastor in his early 60s.
He was detained in 2015 on spying charges and sentenced to 10 years' hard labour in 2016.
Before his trial, he was presented at a government-arranged press conference, where he apparently confessed to stealing military secrets in collusion with South Korea - a claim rejected by Seoul.
In an interview with CNN in January 2016, Mr Kim said he lived in Fairfax, Virginia.
He said he used to run a trading and hotel services company in Rason, a special economic zone near the border zone in north-east North Korea.
He told CNN he had left a wife and two daughters behind in China, but had had no contact with them since his detention.
North Korea-US talks: Who are North Korea's American detainees?
One of the three men who have been reportedly relocated, Kim Dong-chul, was sentenced to 10 years' hard labour after appearing before the media to confess in March 2016
Three Americans detained in North Korea have been relocated to a Pyongyang hotel and are receiving good food and medical care, reports say.
The reports suggest the three may be released as a gesture of good will, amid preparations for a meeting between leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump.
Mr Trump has said the US is "fighting very diligently" to win their freedom.
On Wednesday, he told his followers on Twitter to "stay tuned!" for news.
"As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three hostages to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail," he said.
Two of the detainees were jailed in 2017, after Mr Trump became president.
Just asking! Trump floats Korea border idea
The tricky task of preparing for the Trump-Kim summit
Will we ever know what happened to Otto Warmbier?
The US State Department has said it can not confirm the validity of the reports on the prisoner move, which came from Choi Sung-ryong, a South Korean activist with contacts in the North.
But a spokeswoman said the US was "working to see US citizens who are detained in North Korea come home as soon as possible".
Here's what we know about the three men.
Kim Hak-song
Kim Hak-song worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST) and was held on suspicion of "hostile acts" on 6 May 2017. He was reportedly detained while in Pyongyang Station.
The university, which mostly teaches the children of North Korea's elite, was founded in 2010 by a Korean-American Christian entrepreneur, with much of the costs funded by US and South Korea Christian charities.
Several foreign lecturers are thought to teach there.
Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump: From enemies to frenemies?
Kim Hak-song had previously described himself as a Christian missionary who intended to start an experimental farm at PUST, Reuters news agency reported, citing an online post by Mr Kim.
He is, reports say, an ethnic Korean born just across the North Korean border in China who emigrated to the US in the 1990s. He is said to have gone on to study agriculture in Yanbian, a Chinese prefecture which borders North Korea, before moving to Pyongyang.
Kim Sang-duk/Tony Kim
Two weeks before Kim Hak-song was arrested, Kim Sang-duk - also known as Tony Kim - was detained on espionage charges.
He was trying to leave the country after spending a month working at PUST. South Korean media said he was 55 and had been involved in humanitarian work in the North.
"Some officials at PUST told me his arrest was not related to his work at PUST," the chancellor of the university, Chan-Mo Park, told Reuters news agency.
Tony Kim was detained on espionage charges
"He had been involved with some other activities outside PUST, such as helping an orphanage."
Mr Kim studied accounting at two American universities and had worked as an accountant in the US for more than a decade, his Facebook page says.
He had also taught in Yanbian.
Kim Dong-chul
A South Korea-born US citizen, Kim Dong-chul is a pastor in his early 60s.
He was detained in 2015 on spying charges and sentenced to 10 years' hard labour in 2016.
Before his trial, he was presented at a government-arranged press conference, where he apparently confessed to stealing military secrets in collusion with South Korea - a claim rejected by Seoul.
In an interview with CNN in January 2016, Mr Kim said he lived in Fairfax, Virginia.
He said he used to run a trading and hotel services company in Rason, a special economic zone near the border zone in north-east North Korea.
He told CNN he had left a wife and two daughters behind in China, but had had no contact with them since his detention.
Stormy Daniels case: Trump repaid lawyer 'hush money', says Giuliani - BBC News
May 3, 2018
Stormy Daniels case: Trump repaid lawyer 'hush money', says Giuliani
Mr Trump has previously said he knew nothing of the payment to Ms Daniels
President Donald Trump personally repaid his lawyer the $130,000 that was used to buy an adult film actor's silence about an alleged affair, his legal aide Rudy Giuliani has said.
It appears to contradict Mr Trump, who said he did not know about the payment made by lawyer Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
Mr Trump has denied Ms Daniels' claims of an affair in 2006.
Mr Giuliani said no campaign finance was used, a key issue in the matter.
Should Trump be worried about Stormy Daniels?
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
What did Mr Giuliani say and why?
The former New York City mayor recently joined Mr Trump's legal team and was talking to Sean Hannity on Fox News.
The campaign finance issue appeared to be one his main motives for appearing on the programme - to deny that there was any wrongdoing.
Fox News
✔
@FoxNews
Rudy Giuliani: #Trump repaid Cohen for Stormy Daniels payment https://fxn.ws/2Ks5j7L
1:10 PM - May 3, 2018
Mr Cohen's $130,000 (£95,650) payment to Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election could count as an illegal contribution to President Trump's campaign.
Mr Giuliani said: "That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.
"They funnelled it through a law firm and the president repaid it."
He added that the president "didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know, but he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this".
Mr Giuliani later spoke to the New York Times, saying: "Some time after the campaign is over, they set up a reimbursement, $35,000 a month, out of his personal family account." The sum paid was $460,000-$470,000, including expenses, he said.
He also said Mr Trump was aware of what he was going to say on Fox News.
What are the issues over campaign finance?
US federal law restricts how much individuals and organisations can contribute to campaign financing and there are also strict regulations on the disclosure of the financing.
The first question is whether the payment to Ms Daniels was campaign related. Legal expert Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post: "If the purpose of this was to stop [Daniels] from hurting the campaign, then what you have is Cohen made a loan to the campaign."
The $130,000 would exceed the amount an individual can donate to a presidential campaign.
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
Michael Cohen is facing a criminal investigation over the matter
Any repayment by the Trump campaign would violate the law.
But presidential candidates are allowed to contribute an unlimited amount to their own campaign. Mr Trump may be arguing, through Mr Giuliani, that the personal nature of the repayment makes it legal.
However, if the $130,000 is deemed to have been a loan, the president could face questions as to why his personal financial disclosure form from June 2017 made no mention of any debt to Mr Cohen.
Ms Daniels' lawyer said it would need to be determined whether the payment was hidden in such a way as to violate anti-money laundering statutes.
So does this contradict the president?
When asked by reporters a month ago if he knew about the payment to Ms Daniels, Mr Trump said: "No."
When asked why the payment was given to Ms Daniels, he added: "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen."
The president might argue that the lawyer "took care of things like this", as Mr Giuliani suggested and that he knew nothing of the "specifics", making the repayment personally later.
Mr Giuliani told the Times he did not know whether Mr Trump was aware of the payment to Ms Daniels at the time but his understanding was that the president had only learned about it recently. It is unclear how this fits with his statement that repayments were made over several months.
Speaking on Fox TV last week, Mr Trump suggested some knowledge of the matter in admitting Mr Cohen had represented him during the "crazy Stormy Daniels deal", but did not go into specifics.
Mr Cohen, for his part, told the New York Times in February: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
How this relates to any personal repayments by Mr Trump is unclear.
What has been the reaction?
Ms Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that Americans "should be outraged" at Mr Giuliani's comments.
"We predicted months ago that it would be proven that the American people had been lied to as to the $130k payment and what Mr Trump knew," he wrote on Twitter.
He told Associated Press: "Mr Trump evidently has participated in a felony and there must be serious consequences for his conduct and his lies and deception to the American people," he said.
Stormy clouds not going away
Analysis by BBC's Anthony Zurcher in Washington
There are two ways to look at Rudy Giuliani's blockbuster revelation that Donald Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for his $130,000 payment.
The first is that the former New York mayor was freelancing and caught the president and the White House communications team flatfooted. In that case, Mr Giuliani's brief return to the political spotlight will be short-lived.
The other possibility is that this was a pre-planned revelation in the friendly confines of Sean Hannity's Fox News talk show. Some in the White House may have been caught by surprise, but there was a strategy in play. Perhaps Mr Giuliani and the president decided that the legal exposure from hiding that Mr Trump made the payment was more dangerous than the political risk from admitting he cut the cheque and lied about it.
Mr Trump has proven bulletproof when it comes to most political scandals and this one may prove no different, although the Stormy saga has proven to have staying power. Even with the revelation, the president and Mr Cohen's payment may still constitute a campaign finance law violation.
The Stormy clouds aren't going away.
How did the payment come about and what has happened since?
The payment relates to allegations by Ms Daniels that she had sex with Mr Trump in 2006, allegations he denies.
After initially denying the payment, Mr Cohen eventually admitted he had paid the sum privately to Ms Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, in October 2016 out of his own funds in exchange for her silence in a non-disclosure agreement.
Stormy Daniels: "I was threatened"
He denied that Mr Trump was a party to the transaction.
Mr Cohen is now facing a criminal investigation. FBI agents searched his home and office in New York recently in relation to the nondisclosure agreement.
In March this year, Ms Daniels filed a lawsuit against the president, alleging that the agreement was invalid because Mr Trump did not sign it.
She later lost a court motion for Mr Trump to give sworn testimony about her claim that they had a relationship.
While Mr Trump has denied her claims, his lawyers are seeking $20m in damages from Ms Daniels, arguing she broke the non-disclosure deal.
Ms Daniels is also suing the president over a "defamatory" tweet he posted after she said she was threatened by a man in a Las Vegas car park to drop her allegations of the affair.
Mr Trump said her claims were "a total con job".
Stormy Daniels case: Trump repaid lawyer 'hush money', says Giuliani
Mr Trump has previously said he knew nothing of the payment to Ms Daniels
President Donald Trump personally repaid his lawyer the $130,000 that was used to buy an adult film actor's silence about an alleged affair, his legal aide Rudy Giuliani has said.
It appears to contradict Mr Trump, who said he did not know about the payment made by lawyer Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
Mr Trump has denied Ms Daniels' claims of an affair in 2006.
Mr Giuliani said no campaign finance was used, a key issue in the matter.
Should Trump be worried about Stormy Daniels?
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
What did Mr Giuliani say and why?
The former New York City mayor recently joined Mr Trump's legal team and was talking to Sean Hannity on Fox News.
The campaign finance issue appeared to be one his main motives for appearing on the programme - to deny that there was any wrongdoing.
Fox News
✔
@FoxNews
Rudy Giuliani: #Trump repaid Cohen for Stormy Daniels payment https://fxn.ws/2Ks5j7L
1:10 PM - May 3, 2018
Mr Cohen's $130,000 (£95,650) payment to Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election could count as an illegal contribution to President Trump's campaign.
Mr Giuliani said: "That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.
"They funnelled it through a law firm and the president repaid it."
He added that the president "didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know, but he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this".
Mr Giuliani later spoke to the New York Times, saying: "Some time after the campaign is over, they set up a reimbursement, $35,000 a month, out of his personal family account." The sum paid was $460,000-$470,000, including expenses, he said.
He also said Mr Trump was aware of what he was going to say on Fox News.
What are the issues over campaign finance?
US federal law restricts how much individuals and organisations can contribute to campaign financing and there are also strict regulations on the disclosure of the financing.
The first question is whether the payment to Ms Daniels was campaign related. Legal expert Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post: "If the purpose of this was to stop [Daniels] from hurting the campaign, then what you have is Cohen made a loan to the campaign."
The $130,000 would exceed the amount an individual can donate to a presidential campaign.
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
Michael Cohen is facing a criminal investigation over the matter
Any repayment by the Trump campaign would violate the law.
But presidential candidates are allowed to contribute an unlimited amount to their own campaign. Mr Trump may be arguing, through Mr Giuliani, that the personal nature of the repayment makes it legal.
However, if the $130,000 is deemed to have been a loan, the president could face questions as to why his personal financial disclosure form from June 2017 made no mention of any debt to Mr Cohen.
Ms Daniels' lawyer said it would need to be determined whether the payment was hidden in such a way as to violate anti-money laundering statutes.
So does this contradict the president?
When asked by reporters a month ago if he knew about the payment to Ms Daniels, Mr Trump said: "No."
When asked why the payment was given to Ms Daniels, he added: "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen."
The president might argue that the lawyer "took care of things like this", as Mr Giuliani suggested and that he knew nothing of the "specifics", making the repayment personally later.
Mr Giuliani told the Times he did not know whether Mr Trump was aware of the payment to Ms Daniels at the time but his understanding was that the president had only learned about it recently. It is unclear how this fits with his statement that repayments were made over several months.
Speaking on Fox TV last week, Mr Trump suggested some knowledge of the matter in admitting Mr Cohen had represented him during the "crazy Stormy Daniels deal", but did not go into specifics.
Mr Cohen, for his part, told the New York Times in February: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
How this relates to any personal repayments by Mr Trump is unclear.
What has been the reaction?
Ms Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that Americans "should be outraged" at Mr Giuliani's comments.
"We predicted months ago that it would be proven that the American people had been lied to as to the $130k payment and what Mr Trump knew," he wrote on Twitter.
He told Associated Press: "Mr Trump evidently has participated in a felony and there must be serious consequences for his conduct and his lies and deception to the American people," he said.
Stormy clouds not going away
Analysis by BBC's Anthony Zurcher in Washington
There are two ways to look at Rudy Giuliani's blockbuster revelation that Donald Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for his $130,000 payment.
The first is that the former New York mayor was freelancing and caught the president and the White House communications team flatfooted. In that case, Mr Giuliani's brief return to the political spotlight will be short-lived.
The other possibility is that this was a pre-planned revelation in the friendly confines of Sean Hannity's Fox News talk show. Some in the White House may have been caught by surprise, but there was a strategy in play. Perhaps Mr Giuliani and the president decided that the legal exposure from hiding that Mr Trump made the payment was more dangerous than the political risk from admitting he cut the cheque and lied about it.
Mr Trump has proven bulletproof when it comes to most political scandals and this one may prove no different, although the Stormy saga has proven to have staying power. Even with the revelation, the president and Mr Cohen's payment may still constitute a campaign finance law violation.
The Stormy clouds aren't going away.
How did the payment come about and what has happened since?
The payment relates to allegations by Ms Daniels that she had sex with Mr Trump in 2006, allegations he denies.
After initially denying the payment, Mr Cohen eventually admitted he had paid the sum privately to Ms Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, in October 2016 out of his own funds in exchange for her silence in a non-disclosure agreement.
Stormy Daniels: "I was threatened"
He denied that Mr Trump was a party to the transaction.
Mr Cohen is now facing a criminal investigation. FBI agents searched his home and office in New York recently in relation to the nondisclosure agreement.
In March this year, Ms Daniels filed a lawsuit against the president, alleging that the agreement was invalid because Mr Trump did not sign it.
She later lost a court motion for Mr Trump to give sworn testimony about her claim that they had a relationship.
While Mr Trump has denied her claims, his lawyers are seeking $20m in damages from Ms Daniels, arguing she broke the non-disclosure deal.
Ms Daniels is also suing the president over a "defamatory" tweet he posted after she said she was threatened by a man in a Las Vegas car park to drop her allegations of the affair.
Mr Trump said her claims were "a total con job".
Starbucks race row: Black men arrested in Philadelphia cafe settle for $1 - BBC News
Starbucks race row: Black men arrested in Philadelphia cafe settle for $1
2 May 2018
Rashon Nelson (L) and Donte Robinson (R) will each receive $1 and a promise from the city to set up a youth programme
Two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks cafe by Philadelphia police last month have reached a financial settlement with the city.
Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson will each receive a symbolic $1 and a promise from officials to set up a programme for young entrepreneurs.
The arrest of the men, who had not yet ordered and were waiting for a friend, kicked off a row over racial profiling.
Starbucks announced days later it would require employee anti-bias training.
Watch the arrest of two black men at Starbucks - and the protests that followed
The settlement, which was confirmed to BBC News by a spokesman for Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenny, includes a vow from the city to contribute $200,000 (£147,000) to the new programme.
The grant money will go towards creating a pilot programme "for city public high school students with aspirations of becoming entrepreneurs, as envisioned by Robinson and Nelson, who will not receive any money from the grant", the city announced in a press release.
The 12 April arrest led to protests at Starbucks cafes around the country, while other customers shared claims of racial profiling by company staff.
The arrest was captured on mobile phone video and showed the men being led away in handcuffs after a manager had accused them of trespassing and causing a disturbance.
Starbucks shuts US cafes for race training
'This is an America thing, not Starbucks'
Starbucks 'sorry' over black men arrest
The two longtime friends, both 23, had just sat down at the coffee chain's downtown location for a meeting to discuss a possible real estate deal.
After spending hours in jail, they were released and no charges were filed.
The Philadelphia chief of police later apologised for his handling of the arrest.
Mayor Kenney said in a statement that he was "pleased to have resolved the potential claims against the city in this productive manner".
"This was an incident that evoked a lot of pain in our city," he continued.
Starbucks race row leaves customers with a bitter aftertaste
"Rather than spending time, money, and resources to engage in a potentially adversarial process, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson approached the city and invited us to partner with them in an attempt to make something positive come of this.
"This agreement is the result of those conversations, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of this effort in the coming months and years."
Brandon Ward’s video of his encounter at a Starbucks has gone viral
Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson came to Philadelphia to personally apologise to the two men.
In a joint statement with Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson, Starbucks announced that it had reached a separate financial settlement with the men earlier this week.
That confidential settlement "will allow both sides to move forward and continue to talk and explore means of preventing similar occurrences at any Starbucks locations", the statement said.
Mr Johnson added that he wishes to "thank Donte and Rashon for their willingness to reconcile".
Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson jointly said they appreciate the effort to foster communication, and add "we will be measured by our action not words".
As part of the settlement both men have been offered university scholarships by Starbucks, and the opportunity to meet former US Attorney Eric Holder, who has been hired "as part of the company's long-term diversity and equity efforts".
The company plans to close more than 8,000 stores in the US on 29 May for anti-bias training.
2 May 2018
Rashon Nelson (L) and Donte Robinson (R) will each receive $1 and a promise from the city to set up a youth programme
Two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks cafe by Philadelphia police last month have reached a financial settlement with the city.
Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson will each receive a symbolic $1 and a promise from officials to set up a programme for young entrepreneurs.
The arrest of the men, who had not yet ordered and were waiting for a friend, kicked off a row over racial profiling.
Starbucks announced days later it would require employee anti-bias training.
Watch the arrest of two black men at Starbucks - and the protests that followed
The settlement, which was confirmed to BBC News by a spokesman for Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenny, includes a vow from the city to contribute $200,000 (£147,000) to the new programme.
The grant money will go towards creating a pilot programme "for city public high school students with aspirations of becoming entrepreneurs, as envisioned by Robinson and Nelson, who will not receive any money from the grant", the city announced in a press release.
The 12 April arrest led to protests at Starbucks cafes around the country, while other customers shared claims of racial profiling by company staff.
The arrest was captured on mobile phone video and showed the men being led away in handcuffs after a manager had accused them of trespassing and causing a disturbance.
Starbucks shuts US cafes for race training
'This is an America thing, not Starbucks'
Starbucks 'sorry' over black men arrest
The two longtime friends, both 23, had just sat down at the coffee chain's downtown location for a meeting to discuss a possible real estate deal.
After spending hours in jail, they were released and no charges were filed.
The Philadelphia chief of police later apologised for his handling of the arrest.
Mayor Kenney said in a statement that he was "pleased to have resolved the potential claims against the city in this productive manner".
"This was an incident that evoked a lot of pain in our city," he continued.
Starbucks race row leaves customers with a bitter aftertaste
"Rather than spending time, money, and resources to engage in a potentially adversarial process, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson approached the city and invited us to partner with them in an attempt to make something positive come of this.
"This agreement is the result of those conversations, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of this effort in the coming months and years."
Brandon Ward’s video of his encounter at a Starbucks has gone viral
Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson came to Philadelphia to personally apologise to the two men.
In a joint statement with Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson, Starbucks announced that it had reached a separate financial settlement with the men earlier this week.
That confidential settlement "will allow both sides to move forward and continue to talk and explore means of preventing similar occurrences at any Starbucks locations", the statement said.
Mr Johnson added that he wishes to "thank Donte and Rashon for their willingness to reconcile".
Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson jointly said they appreciate the effort to foster communication, and add "we will be measured by our action not words".
As part of the settlement both men have been offered university scholarships by Starbucks, and the opportunity to meet former US Attorney Eric Holder, who has been hired "as part of the company's long-term diversity and equity efforts".
The company plans to close more than 8,000 stores in the US on 29 May for anti-bias training.
Cambridge Analytica: Facebook data-harvest firm to shut - BBC News
May 3, 2018
Cambridge Analytica: Facebook data-harvest firm to shut
Cambridge Analytica's name has already been taken down from the wall of the London office it occupied
Cambridge Analytica, the political consultancy at the centre of the Facebook data-sharing scandal, is shutting down.
The firm was accused of improperly obtaining personal information on behalf of political clients.
According to Facebook, data about up to 87 million of its members was harvested by a quiz app and then passed on to the political consultancy.
The social network said its own probe into the matter would continue.
"This doesn't change our commitment and determination to understand exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again," said a spokesman.
"We are continuing with our investigation in cooperation with the relevant authorities."
What are the accusations against Cambridge Analytica?
The company has been accused of using the personal data of millions of Facebook users to sway the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election and the UK Brexit referendum.
Cambridge Analytica: The story so far
The global reach of Cambridge Analytica
In March, Channel 4 aired undercover footage of Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, giving examples of how the firm could swing elections around the world with underhand tactics such as smear campaigns and honey traps.
The UK-based company, which denies any wrongdoing, has an extensive record of working abroad on many election campaigns, including in Italy, Kenya and Nigeria.
Why does it is say it is shutting?
Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for Cambridge Analytica, referred the BBC to a statement on the firm's website.
"Over the past several months, Cambridge Analytica has been the subject of numerous unfounded accusations and, despite the company's efforts to correct the record, has been vilified for activities that are not only legal, but also widely accepted as a standard component of online advertising in both the political and commercial arenas," it said.
"Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully... the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers.
"As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business."
Zuckerberg faces formal summons from MPs
Was Facebook data's value 'literally nothing'?
'Facebook in PR crisis mode''
The statement added that its parent company SCL Elections was also commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended two months ago
The sting in the tail
By the BBC's technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, in California
When the news of Cambridge Analytica's demise broke here at Facebook's F8 developer conference, it is safe to say few tears were shed.
The scandal over data misuse has been a crisis not just for Facebook but for the thousands of external developers whose access to data has been curbed in response to the affair.
But if they were tempted to celebrate there was a sting in the tail in the political consultancy's statement. It claimed that what it did was not only legal but was standard practice in the world of online advertising.
That rang true to some people in this world and there may be more evidence of such practices as Facebook continues its audit of apps.
Cambridge Analytica may be gone but as more stones are lifted there may be more unpleasant surprises to come about the use and misuse of personal data.
Is this the end?
The UK's Financial Times newspaper says it has spoken to another ex-employee of Cambridge Analytica, on condition of anonymity, who said they were sure the company would emerge "in some other incarnation or guise".
The Observer journalist whose investigation first exposed the data privacy scandal has suggested that the public remain sceptical.
Carole Cadwalladr
✔
@carolecadwalla
Remember. SCL & Cambridge Analytica are disinformation specialists. What exactly are they shutting down & why?
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:31 AM - May 3, 2018
The chair of a UK parliament committee investigating the firm's activities also raised concerns about Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections' move.
"They are party to very serious investigations and those investigations cannot be impeded by the closure of these companies," said Damian Collins MP.
"I think it's absolutely vital that the closure of these companies is not used as an excuse to try and limit or restrict the ability of the authorities to investigate what they were doing."
Skip Twitter post by @DamianCollins
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:12 AM - May 3, 2018
What action had it taken already?
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended in March after the Channel 4 News footage was aired.
Last month, Cambridge Analytica said it had only licensed 30 million records belonging to US citizens from the quiz app's creator Dr Aleksandr Kogan, and that they had not been used in the US presidential election.
The firm added that it had since deleted all the information despite claims to the contrary by others.
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has said the privacy scandal was a "breach of trust"
Who funded Cambridge Analytica?
One of Cambridge Analytica's major investors is the US hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.
He is said to have put $15m (£11m) into the business, according to the Guardian.
Mr Mercer, a former computer scientist, is also a major donor to the US Republican Party and helped support Donald Trump's election campaign.
He has never given an interview about his political views and is not thought to have commented publicly about the data-harvesting scandal.
What is the Brexit link?
Earlier on Wednesday, a cyber-security specialist presented evidence to the UK parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Chris Vickery linked SCL and Cambridge Analytica to AggregateIQ - a Canadian data analytics firm, which Facebook has also suspended from using its platform.
He added that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" AggregateIQ had been involved in "some form of collaboration or co-ordination" between various pro-Brexit groups during the UK's EU referendum campaign.
AIQ denies ever being part of Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL or accessing improperly obtained Facebook data.
And representatives from Vote Leave and Leave.EU have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
But the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner's Office are conducting their own investigations into the Canadian firm's operations.
The ICO has also issued a statement about Cambridge Analytica's closure.
"The ICO will continue its civil and criminal investigations and will seek to pursue individuals and directors as appropriate and necessary even where companies may no longer be operating," it said.
"We will also monitor closely any successor companies using our powers to audit and inspect, to ensure the public is safeguarded."
How the scandal unfolded
17 March: The Observer and the New York Times publish accounts by Cambridge Analytica's ex-employee Christopher Wylie, saying 50 million Facebook accounts were improperly harvested by the company
23 March: The UK's data watchdog is granted a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's office
27 March: Christopher Wylie appears in front of a committee of UK MPs
4 April: Facebook says it now believes up to 87 million people's data was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica
10 April: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is questioned by US lawmakers about the scandal
17 April: Alexander Nix, the former boss of Cambridge Analytica, refuses to appear before British MPs
26 April: The UK parliamentary committee threatens to issue Mark Zuckerberg with a "formal summons for him to appear when he is next in the UK" as questions remain unanswered
2 May: Cambridge Analytica announces its closure
Cambridge Analytica: Facebook data-harvest firm to shut
Cambridge Analytica's name has already been taken down from the wall of the London office it occupied
Cambridge Analytica, the political consultancy at the centre of the Facebook data-sharing scandal, is shutting down.
The firm was accused of improperly obtaining personal information on behalf of political clients.
According to Facebook, data about up to 87 million of its members was harvested by a quiz app and then passed on to the political consultancy.
The social network said its own probe into the matter would continue.
"This doesn't change our commitment and determination to understand exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again," said a spokesman.
"We are continuing with our investigation in cooperation with the relevant authorities."
What are the accusations against Cambridge Analytica?
The company has been accused of using the personal data of millions of Facebook users to sway the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election and the UK Brexit referendum.
Cambridge Analytica: The story so far
The global reach of Cambridge Analytica
In March, Channel 4 aired undercover footage of Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, giving examples of how the firm could swing elections around the world with underhand tactics such as smear campaigns and honey traps.
The UK-based company, which denies any wrongdoing, has an extensive record of working abroad on many election campaigns, including in Italy, Kenya and Nigeria.
Why does it is say it is shutting?
Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for Cambridge Analytica, referred the BBC to a statement on the firm's website.
"Over the past several months, Cambridge Analytica has been the subject of numerous unfounded accusations and, despite the company's efforts to correct the record, has been vilified for activities that are not only legal, but also widely accepted as a standard component of online advertising in both the political and commercial arenas," it said.
"Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully... the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers.
"As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business."
Zuckerberg faces formal summons from MPs
Was Facebook data's value 'literally nothing'?
'Facebook in PR crisis mode''
The statement added that its parent company SCL Elections was also commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended two months ago
The sting in the tail
By the BBC's technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, in California
When the news of Cambridge Analytica's demise broke here at Facebook's F8 developer conference, it is safe to say few tears were shed.
The scandal over data misuse has been a crisis not just for Facebook but for the thousands of external developers whose access to data has been curbed in response to the affair.
But if they were tempted to celebrate there was a sting in the tail in the political consultancy's statement. It claimed that what it did was not only legal but was standard practice in the world of online advertising.
That rang true to some people in this world and there may be more evidence of such practices as Facebook continues its audit of apps.
Cambridge Analytica may be gone but as more stones are lifted there may be more unpleasant surprises to come about the use and misuse of personal data.
Is this the end?
The UK's Financial Times newspaper says it has spoken to another ex-employee of Cambridge Analytica, on condition of anonymity, who said they were sure the company would emerge "in some other incarnation or guise".
The Observer journalist whose investigation first exposed the data privacy scandal has suggested that the public remain sceptical.
Carole Cadwalladr
✔
@carolecadwalla
Remember. SCL & Cambridge Analytica are disinformation specialists. What exactly are they shutting down & why?
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:31 AM - May 3, 2018
The chair of a UK parliament committee investigating the firm's activities also raised concerns about Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections' move.
"They are party to very serious investigations and those investigations cannot be impeded by the closure of these companies," said Damian Collins MP.
"I think it's absolutely vital that the closure of these companies is not used as an excuse to try and limit or restrict the ability of the authorities to investigate what they were doing."
Skip Twitter post by @DamianCollins
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:12 AM - May 3, 2018
What action had it taken already?
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended in March after the Channel 4 News footage was aired.
Last month, Cambridge Analytica said it had only licensed 30 million records belonging to US citizens from the quiz app's creator Dr Aleksandr Kogan, and that they had not been used in the US presidential election.
The firm added that it had since deleted all the information despite claims to the contrary by others.
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has said the privacy scandal was a "breach of trust"
Who funded Cambridge Analytica?
One of Cambridge Analytica's major investors is the US hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.
He is said to have put $15m (£11m) into the business, according to the Guardian.
Mr Mercer, a former computer scientist, is also a major donor to the US Republican Party and helped support Donald Trump's election campaign.
He has never given an interview about his political views and is not thought to have commented publicly about the data-harvesting scandal.
What is the Brexit link?
Earlier on Wednesday, a cyber-security specialist presented evidence to the UK parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Chris Vickery linked SCL and Cambridge Analytica to AggregateIQ - a Canadian data analytics firm, which Facebook has also suspended from using its platform.
He added that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" AggregateIQ had been involved in "some form of collaboration or co-ordination" between various pro-Brexit groups during the UK's EU referendum campaign.
AIQ denies ever being part of Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL or accessing improperly obtained Facebook data.
And representatives from Vote Leave and Leave.EU have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
But the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner's Office are conducting their own investigations into the Canadian firm's operations.
The ICO has also issued a statement about Cambridge Analytica's closure.
"The ICO will continue its civil and criminal investigations and will seek to pursue individuals and directors as appropriate and necessary even where companies may no longer be operating," it said.
"We will also monitor closely any successor companies using our powers to audit and inspect, to ensure the public is safeguarded."
How the scandal unfolded
17 March: The Observer and the New York Times publish accounts by Cambridge Analytica's ex-employee Christopher Wylie, saying 50 million Facebook accounts were improperly harvested by the company
23 March: The UK's data watchdog is granted a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's office
27 March: Christopher Wylie appears in front of a committee of UK MPs
4 April: Facebook says it now believes up to 87 million people's data was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica
10 April: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is questioned by US lawmakers about the scandal
17 April: Alexander Nix, the former boss of Cambridge Analytica, refuses to appear before British MPs
26 April: The UK parliamentary committee threatens to issue Mark Zuckerberg with a "formal summons for him to appear when he is next in the UK" as questions remain unanswered
2 May: Cambridge Analytica announces its closure
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
