May 17, 2018
Police Officer Hailed as Hero After Shooting an Armed Former Student at an Illinois High School
By ASSOCIATED PRESS 10:04 PM EDT
(DIXON, Ill.) — A police officer at a northern Illinois high school was hailed as a hero Wednesday for shooting and arresting a former student who fired on him in a hallway while staff and seniors were meeting for a graduation rehearsal.
The 19-year-old former Dixon High School student suffered wounds that weren’t life threatening, according to police, who didn’t release his name. The school resource officer, Mark Dallas, took the gunman into custody after shooting him.
“He saved an enormous amount of lives,” Lee County Sheriff John Simonton said. His comments were echoed by Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who in a statement credited “Dallas for his bravery and quick action to immediately diffuse a dangerous situation.”
The shooting happened shortly after 8 a.m. while staff and students were gathered for a graduation rehearsal.
Police Chief Steven Howell Jr. said several shots were fired near the auditorium, and Dallas rushed to the area to confront the gunman.
Howell said Dallas chased the suspect after he fled from the school. The suspect fired several shots at the officer, who returned fire, wounding the suspect and taking him into custody.
Neither Dallas, who’s been a resource officer at the school for five year, nor anyone else at the school was injured. Police said they believe the gunman acted alone and that there was no further threat to anyone in the area. Howell declined to discuss why the former student brought a gun to the school.
“I could not be more proud of the police officer and the way he responded to the situation. With shots ringing out through the hallways of the school, he charged towards the suspect and confronted him, head on,” Howell said of the 15-year veteran of the Dixon Police Department. “Because of his heroic actions, countless lives were saved. We are forever indebted to him for his service and his bravery.”
When police searched the school they found that the faculty and students had barricaded themselves inside by blocking the classroom doorways with desks, chairs and other furniture — just as they had been trained to do.
“A lot of things went right today and many things could have gone wrong,” Dixon Mayor Liandro Arellano Jr., told reporters at a news conference outside the school.
Officials said all schools in the city about 80 miles (130 kilometers) west of Chicago were placed on lockdown in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The other schools re-opened after officials determined the gunman acted alone.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Trump's decision to eliminate role of cybersecurity czar rattles experts. Here's why. - NBC News
Trump's decision to eliminate role of cybersecurity czar rattles experts. Here's why.
"This is definitely not the signal you want to send to your allies and your adversaries," a former cyber czar says.
by Daniel Arkin / May.17.2018 / 4:21 AM ET
Department of Homeland Security employees work inside the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington, Virginia, in June 2014.Kevin Lamarque / Reuters file
Election meddling. Corporate espionage. Ransomware attacks. Massive data breaches. The cybersecurity threats facing the United States seem to multiply by the year, leaving government agencies and private companies scrambling to keep up.
That is among the reasons why many experts are alarmed that the White House eliminated the position of cybersecurity czar on the National Security Council, or NSC, on Tuesday. John Bolton, President Donald Trump's new national security adviser, has been widely reported to have sought to cut the job.
"This is definitely not the signal you want to send to your allies and your adversaries," said J. Michael Daniel, who served as cybersecurity coordinator under President Barack Obama and now leads the Cyber Threat Alliance, a nonprofit group formed by cybersecurity companies.
The departments of Defense and Homeland Security will surely continue to stay on top of cyber threats, but the U.S. government has apparently lost the person who can aggregate them for the president and his staff, according to Megan Reiss, a senior national security fellow with the R Street Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research organization.
That means the West Wing might fail to see the big picture around what the director of national intelligence considers the No. 1 global threat, Reiss said. Russia, China and North Korea — not to mention terrorist groups and rogue criminals — could exploit the apparent disorganization and target the U.S.
Hackers have taken down dozens of 911 centers. Why is it so hard to stop them?
"If we entered into a conflict with a [foreign power] and they wanted to cause damage to us, they could go after our critical infrastructure, like our power grids," said Justin Cappos, a professor of computer science at New York University. "They could go after our cars. They could cripple air traffic control. They could do very substantial damage to military targets. They could substantially damage our country as a whole."
The major threats known to U.S. government agencies and security experts include:
Russian election interference: U.S. authorities say Moscow meddled in the 2016 presidential election. Kremlin-linked hackers were able to take documents from the Democratic National Committee and penetrate voter registration systems. Russian trolls created troves of fake news and spread misinformation on social media. And without an aggressive federal plan to shield election systems, Russian could strike again in the run-up to the fall midterm elections.
Chinese espionage: China's cyberoffensives against the United States have eased up since the two countries signed commitments in September 2015, according to Cappos. And yet Beijing continues to target U.S. companies. "They're interested in stealing information on our companies, information on private citizens, things that could give them an edge or be used for blackmail," said Reiss of the R Street Institute.
North Korean intrusions: Pyongyang has already waged cyberattacks against U.S. businesses, the most famous being the movie studio Sony Pictures Entertainment before its release of "The Interview" in 2012. And North Korea "remains capable of launching disruptive or destructive cyberattacks to support its political objectives," according to a report from Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence. Last year, North Korea unleashed the WannaCry ransomware attack, crippling parts of Britain's National Health Service.
Terrorists and criminals: ISIS is widely known to use the internet to recruit followers, spread propaganda and raise money. The terrorist group will "continue to seek opportunities to target and release sensitive information about U.S. citizens," according to the DNI report. Globetrotting criminals will no doubt continue to use sophisticated tools to carry out theft and extortion. And "ransomware" attacks, like the one that hit Atlanta this year, are seemingly on the rise.
Daniel, the former cybersecurity coordinator under Obama, said that there is "nothing sacred or holy" about the role and that it is Bolton's prerogative to restructure the NSC. A memo circulated by an aide to Bolton said the position was no longer necessary because lower-level officials had already made cybersecurity concerns a "core function" of Trump's national security team, according to The New York Times.
"But the way that this has been framed runs the risk of sending the signal that, at least at the White House level, they're not considering this issue to be as important," Daniel said.
"This is definitely not the signal you want to send to your allies and your adversaries," a former cyber czar says.
by Daniel Arkin / May.17.2018 / 4:21 AM ET
Department of Homeland Security employees work inside the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center in Arlington, Virginia, in June 2014.Kevin Lamarque / Reuters file
Election meddling. Corporate espionage. Ransomware attacks. Massive data breaches. The cybersecurity threats facing the United States seem to multiply by the year, leaving government agencies and private companies scrambling to keep up.
That is among the reasons why many experts are alarmed that the White House eliminated the position of cybersecurity czar on the National Security Council, or NSC, on Tuesday. John Bolton, President Donald Trump's new national security adviser, has been widely reported to have sought to cut the job.
"This is definitely not the signal you want to send to your allies and your adversaries," said J. Michael Daniel, who served as cybersecurity coordinator under President Barack Obama and now leads the Cyber Threat Alliance, a nonprofit group formed by cybersecurity companies.
The departments of Defense and Homeland Security will surely continue to stay on top of cyber threats, but the U.S. government has apparently lost the person who can aggregate them for the president and his staff, according to Megan Reiss, a senior national security fellow with the R Street Institute, a nonpartisan public policy research organization.
That means the West Wing might fail to see the big picture around what the director of national intelligence considers the No. 1 global threat, Reiss said. Russia, China and North Korea — not to mention terrorist groups and rogue criminals — could exploit the apparent disorganization and target the U.S.
Hackers have taken down dozens of 911 centers. Why is it so hard to stop them?
"If we entered into a conflict with a [foreign power] and they wanted to cause damage to us, they could go after our critical infrastructure, like our power grids," said Justin Cappos, a professor of computer science at New York University. "They could go after our cars. They could cripple air traffic control. They could do very substantial damage to military targets. They could substantially damage our country as a whole."
The major threats known to U.S. government agencies and security experts include:
Russian election interference: U.S. authorities say Moscow meddled in the 2016 presidential election. Kremlin-linked hackers were able to take documents from the Democratic National Committee and penetrate voter registration systems. Russian trolls created troves of fake news and spread misinformation on social media. And without an aggressive federal plan to shield election systems, Russian could strike again in the run-up to the fall midterm elections.
Chinese espionage: China's cyberoffensives against the United States have eased up since the two countries signed commitments in September 2015, according to Cappos. And yet Beijing continues to target U.S. companies. "They're interested in stealing information on our companies, information on private citizens, things that could give them an edge or be used for blackmail," said Reiss of the R Street Institute.
North Korean intrusions: Pyongyang has already waged cyberattacks against U.S. businesses, the most famous being the movie studio Sony Pictures Entertainment before its release of "The Interview" in 2012. And North Korea "remains capable of launching disruptive or destructive cyberattacks to support its political objectives," according to a report from Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence. Last year, North Korea unleashed the WannaCry ransomware attack, crippling parts of Britain's National Health Service.
Terrorists and criminals: ISIS is widely known to use the internet to recruit followers, spread propaganda and raise money. The terrorist group will "continue to seek opportunities to target and release sensitive information about U.S. citizens," according to the DNI report. Globetrotting criminals will no doubt continue to use sophisticated tools to carry out theft and extortion. And "ransomware" attacks, like the one that hit Atlanta this year, are seemingly on the rise.
Daniel, the former cybersecurity coordinator under Obama, said that there is "nothing sacred or holy" about the role and that it is Bolton's prerogative to restructure the NSC. A memo circulated by an aide to Bolton said the position was no longer necessary because lower-level officials had already made cybersecurity concerns a "core function" of Trump's national security team, according to The New York Times.
"But the way that this has been framed runs the risk of sending the signal that, at least at the White House level, they're not considering this issue to be as important," Daniel said.
Palestinian families in Gaza in shock and mourning after Israeli army killed 62 people protesting their right of return. - Al Jazeera
'He was my whole world': Palestinians mourn killing of loved ones
Palestinian families in Gaza in shock and mourning after Israeli army killed 62 people protesting their right of return.
by Maram Humaid & Zena Tahhan
The brother of Palestinian Shaher al-Madhoon, who was killed during the protests, mourns at a hospital morgue in the northern Gaza Strip [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]
The brother of Palestinian Shaher al-Madhoon, who was killed during the protests, mourns at a hospital morgue in the northern Gaza Strip [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]
MORE ON ISRAELI–PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
How the Gaza massacre exposed international cowardice
today
US embassy opens in Jerusalem amid lockdown
yesterday
Where is the Palestinian leadership amid this catastrophe?
yesterday
'He was my whole world': Palestinians mourn killing of loved ones
today
Gaza Strip - Nisma Abdelqader still can't believe her 18-year-old son is dead.
Israeli soldiers shot Bilal al-Ashram, who was completing his last year of high school, in the head while he was participating in protests in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday.
With tears streaming from her swollen eyes, Nisma described her first-born as her "whole world".
"He was my support system," she said. Bilal was the eldest of her eight children and held the family together in the absence of her husband, who has been working in Jordan for the past six years.
Nisma said she tried to stop Bilal from participating in the mass protests on Gaza's eastern border along the highly militarised fence with Israel.
The rallies, which have been ongoing since March 30, call for the right of return of Palestinian refugees to the homes and villages they were forcibly expelled from to create the state of Israel 70 years ago. This ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist militias in 1948 is known as the Nakba - or catastrophe - and is commemorated annually.
'Nothing would happen'
While some 750,000 people were forcibly expelled from historical Palestine, many became internal refugees.
The Nakba did not start or end in 1948
About 70 percent of the Gaza Strip's population of two million are descendants of Palestinians who became refugees in 1948.
They live under a decade-long land, sea and air blockade and cannot leave the Gaza Strip without hard-to-obtain permits from the Israeli military. Leaving through Egypt - their only other option - is restricted to a few days a year when the Rafah border is open.
Since March 30, the Israeli army has killed 111 Palestinians, including an eight-month-old baby girl who died of tear gas suffocation. More than 12,000 have been wounded since then.
A day before he was killed, Bilal wrote on Facebook he was heading to Bir Seb'a, a city in the south of the country that his family was expelled from during the Nakba.
WATCH: Haley to UN - Israel acted 'with restraint' in deadly Gaza clashes (2:56)
"I was very afraid. He was very excited to participate in the protests. When the protests calmed down on May 15, I was relieved. I thought nothing would happen to him," his mother said.
"I still can't believe he's gone."
'What threat did he pose?'
"I'm not against the Great March of Return, but I am against losing our boys and our children. We have a right to return, but at the end of the day, these are our children. They are still in the prime of their lives, and the occupation will never show us mercy.
"What threat did he pose to the Israeli occupation?" Nisma wondered during her son's funeral in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.
Under international humanitarian law, it is illegal for soldiers to use live ammunition in situations that do not constitute an imminent threat to life.
Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine director for Human Rights Watch, said Israel had violated international law in its response to the protests.
"In Gaza, where you have soldiers firing live ammunition at many feet away at people separated by a buffer zone who are at most throwing rocks, or even Molotov cocktails as Israel claims, at a long distance, that would not meet the standards of an imminent threat to life," Shakir told Al Jazeera.
'Increased determination'
At another funeral in Nuseirat refugee camp, Jalilah Ghrab mourns the killing of her husband, Nasser.
Ghrab said she, her husband, and her 31-year-old son were about 800 metres away from the fence, east of Bureij, when Nasser was shot in the chest.
Five minutes after reaching the hospital, Nasser's heart stopped beating.
Laila Anwar al-Ghandour becomes the face of Gaza carnage
"He really believed in the right of return. He would go to the protests every single day. He even set up a tent for my family and I," Jalilah told Al Jazeera, adding their family was expelled in 1948 from Isdud, 35km north of Gaza.
Jalilah said she is in disbelief. "Losing him is bitter and excruciating, and hearts are heavy with anger at the Israeli occupation."
"He was the spirit of our home. He took care of everyone in the house and was a very kind and loving father," she said, adding that Nasser was extremely close to his six children and seven grandchildren.
"If anything, this has only increased our determination. I'm going to keep going to the tents, and I'm going to take the whole family with me."
Palestinian families in Gaza in shock and mourning after Israeli army killed 62 people protesting their right of return.
by Maram Humaid & Zena Tahhan
The brother of Palestinian Shaher al-Madhoon, who was killed during the protests, mourns at a hospital morgue in the northern Gaza Strip [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]
The brother of Palestinian Shaher al-Madhoon, who was killed during the protests, mourns at a hospital morgue in the northern Gaza Strip [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]
MORE ON ISRAELI–PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
How the Gaza massacre exposed international cowardice
today
US embassy opens in Jerusalem amid lockdown
yesterday
Where is the Palestinian leadership amid this catastrophe?
yesterday
'He was my whole world': Palestinians mourn killing of loved ones
today
Gaza Strip - Nisma Abdelqader still can't believe her 18-year-old son is dead.
Israeli soldiers shot Bilal al-Ashram, who was completing his last year of high school, in the head while he was participating in protests in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday.
With tears streaming from her swollen eyes, Nisma described her first-born as her "whole world".
"He was my support system," she said. Bilal was the eldest of her eight children and held the family together in the absence of her husband, who has been working in Jordan for the past six years.
Nisma said she tried to stop Bilal from participating in the mass protests on Gaza's eastern border along the highly militarised fence with Israel.
The rallies, which have been ongoing since March 30, call for the right of return of Palestinian refugees to the homes and villages they were forcibly expelled from to create the state of Israel 70 years ago. This ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist militias in 1948 is known as the Nakba - or catastrophe - and is commemorated annually.
'Nothing would happen'
While some 750,000 people were forcibly expelled from historical Palestine, many became internal refugees.
The Nakba did not start or end in 1948
About 70 percent of the Gaza Strip's population of two million are descendants of Palestinians who became refugees in 1948.
They live under a decade-long land, sea and air blockade and cannot leave the Gaza Strip without hard-to-obtain permits from the Israeli military. Leaving through Egypt - their only other option - is restricted to a few days a year when the Rafah border is open.
Since March 30, the Israeli army has killed 111 Palestinians, including an eight-month-old baby girl who died of tear gas suffocation. More than 12,000 have been wounded since then.
A day before he was killed, Bilal wrote on Facebook he was heading to Bir Seb'a, a city in the south of the country that his family was expelled from during the Nakba.
WATCH: Haley to UN - Israel acted 'with restraint' in deadly Gaza clashes (2:56)
"I was very afraid. He was very excited to participate in the protests. When the protests calmed down on May 15, I was relieved. I thought nothing would happen to him," his mother said.
"I still can't believe he's gone."
'What threat did he pose?'
"I'm not against the Great March of Return, but I am against losing our boys and our children. We have a right to return, but at the end of the day, these are our children. They are still in the prime of their lives, and the occupation will never show us mercy.
"What threat did he pose to the Israeli occupation?" Nisma wondered during her son's funeral in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.
Under international humanitarian law, it is illegal for soldiers to use live ammunition in situations that do not constitute an imminent threat to life.
Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine director for Human Rights Watch, said Israel had violated international law in its response to the protests.
"In Gaza, where you have soldiers firing live ammunition at many feet away at people separated by a buffer zone who are at most throwing rocks, or even Molotov cocktails as Israel claims, at a long distance, that would not meet the standards of an imminent threat to life," Shakir told Al Jazeera.
'Increased determination'
At another funeral in Nuseirat refugee camp, Jalilah Ghrab mourns the killing of her husband, Nasser.
Ghrab said she, her husband, and her 31-year-old son were about 800 metres away from the fence, east of Bureij, when Nasser was shot in the chest.
Five minutes after reaching the hospital, Nasser's heart stopped beating.
Laila Anwar al-Ghandour becomes the face of Gaza carnage
"He really believed in the right of return. He would go to the protests every single day. He even set up a tent for my family and I," Jalilah told Al Jazeera, adding their family was expelled in 1948 from Isdud, 35km north of Gaza.
Jalilah said she is in disbelief. "Losing him is bitter and excruciating, and hearts are heavy with anger at the Israeli occupation."
"He was the spirit of our home. He took care of everyone in the house and was a very kind and loving father," she said, adding that Nasser was extremely close to his six children and seven grandchildren.
"If anything, this has only increased our determination. I'm going to keep going to the tents, and I'm going to take the whole family with me."
Meghan Markle's father to miss wedding - BBC Breaking News
May 17, 2018
Meghan Markle's father to miss wedding ( 3 minutes ago )
Meghan Markle says her father will not now be attending her wedding to Prince Harry on Saturday.
In a statement, she said she had "always cared" for her father and hoped he could be given the space he needed to focus on his health.
Net neutrality nixed by FCC: What to know about the Internet regulations - Fox News
May 16, 2018
Net neutrality nixed by FCC: What to know about the Internet regulations
By Kaitlyn Schallhorn | Fox News
Senate rejects Trump policy on internet regulations
U.S. Senate votes 52-47 to retain the 2015 'net neutrality' rules, sends measure to the House.
Even though the Federal Communications Commission narrowly voted to dismantle Obama-era internet regulations in December, Senators voted to save them.
Thanks to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a group of senators have garnered enough support to cause a vote on whether to keep the FCC’s ruling on net neutrality. The Senate voted 52-47 to restore the policy.
However, President Trump's signature would still be needed to bring back the regulations, and the House isn't expected to advance the legislation.
Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said they will "renew our call for a bipartisan, permanent, legislative solution to solve this important issue once and for all," in a joint statement after the Senate vote.
Late last year, the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality rules 3 to 2 – along party lines. The rules imposed utility-style regulations on internet service providers (ISPs) that prevented them from favoring their own services or certain customers over that of competitors.
The FCC has said the rules will formally cease on June 11.
Prior to the rollback, nationwide protests were held as consumers worried cable and phone companies would suddenly have greater control over what they see and do online. But the broadband industry has promised users’ internet experience will not change.
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, has promised to raise "a ruckus to support net neutrality" ahead of the June 11 end date. She accused the FCC of being "on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of the American people."
Jessica Rosenworcel
✔
@JRosenworcel
This morning the @FCC announced that #NetNeutrality protections will be formally taken off the books on June 11. This is shameful. But I'm not giving up--and neither should you. Let's keep making a ruckus until internet openness is once again the law of the land. #RedAlert
12:09 AM - May 11, 2018
Here’s a look at what net neutrality is and how the FCC's vote could impact consumers nationwide.
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs must treat all legal internet data the same — regardless of where it comes from or who it is going to.
Harold Feld, senior vice president with the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Public Knowledge, compared net neutrality to “an on-ramp to the internet,” meaning ISPs are “not allowed to interfere with what the subscriber wants to do or where the subscriber wants to go.”
Under net neutrality regulations, ISPs are not allowed to block or throttle — meaning slow down — websites or applications.
What does the FCC do?
Trump-appointed FCC chairman Ajit Pai led the charge to repeal net neutrality regulations.
Pai, 44, said he believes net neutrality rules adopted during the Obama administration discourage ISPs from making investments in their network that would provide even better and faster online access.
"Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet," Pai said in a statement.
What are senators saying?
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who pushed for a vote to overturn the FCC’s ruling, said “access to a free and open internet isn’t a privilege, it’s a right.”
“The day of reckoning in the Senate on net neutrality is coming, and Republicans are on notice,” he said in a statement.
In a tweet, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer joked about a new ad on the Tinder dating app that encourages users to contact their senator about voting “to save net neutrality.”
Chuck Schumer
✔
@SenSchumer
Do you have @Tinder? I don't, but if you do you'll see their new banner encouraging users to write to their Senator to vote to save #NetNeutrality!
1:54 AM - May 10, 2018
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said in an op-ed he supports net neutrality but slammed his colleagues for engaging in “political theater” instead of coming up with “forward-looking solutions.”
After the vote, he said, "Despite this vote, I remain committed to finding a path to bipartisan protections for the internet and stand ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they are ready as well."
How could a full repeal impact consumers?
Repealing net neutrality regulations means consumers could start paying more for their internet services, critics have said. Consumers could also see ISPs start to “bundle” services — such as certain websites or applications — and charge more depending on what a person wants access to, experts said.
Now broadband providers can slow down the interface for apps by rival firms, block them altogether or charge them for faster online performance; James Rosen has more for 'Special Report.'Video
FCC votes to overturn Obama-era net neutrality rules
“Right now, the FCC has designated [the internet] as a telecommunications service — like a phone service which includes all of the rules that apply to prevent [a company] from blocking or throttling or favoring one company over another,” Feld told Fox News ahead of the vote. “The real question, to some degree, is: is the internet going to work like the old telephone where you get to decide who you called and what you do or is it going to become more like cable?”
“If it’s one thing that cable companies have proven to be good at over the years, it’s more ways to get money out of consumers and into their own pockets,” he continued. “Primary broadband providers will take advantage of this to find new ways to charge customers if they want to get high quality service.”
Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, said broadband providers would “presumably … try some things consumers don’t like and others that prove to be popular.” But he dismissed the notion of predicting just what exactly providers would do should the regulations be scaled back.
"The truth is we won’t know until providers start experimenting: Presumably they’ll try some things consumers don’t like, and others that prove popular."
- Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute
“There’s plenty of scaremongering around steps broadband providers could take in the absence of neutrality regulation — blocking off certain sites, or charging extra fees to access certain services — but not a ton of reason to think they would do these things, which would antagonize customers, be technically tricky to enforce against sophisticated users, and invite the re-imposition of regulations,” Sanchez told Fox News.
“What’s more realistic is the introduction of plans that provide higher speeds for specific bandwidth-intensive services,” he said, pointing to streaming high-definition Netflix videos as an example of such a service. “Or, similarly, content providers might end up subsidizing higher-speed access to their services for subscribers who’ve only paid for slower all-purpose internet access.”
Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Net neutrality nixed by FCC: What to know about the Internet regulations
By Kaitlyn Schallhorn | Fox News
Senate rejects Trump policy on internet regulations
U.S. Senate votes 52-47 to retain the 2015 'net neutrality' rules, sends measure to the House.
Even though the Federal Communications Commission narrowly voted to dismantle Obama-era internet regulations in December, Senators voted to save them.
Thanks to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a group of senators have garnered enough support to cause a vote on whether to keep the FCC’s ruling on net neutrality. The Senate voted 52-47 to restore the policy.
However, President Trump's signature would still be needed to bring back the regulations, and the House isn't expected to advance the legislation.
Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said they will "renew our call for a bipartisan, permanent, legislative solution to solve this important issue once and for all," in a joint statement after the Senate vote.
Late last year, the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality rules 3 to 2 – along party lines. The rules imposed utility-style regulations on internet service providers (ISPs) that prevented them from favoring their own services or certain customers over that of competitors.
The FCC has said the rules will formally cease on June 11.
Prior to the rollback, nationwide protests were held as consumers worried cable and phone companies would suddenly have greater control over what they see and do online. But the broadband industry has promised users’ internet experience will not change.
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, has promised to raise "a ruckus to support net neutrality" ahead of the June 11 end date. She accused the FCC of being "on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of the American people."
Jessica Rosenworcel
✔
@JRosenworcel
This morning the @FCC announced that #NetNeutrality protections will be formally taken off the books on June 11. This is shameful. But I'm not giving up--and neither should you. Let's keep making a ruckus until internet openness is once again the law of the land. #RedAlert
12:09 AM - May 11, 2018
Here’s a look at what net neutrality is and how the FCC's vote could impact consumers nationwide.
What is net neutrality?
Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs must treat all legal internet data the same — regardless of where it comes from or who it is going to.
Harold Feld, senior vice president with the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Public Knowledge, compared net neutrality to “an on-ramp to the internet,” meaning ISPs are “not allowed to interfere with what the subscriber wants to do or where the subscriber wants to go.”
Under net neutrality regulations, ISPs are not allowed to block or throttle — meaning slow down — websites or applications.
What does the FCC do?
Trump-appointed FCC chairman Ajit Pai led the charge to repeal net neutrality regulations.
Pai, 44, said he believes net neutrality rules adopted during the Obama administration discourage ISPs from making investments in their network that would provide even better and faster online access.
"Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet," Pai said in a statement.
What are senators saying?
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who pushed for a vote to overturn the FCC’s ruling, said “access to a free and open internet isn’t a privilege, it’s a right.”
“The day of reckoning in the Senate on net neutrality is coming, and Republicans are on notice,” he said in a statement.
In a tweet, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer joked about a new ad on the Tinder dating app that encourages users to contact their senator about voting “to save net neutrality.”
Chuck Schumer
✔
@SenSchumer
Do you have @Tinder? I don't, but if you do you'll see their new banner encouraging users to write to their Senator to vote to save #NetNeutrality!
1:54 AM - May 10, 2018
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said in an op-ed he supports net neutrality but slammed his colleagues for engaging in “political theater” instead of coming up with “forward-looking solutions.”
After the vote, he said, "Despite this vote, I remain committed to finding a path to bipartisan protections for the internet and stand ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they are ready as well."
How could a full repeal impact consumers?
Repealing net neutrality regulations means consumers could start paying more for their internet services, critics have said. Consumers could also see ISPs start to “bundle” services — such as certain websites or applications — and charge more depending on what a person wants access to, experts said.
Now broadband providers can slow down the interface for apps by rival firms, block them altogether or charge them for faster online performance; James Rosen has more for 'Special Report.'Video
FCC votes to overturn Obama-era net neutrality rules
“Right now, the FCC has designated [the internet] as a telecommunications service — like a phone service which includes all of the rules that apply to prevent [a company] from blocking or throttling or favoring one company over another,” Feld told Fox News ahead of the vote. “The real question, to some degree, is: is the internet going to work like the old telephone where you get to decide who you called and what you do or is it going to become more like cable?”
“If it’s one thing that cable companies have proven to be good at over the years, it’s more ways to get money out of consumers and into their own pockets,” he continued. “Primary broadband providers will take advantage of this to find new ways to charge customers if they want to get high quality service.”
Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, said broadband providers would “presumably … try some things consumers don’t like and others that prove to be popular.” But he dismissed the notion of predicting just what exactly providers would do should the regulations be scaled back.
"The truth is we won’t know until providers start experimenting: Presumably they’ll try some things consumers don’t like, and others that prove popular."
- Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute
“There’s plenty of scaremongering around steps broadband providers could take in the absence of neutrality regulation — blocking off certain sites, or charging extra fees to access certain services — but not a ton of reason to think they would do these things, which would antagonize customers, be technically tricky to enforce against sophisticated users, and invite the re-imposition of regulations,” Sanchez told Fox News.
“What’s more realistic is the introduction of plans that provide higher speeds for specific bandwidth-intensive services,” he said, pointing to streaming high-definition Netflix videos as an example of such a service. “Or, similarly, content providers might end up subsidizing higher-speed access to their services for subscribers who’ve only paid for slower all-purpose internet access.”
Fox News' Alex Pappas and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
OneSpace launches China's first private rocket - CNN Tech
OneSpace launches China's first private rocket
by Michelle Toh and Serenitie Wang @CNNTech
May 17, 2018: 6:09 AM ET
SpaceX launches rocket capable of carrying humans
China's private space sector has achieved liftoff.
OneSpace, a startup based in Beijing, on Thursday became the country's first private company to launch its own rocket. It said its 9-meter-tall OS-X rocket successfully blasted off from a base in northwestern China.
The aim of the mission is to collect data for a research project the startup is working on with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, a state-owned company.
Founded in 2015, OneSpace is often likened to Elon Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a comparison that founder and CEO Shu Chang doesn't shy away from.
"OneSpace's situation right now is very much like where SpaceX stood in its early years. SpaceX is the first in the US. We're the first in China," he told CNNMoney in an interview ahead of the launch.
Related: SpaceX launches its newest Falcon 9 rocket
"This is the first rocket developed and built entirely with homegrown technology," said Shu, who previously worked for a state-owned aerospace company and an investment firm.
OneSpace is still a long way from matching the feats of SpaceX, which regularly launches big rockets that put satellites in orbit and then return to Earth. OneSpace's OS-X rocket is designed to carry out tests and research during suborbital flights.
onespace china rocket launch closeup
OneSpace's OS-X rocket lifts off from a base in northwestern China on Thursday.
Some of the Chinese company's claims have been met with skepticism, though.
Xin Zhang, a professor of aerospace engineering at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said he doubted the rocket is entirely OneSpace's own work.
The company claimed on Thursday that the rocket it launched only took one year to develop and build. Shu had previously suggested it took three years.
"That's supersonic speed," according to Zhang, who said it can take companies as long as 10 years.
Related: Your guide to commercial space travel in 2018
OneSpace says it has so far raised 500 million yuan ($78 million), which is a paltry sum in an industry that regularly swallows billions of dollars, Zhang added.
"I think it's difficult unless they cut corners," he said.
Shu says that like SpaceX in its early days, OneSpace is used to facing doubters.
"When OneSpace was founded in 2015, we visited a lot of business insiders and experts, and they all said it's impossible," he said.
The company claims it has saved money in part by setting a "low-cost goal from the very start," including using a specially designed electrical system that weighs 10 times less than those typically used in other rockets.
onespace china engineers
OneSpace's 9-meter-tall suborbital rocket is designed to carry out research.
Although the company stresses it's privately owned, it does have some links to Chinese authorities.
It says it cooperates with Chinese military institutions on research and development and technical services. The startup also has a manufacturing plant in the southwestern city of Chongqing that is partly owned by the local government.
Like a growing number of startups, OneSpace wants to use its rockets to help companies launch small satellites for a range of uses, including improving internet access on planes and trains.
It's planning to roll out a line of rockets later this year that it says could help halve the cost of satellite launches.
It faces competition from other Chinese startups that are working on their own rockets, including LandSpace and LinkSpace.
Demand is growing for satellite launch services in China, according to Yang Feng, CEO of Spacety, a micro-satellite startup founded in 2016.
In just the past few years, more than 20 micro-satellite developers have emerged in China, he estimates.
"Satellites are at the core of the commercial space industry," Yang told CNNMoney in an interview. "Without satellites, the existence of commercial rocket makers would be pointless."
Related: AI companies spot a business opportunity in space
OneSpace's ultimate goal is to make space accessible to ordinary people, according to Shu. Someday, the company would like its rockets to be able to take humans to space — but for now, it needs to stay "practical."
"Many compare us to SpaceX but to be honest, the gap is more than a little," the CEO said.
"No matter how good your story is, what matters is if you have launched a rocket or not. It's the benchmark of a rocket company. So this launch is crucial to everything — capital investment, media attention and the government's support."
by Michelle Toh and Serenitie Wang @CNNTech
May 17, 2018: 6:09 AM ET
SpaceX launches rocket capable of carrying humans
China's private space sector has achieved liftoff.
OneSpace, a startup based in Beijing, on Thursday became the country's first private company to launch its own rocket. It said its 9-meter-tall OS-X rocket successfully blasted off from a base in northwestern China.
The aim of the mission is to collect data for a research project the startup is working on with the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, a state-owned company.
Founded in 2015, OneSpace is often likened to Elon Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a comparison that founder and CEO Shu Chang doesn't shy away from.
"OneSpace's situation right now is very much like where SpaceX stood in its early years. SpaceX is the first in the US. We're the first in China," he told CNNMoney in an interview ahead of the launch.
Related: SpaceX launches its newest Falcon 9 rocket
"This is the first rocket developed and built entirely with homegrown technology," said Shu, who previously worked for a state-owned aerospace company and an investment firm.
OneSpace is still a long way from matching the feats of SpaceX, which regularly launches big rockets that put satellites in orbit and then return to Earth. OneSpace's OS-X rocket is designed to carry out tests and research during suborbital flights.
onespace china rocket launch closeup
OneSpace's OS-X rocket lifts off from a base in northwestern China on Thursday.
Some of the Chinese company's claims have been met with skepticism, though.
Xin Zhang, a professor of aerospace engineering at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said he doubted the rocket is entirely OneSpace's own work.
The company claimed on Thursday that the rocket it launched only took one year to develop and build. Shu had previously suggested it took three years.
"That's supersonic speed," according to Zhang, who said it can take companies as long as 10 years.
Related: Your guide to commercial space travel in 2018
OneSpace says it has so far raised 500 million yuan ($78 million), which is a paltry sum in an industry that regularly swallows billions of dollars, Zhang added.
"I think it's difficult unless they cut corners," he said.
Shu says that like SpaceX in its early days, OneSpace is used to facing doubters.
"When OneSpace was founded in 2015, we visited a lot of business insiders and experts, and they all said it's impossible," he said.
The company claims it has saved money in part by setting a "low-cost goal from the very start," including using a specially designed electrical system that weighs 10 times less than those typically used in other rockets.
onespace china engineers
OneSpace's 9-meter-tall suborbital rocket is designed to carry out research.
Although the company stresses it's privately owned, it does have some links to Chinese authorities.
It says it cooperates with Chinese military institutions on research and development and technical services. The startup also has a manufacturing plant in the southwestern city of Chongqing that is partly owned by the local government.
Like a growing number of startups, OneSpace wants to use its rockets to help companies launch small satellites for a range of uses, including improving internet access on planes and trains.
It's planning to roll out a line of rockets later this year that it says could help halve the cost of satellite launches.
It faces competition from other Chinese startups that are working on their own rockets, including LandSpace and LinkSpace.
Demand is growing for satellite launch services in China, according to Yang Feng, CEO of Spacety, a micro-satellite startup founded in 2016.
In just the past few years, more than 20 micro-satellite developers have emerged in China, he estimates.
"Satellites are at the core of the commercial space industry," Yang told CNNMoney in an interview. "Without satellites, the existence of commercial rocket makers would be pointless."
Related: AI companies spot a business opportunity in space
OneSpace's ultimate goal is to make space accessible to ordinary people, according to Shu. Someday, the company would like its rockets to be able to take humans to space — but for now, it needs to stay "practical."
"Many compare us to SpaceX but to be honest, the gap is more than a little," the CEO said.
"No matter how good your story is, what matters is if you have launched a rocket or not. It's the benchmark of a rocket company. So this launch is crucial to everything — capital investment, media attention and the government's support."
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower says Bannon wanted to suppress voters - Guardian
Cambridge Analytica
The Cambridge Analytica Files
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower says Bannon wanted to suppress voters
Christopher Wylie testified before the Senate judiciary committee that Bannon wanted ‘weapons to fight a culture war’
Olivia Solon
@oliviasolon Email
Thu 17 May 2018 07.19 AEST Last modified on Thu 17 May 2018 17.22 AEST
Former Cambridge Analytica research director Christopher Wylie testifies before Senate judiciary committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington Wednesday.
Former Cambridge Analytica research director Christopher Wylie testifies before Senate judiciary committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Wednesday. Photograph: Al Drago/Reuters
Former White House senior strategist Steve Bannon and billionaire Robert Mercer sought Cambridge Analytica’s political ad targeting technology as part of an “arsenal of weapons to fight a culture war”, according to whistleblower Christopher Wylie.
“Steve Bannon believes that politics is downstream from culture. They were seeking out companies to build an arsenal of weapons to fight a culture war,” Wylie said, when asked why investors thought that the political consultancy’s efforts would work, targeting people based on psychological profiles and assessment of their personality.
The pink-haired 28-year-old was appearing to give evidence on Capitol Hill for the first time since his decision to blow the whistle on the use of Facebook data by Cambridge Analytica set off shock waves that are still reverberating through Westminster, Washington DC and Silicon Valley.
During his testimony to the Senate judiciary committee, Wylie also confirmed that he believed one of the goals of Steve Bannon while he was vice-president of Cambridge Analytica was voter suppression.
“One of the things that provoked me to leave was discussions about ‘voter disengagement’ and the idea of targeting African Americans,” he said, noting he had seen documents referencing this.
Facebook posts were targeted at some black voters reminding them of Hillary Clinton’s 1990s description of black youths as “super predators”, in the hope it would deter them from voting.
Wylie also explained why Cambridge Analytica was testing messages such as “drain the swamp” and “build the wall” in 2014, before the Trump campaign existed.
Facebook suspends 200 apps as part of investigation into data misuse
Read more
“The company learned that there were segments of the populace that were responsive to these messages that weren’t necessarily reflected in other polling,” he said.
The whistleblower previously revealed to the Observer that the political consultancy used the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook profiles to help Donald Trump’s election and the Brexit leave campaign.
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower: 'We spent $1m harvesting millions of Facebook profiles' –
The revelation triggered a public debate over privacy and micro-targeted advertising, and led Facebook to overhaul the way it works with third-party researchers and app developers.
Wylie was joined by two academics, Mark Jamison from the University of Florida, who focuses on how technology impacts the economy, and political scientist Eitan Hersh from Tufts University.
Hersh did not believe that Cambridge Analytica’s approach was successful at persuading people to vote differently during the 2016 presidential election. “It’s hard to move people. It’s easier to mobilise or demobilise than it is to persuade people,” he said.
Wylie agreed, but noted that Cambridge Analytica had a treasure trove of “dense and valuable” data compared with traditional marketing approaches that allowed it to create a “precise algorithm”.
Many of the senators’ questions focused on Facebook and other internet companies’ business models and whether individuals were aware of the degree of privacy invasion they are subjected to.
Senator Kamala Harris of California said that Facebook’s business model was not always working “in the best interest of the American people”.
“Users have little to no idea of just how Facebook tracks their information,” she said. “In the real world, this would be like someone following you as you walk down the street, watching who you are, where you’re going, and who you’re with. For most people, this would be an invasion of privacy and most people would call the cops.”
Wylie said that Facebook has created a platform that encourages the abuse of people’s privacy. “It’s true you can’t buy Facebook’s data but they make it readily available to its customers via its applications,” he said.
He added that the way Facebook profiles are designed makes it “conducive to scraping data” and that this is a setup that “catalyses its misuse”.
Throughout the committee hearing, several Republican senators including Ted Cruz and Thom Tillis pointed to the Obama campaign’s use of Facebook data, to highlight the fact that such practices are bipartisan.
However, people who downloaded the Obama campaign app were aware they were using a political app. By contrast, the data obtained by Cambridge Analytica was obtained via a personality quiz application whose users had no idea their data would be used by a political campaign.
Wylie, a Canadian data analytics expert, joined Strategic Communication Laboratories Group (SCL) in 2013. Shortly after, he came up with an idea that led to the creation of an offshoot called Cambridge Analytica, which offered predictive analytics, behavioural sciences and data-driven advertising technology to political campaigns and businesses.
Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained the personal information of millions of Facebook users to build profiles of US voters in order to target them with personalised political advertisements, via a related UK-based entity called SCL Elections.
“We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles,” said Wylie in March. “And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on.”
Wylie has previously told MPs at a British select committee that the EU referendum was won through fraud after Vote Leave allegedly used a network of companies to get round election spending laws. He said he thought there “could have been a different outcome had there not been, in my view, cheating”. He also met privately with House Democrats in April, but Wednesday’s hearing was his first public appearance before US lawmakers.
Cambridge Analytica kept Facebook data models through US election
Read more
Wylie worked with Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan to obtain data from Facebook users and their friends including likes, activities, check-ins, location, photos, religion, politics and relationship details.
A year later the Guardian published an article revealing that Cambridge Analytica was using the Facebook data to target voters for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign. At the time Facebook removed the personality quiz app, and demanded certifications from Kogan, Wylie and Cambridge Analytica that the information had been destroyed.
Cambridge Analytica closed down in early May, denying any wrongdoing, but saying that the negative media coverage left it with no clients and mounting legal fees.
This week the New York Times reported that the department of justice and FBI have begun investigating the now-defunct political consultancy.
The Cambridge Analytica Files
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower says Bannon wanted to suppress voters
Christopher Wylie testified before the Senate judiciary committee that Bannon wanted ‘weapons to fight a culture war’
Olivia Solon
@oliviasolon Email
Thu 17 May 2018 07.19 AEST Last modified on Thu 17 May 2018 17.22 AEST
Former Cambridge Analytica research director Christopher Wylie testifies before Senate judiciary committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington Wednesday.
Former Cambridge Analytica research director Christopher Wylie testifies before Senate judiciary committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Wednesday. Photograph: Al Drago/Reuters
Former White House senior strategist Steve Bannon and billionaire Robert Mercer sought Cambridge Analytica’s political ad targeting technology as part of an “arsenal of weapons to fight a culture war”, according to whistleblower Christopher Wylie.
“Steve Bannon believes that politics is downstream from culture. They were seeking out companies to build an arsenal of weapons to fight a culture war,” Wylie said, when asked why investors thought that the political consultancy’s efforts would work, targeting people based on psychological profiles and assessment of their personality.
The pink-haired 28-year-old was appearing to give evidence on Capitol Hill for the first time since his decision to blow the whistle on the use of Facebook data by Cambridge Analytica set off shock waves that are still reverberating through Westminster, Washington DC and Silicon Valley.
During his testimony to the Senate judiciary committee, Wylie also confirmed that he believed one of the goals of Steve Bannon while he was vice-president of Cambridge Analytica was voter suppression.
“One of the things that provoked me to leave was discussions about ‘voter disengagement’ and the idea of targeting African Americans,” he said, noting he had seen documents referencing this.
Facebook posts were targeted at some black voters reminding them of Hillary Clinton’s 1990s description of black youths as “super predators”, in the hope it would deter them from voting.
Wylie also explained why Cambridge Analytica was testing messages such as “drain the swamp” and “build the wall” in 2014, before the Trump campaign existed.
Facebook suspends 200 apps as part of investigation into data misuse
Read more
“The company learned that there were segments of the populace that were responsive to these messages that weren’t necessarily reflected in other polling,” he said.
The whistleblower previously revealed to the Observer that the political consultancy used the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook profiles to help Donald Trump’s election and the Brexit leave campaign.
Cambridge Analytica whistleblower: 'We spent $1m harvesting millions of Facebook profiles' –
The revelation triggered a public debate over privacy and micro-targeted advertising, and led Facebook to overhaul the way it works with third-party researchers and app developers.
Wylie was joined by two academics, Mark Jamison from the University of Florida, who focuses on how technology impacts the economy, and political scientist Eitan Hersh from Tufts University.
Hersh did not believe that Cambridge Analytica’s approach was successful at persuading people to vote differently during the 2016 presidential election. “It’s hard to move people. It’s easier to mobilise or demobilise than it is to persuade people,” he said.
Wylie agreed, but noted that Cambridge Analytica had a treasure trove of “dense and valuable” data compared with traditional marketing approaches that allowed it to create a “precise algorithm”.
Many of the senators’ questions focused on Facebook and other internet companies’ business models and whether individuals were aware of the degree of privacy invasion they are subjected to.
Senator Kamala Harris of California said that Facebook’s business model was not always working “in the best interest of the American people”.
“Users have little to no idea of just how Facebook tracks their information,” she said. “In the real world, this would be like someone following you as you walk down the street, watching who you are, where you’re going, and who you’re with. For most people, this would be an invasion of privacy and most people would call the cops.”
Wylie said that Facebook has created a platform that encourages the abuse of people’s privacy. “It’s true you can’t buy Facebook’s data but they make it readily available to its customers via its applications,” he said.
He added that the way Facebook profiles are designed makes it “conducive to scraping data” and that this is a setup that “catalyses its misuse”.
Throughout the committee hearing, several Republican senators including Ted Cruz and Thom Tillis pointed to the Obama campaign’s use of Facebook data, to highlight the fact that such practices are bipartisan.
However, people who downloaded the Obama campaign app were aware they were using a political app. By contrast, the data obtained by Cambridge Analytica was obtained via a personality quiz application whose users had no idea their data would be used by a political campaign.
Wylie, a Canadian data analytics expert, joined Strategic Communication Laboratories Group (SCL) in 2013. Shortly after, he came up with an idea that led to the creation of an offshoot called Cambridge Analytica, which offered predictive analytics, behavioural sciences and data-driven advertising technology to political campaigns and businesses.
Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained the personal information of millions of Facebook users to build profiles of US voters in order to target them with personalised political advertisements, via a related UK-based entity called SCL Elections.
“We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles,” said Wylie in March. “And built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons. That was the basis the entire company was built on.”
Wylie has previously told MPs at a British select committee that the EU referendum was won through fraud after Vote Leave allegedly used a network of companies to get round election spending laws. He said he thought there “could have been a different outcome had there not been, in my view, cheating”. He also met privately with House Democrats in April, but Wednesday’s hearing was his first public appearance before US lawmakers.
Cambridge Analytica kept Facebook data models through US election
Read more
Wylie worked with Cambridge University researcher Aleksandr Kogan to obtain data from Facebook users and their friends including likes, activities, check-ins, location, photos, religion, politics and relationship details.
A year later the Guardian published an article revealing that Cambridge Analytica was using the Facebook data to target voters for Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign. At the time Facebook removed the personality quiz app, and demanded certifications from Kogan, Wylie and Cambridge Analytica that the information had been destroyed.
Cambridge Analytica closed down in early May, denying any wrongdoing, but saying that the negative media coverage left it with no clients and mounting legal fees.
This week the New York Times reported that the department of justice and FBI have begun investigating the now-defunct political consultancy.
Lawfare waged by the Hong Kong government is crushing the hopes of democrats - Hong Kong Free Press
Lawfare waged by the Hong Kong government is crushing the hopes of democrats
17 May 2018 18:19 Benedict Rogers6 min read
Donate
Law is being used to silence the democracy movement in Hong Kong.
One in three pro-democracy legislators have been prosecuted by the government since the Umbrella Movement of 2014. More than a hundred democracy activists and protestors have been prosecuted. The Secretary of Justice has constantly sought to maximise sentencing, slapping years of jail time on young students and digging up obscure, outdated charges – designed for nineteenth century Britain, not twenty-first century Hong Kong – to increase the time that pro-democracy figures spend in jail.
Hong Kong’s political system is rigged in favour of the establishment. A committee of 1,200 people made up of tycoons, property developers and other elites, chooses the Chief Executive. Forty per cent of the seats in the Legislative Council are decided by functional constituencies, elected not by the general population but by businesses and professions which consistently vote to maintain the status quo. Despite the democrats representing sixty per cent of the popular vote, they have no way of holding the Secretary of Justice, who oversees prosecutions, to account.
occupy democracy prosecution protest
The nine defendants of Occupy prosecution case. Photo: Tommy Cheung, via Facebook.
As a result, the law is being used to intimidate opponents, disqualify lawmakers and limit freedom of expression. Legal commentator Antony Dapiran has called the strategy “lawfare” – the use of law as a tool in the political battle to create conformity.
“The conviction of Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-Ching, two localists elected as legislators in 2016, on charges of “illegal assembly” is just the latest example of lawfare against democrats. Accused of attempting to barge their way into a meeting after they were barred from entering to retake their oaths as lawmakers, they could be jailed for up to three years for gathering in the legislature to which they had been elected.
Their failure to take their oath in the correct manner the first time would, in most normal democratic legislatures, have been addressed through an internal disciplinary mechanism – a temporary suspension from the chamber, perhaps, followed by a chance to retake their oath “properly.” Indeed, that is what Hong Kong’s legislature offered and past precedent provided for, but Beijing reinterpreted the Basic Law, effectively amending the legislation, and turned it over to the courts. Instead of being given the second chance they should have had, they were disqualified from the legislature, denied the right to retake their oath or appeal, and convicted of a criminal offence that could land them in jail. The mix of farce, absurdity, and cruelty is astonishing.”
A few days previously, democratic legislator Ted Hui Chi-fung was released by the police on bail, facing potential prosecution on four charges including criminal assault, dishonest access to a computer, obstructing a public officer and criminal damage. His actions were undoubtedly absurdly foolish – he took it upon himself to snatch a mobile phone from a civil servant in the legislature, claiming she was monitoring the whereabouts of lawmakers in order to marshal their support for a government bill. He disappeared into the men’s toilet for a few minutes with her phone. In any other legislature, Mr Hui would be subject to some disciplinary sanction for such a stupid act – perhaps suspension for a day or two – but such disproportionate criminal charges take an already farcical case to even greater heights of absurdity.
Outside the Legislative Council chamber, the crackdown on protestors and democracy activists has been even more intense. The founders of the Occupy Central protests in 2014, Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man, are being charged with “public nuisance,” “incitement to public nuisance,” and “incitement to incite public nuisance.” Public nuisance charges in common law jurisdictions are designed typically for young delinquents who kick over bins and are supposed to be accompanied by a punishment of community service. Benny Tai and his colleagues are facing up to seven years in jail as the Secretary of Justice has concocted a cocktail of charges designed to maximise the punishment against peaceful protest for democratic reform.
And, separately, more than a hundred, predominantly young, people have been charged under the Public Order Ordinance. These charges are clearly politicised, as is evidenced by the fact that members of the establishment do not receive the same treatment. Police violence during protests was excessive, yet in the majority of cases has gone unpunished or investigated. Junius Ho called for those who advocate Hong Kong independence to be “killed mercilessly”, yet he has not been prosecuted – due to “lack of evidence.” Where has the principle of everyone equal before the law gone?
It is worth noting that, by and large, the problem is with the choice of prosecution and the abuse of law, by the State, not the independence of the judiciary. By and large, judges’ integrity is still intact. But the rule of law is increasingly threatened by its unequal application.
So what is the way forward?
First, in order to protect the rule of law in Hong Kong, the Secretary of Justice, who is a political appointee, should no longer be in charge of prosecutions. In Britain, for example, prosecutions come under the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service – the Secretary of Justice shapes the policy, not the prosecutions.
claudia mo ray chan tam tak-chi political prisoner occupy activist protest rally democracy
Lawmakers and activists hold a banner denouncing former Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen, who presided over the prosecution of Umbrella Movement activists during his term. Photo: Jun Pang/HKFP.
Second, it is time for the international community, and the United Kingdom in particular, to press China to allow the genuine universal suffrage which the people of Hong Kong were promised under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, to protect the rights guaranteed under the Basic Law, and to ensure proper checks and balances are in place for the executive, legislative and judicial system.
Third, democrats of all shades in Hong Kong need to reflect on their own conduct and exercise both greater unity and maturity. Swearing at China in an oath-taking ceremony or snatching an official’s mobile phone are not sensible acts conducive to advancing democracy. They are foolish and counter-productive. Nevertheless, they are moments of stupidity not criminality, and are born out of the depths of frustration to which Beijing’s broken promises and the Hong Kong government’s failure to stand up for Hong Kong have driven them. They deserve a sympathetic frown and a friendly raised eyebrow, not a prison sentence and a criminal record.
Lastly, while some individuals have acted unwisely, Hong Kong’s democrats include many deeply impressive, inspiring people, of all generations and persuasions, who deserve the admiration and support of the world. For the younger generation in particular, they deserve respect – they do not deserve, on any measure, to spend their formative years behind bars. It is time to get behind Hong Kong’s democrats, and put an end to Beijing’s “lawfare.”
This article was originally published in The Diplomat.
17 May 2018 18:19 Benedict Rogers6 min read
Donate
Law is being used to silence the democracy movement in Hong Kong.
One in three pro-democracy legislators have been prosecuted by the government since the Umbrella Movement of 2014. More than a hundred democracy activists and protestors have been prosecuted. The Secretary of Justice has constantly sought to maximise sentencing, slapping years of jail time on young students and digging up obscure, outdated charges – designed for nineteenth century Britain, not twenty-first century Hong Kong – to increase the time that pro-democracy figures spend in jail.
Hong Kong’s political system is rigged in favour of the establishment. A committee of 1,200 people made up of tycoons, property developers and other elites, chooses the Chief Executive. Forty per cent of the seats in the Legislative Council are decided by functional constituencies, elected not by the general population but by businesses and professions which consistently vote to maintain the status quo. Despite the democrats representing sixty per cent of the popular vote, they have no way of holding the Secretary of Justice, who oversees prosecutions, to account.
occupy democracy prosecution protest
The nine defendants of Occupy prosecution case. Photo: Tommy Cheung, via Facebook.
As a result, the law is being used to intimidate opponents, disqualify lawmakers and limit freedom of expression. Legal commentator Antony Dapiran has called the strategy “lawfare” – the use of law as a tool in the political battle to create conformity.
“The conviction of Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-Ching, two localists elected as legislators in 2016, on charges of “illegal assembly” is just the latest example of lawfare against democrats. Accused of attempting to barge their way into a meeting after they were barred from entering to retake their oaths as lawmakers, they could be jailed for up to three years for gathering in the legislature to which they had been elected.
Their failure to take their oath in the correct manner the first time would, in most normal democratic legislatures, have been addressed through an internal disciplinary mechanism – a temporary suspension from the chamber, perhaps, followed by a chance to retake their oath “properly.” Indeed, that is what Hong Kong’s legislature offered and past precedent provided for, but Beijing reinterpreted the Basic Law, effectively amending the legislation, and turned it over to the courts. Instead of being given the second chance they should have had, they were disqualified from the legislature, denied the right to retake their oath or appeal, and convicted of a criminal offence that could land them in jail. The mix of farce, absurdity, and cruelty is astonishing.”
A few days previously, democratic legislator Ted Hui Chi-fung was released by the police on bail, facing potential prosecution on four charges including criminal assault, dishonest access to a computer, obstructing a public officer and criminal damage. His actions were undoubtedly absurdly foolish – he took it upon himself to snatch a mobile phone from a civil servant in the legislature, claiming she was monitoring the whereabouts of lawmakers in order to marshal their support for a government bill. He disappeared into the men’s toilet for a few minutes with her phone. In any other legislature, Mr Hui would be subject to some disciplinary sanction for such a stupid act – perhaps suspension for a day or two – but such disproportionate criminal charges take an already farcical case to even greater heights of absurdity.
Outside the Legislative Council chamber, the crackdown on protestors and democracy activists has been even more intense. The founders of the Occupy Central protests in 2014, Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man, are being charged with “public nuisance,” “incitement to public nuisance,” and “incitement to incite public nuisance.” Public nuisance charges in common law jurisdictions are designed typically for young delinquents who kick over bins and are supposed to be accompanied by a punishment of community service. Benny Tai and his colleagues are facing up to seven years in jail as the Secretary of Justice has concocted a cocktail of charges designed to maximise the punishment against peaceful protest for democratic reform.
And, separately, more than a hundred, predominantly young, people have been charged under the Public Order Ordinance. These charges are clearly politicised, as is evidenced by the fact that members of the establishment do not receive the same treatment. Police violence during protests was excessive, yet in the majority of cases has gone unpunished or investigated. Junius Ho called for those who advocate Hong Kong independence to be “killed mercilessly”, yet he has not been prosecuted – due to “lack of evidence.” Where has the principle of everyone equal before the law gone?
It is worth noting that, by and large, the problem is with the choice of prosecution and the abuse of law, by the State, not the independence of the judiciary. By and large, judges’ integrity is still intact. But the rule of law is increasingly threatened by its unequal application.
So what is the way forward?
First, in order to protect the rule of law in Hong Kong, the Secretary of Justice, who is a political appointee, should no longer be in charge of prosecutions. In Britain, for example, prosecutions come under the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service – the Secretary of Justice shapes the policy, not the prosecutions.
claudia mo ray chan tam tak-chi political prisoner occupy activist protest rally democracy
Lawmakers and activists hold a banner denouncing former Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen, who presided over the prosecution of Umbrella Movement activists during his term. Photo: Jun Pang/HKFP.
Second, it is time for the international community, and the United Kingdom in particular, to press China to allow the genuine universal suffrage which the people of Hong Kong were promised under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, to protect the rights guaranteed under the Basic Law, and to ensure proper checks and balances are in place for the executive, legislative and judicial system.
Third, democrats of all shades in Hong Kong need to reflect on their own conduct and exercise both greater unity and maturity. Swearing at China in an oath-taking ceremony or snatching an official’s mobile phone are not sensible acts conducive to advancing democracy. They are foolish and counter-productive. Nevertheless, they are moments of stupidity not criminality, and are born out of the depths of frustration to which Beijing’s broken promises and the Hong Kong government’s failure to stand up for Hong Kong have driven them. They deserve a sympathetic frown and a friendly raised eyebrow, not a prison sentence and a criminal record.
Lastly, while some individuals have acted unwisely, Hong Kong’s democrats include many deeply impressive, inspiring people, of all generations and persuasions, who deserve the admiration and support of the world. For the younger generation in particular, they deserve respect – they do not deserve, on any measure, to spend their formative years behind bars. It is time to get behind Hong Kong’s democrats, and put an end to Beijing’s “lawfare.”
This article was originally published in The Diplomat.
DR Congo Ebola outbreak spreads to Mbandaka city - BBC News
May 17, 2018
DR Congo Ebola outbreak spreads to Mbandaka city
Twenty-three people are known to have died
The Ebola outbreak in DR Congo has spread from the countryside into a city, prompting fears that the disease will be increasingly hard to control.
Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga confirmed a case in Mbandaka, a city of a million people about 130km (80 miles) from the area where the first cases were confirmed earlier this month.
The city is a major transportation hub with routes to the capital Kinshasa.
Forty-two people have now been infected and 23 people are known to have died.
Ebola is a serious infectious illness that causes internal bleeding and often proves fatal. It can spread rapidly through contact with small amounts of bodily fluid and its early flu-like symptoms are not always obvious.
Why Ebola keeps coming back
Why Ebola is so dangerous
How not to catch Ebola
Why is the spread to a city such a worry?
The 2014-16 West Africa outbreak, which killed 11,300 people, was particularly deadly because it spread to the capital cities of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Senior World Health Organization (WHO) official Peter Salama said the spread to Mbandaka meant there was the potential for an "explosive increase" in cases.
"This is a major development in the outbreak," he told the BBC. "We have urban Ebola, which is a very different animal from rural Ebola. The potential for an explosive increase in cases is now there."
Mr Salama, the WHO's Deputy Director-General of Emergency Preparedness and Response, said Mbandaka's location on the Congo river, widely used for transportation, raised the prospect of Ebola spreading to surrounding countries such as Congo-Brazzaville and the Central African Republic as well as downstream to Kinshasa, a city of 10 million people.
"This puts a whole different lens on this outbreak and gives us increased urgency to move very quickly into Mbandaka to stop this new first sign of transmission," he said.
Mapping the West Africa Ebola outbreak
What is being done to contain the outbreak?
Confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola have been recorded in three health zones of Congo's Equateur province, the WHO said.
Isolation and rudimentary Ebola case management facilities had been set up in Mbandaka to cope with cases, Mr Salama said.
He said the disease may have been brought there by two or three people who had attended the funeral of an Ebola victim in Bikoro to the south of Mbandaka before travelling to the city.
On Wednesday more than 4,000 doses of an experimental vaccine sent by the WHO arrived in the country with another batch expected soon.
These would be given as a priority to people in Mbandaka who had been in contact with those suspected of carrying the Ebola virus before people in any other affected area in order to stop Ebola spreading in the urban region and beyond, Mr Salama said.
How the virus attacks human cells
The vaccine from pharmaceutical firm Merck is unlicensed but was effective in limited trials during the West Africa Ebola Outbreak. It needs to be stored at a temperature of between -60 and -80 C. Electricity supplies in Congo are unreliable.
Health workers had identified 430 people who may have had contact with the disease and were working to trace more than 4,000 contacts of Ebola patients, who had spread across north-west DR Congo, the WHO said.
Many of these people were in areas only reachable by motorbike, Mr Salama said.
What about travel restrictions?
The WHO said it was not recommending any trade or travel restrictions either within DR Congo, for example between Mbandaka and Kinshasa, or internationally.
But Mr Salama said that 13 countries in the region were boosting border screening measures and said DR Congo itself was increasing exit screening measures.
"The good news is that the DR Congo population is very used to Ebola outbreaks. They know to protect themselves by avoiding mass gatherings and mass funerals. They know as well that traditional healers can amplify the outbreak," he added.
An experimental vaccine has arrived in the country
Observers described the international response so far as "remarkable and very rapid".
"The logistic issues... will also be considerable on the ground to identify who should be vaccinated and to get out in this vast and very difficult area and provide vaccination in an appropriate way," New York-based Ebola expert Dr Laurie Garrett told the BBC.
"It's never been done before in the midst of an exploding outbreak so we'll watch it very closely."
Why does Ebola keep coming back?
There have been three outbreaks in DR Congo since the 2014-16 epidemic. Ebola is thought to be spread over long distances by fruit bats and is often transmitted to humans via contaminated bushmeat.
It can also be introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, organs or other bodily fluids of infected animals. These can include chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys, antelope and porcupines.
The disease is endemic to the area and it is not possible to eradicate all the animals who might be a host for Ebola. As long as humans come in contact with them, there is always a possibility that Ebola could return.
DR Congo Ebola outbreak spreads to Mbandaka city
Twenty-three people are known to have died
The Ebola outbreak in DR Congo has spread from the countryside into a city, prompting fears that the disease will be increasingly hard to control.
Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga confirmed a case in Mbandaka, a city of a million people about 130km (80 miles) from the area where the first cases were confirmed earlier this month.
The city is a major transportation hub with routes to the capital Kinshasa.
Forty-two people have now been infected and 23 people are known to have died.
Ebola is a serious infectious illness that causes internal bleeding and often proves fatal. It can spread rapidly through contact with small amounts of bodily fluid and its early flu-like symptoms are not always obvious.
Why Ebola keeps coming back
Why Ebola is so dangerous
How not to catch Ebola
Why is the spread to a city such a worry?
The 2014-16 West Africa outbreak, which killed 11,300 people, was particularly deadly because it spread to the capital cities of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Senior World Health Organization (WHO) official Peter Salama said the spread to Mbandaka meant there was the potential for an "explosive increase" in cases.
"This is a major development in the outbreak," he told the BBC. "We have urban Ebola, which is a very different animal from rural Ebola. The potential for an explosive increase in cases is now there."
Mr Salama, the WHO's Deputy Director-General of Emergency Preparedness and Response, said Mbandaka's location on the Congo river, widely used for transportation, raised the prospect of Ebola spreading to surrounding countries such as Congo-Brazzaville and the Central African Republic as well as downstream to Kinshasa, a city of 10 million people.
"This puts a whole different lens on this outbreak and gives us increased urgency to move very quickly into Mbandaka to stop this new first sign of transmission," he said.
Mapping the West Africa Ebola outbreak
What is being done to contain the outbreak?
Confirmed, probable and suspected cases of Ebola have been recorded in three health zones of Congo's Equateur province, the WHO said.
Isolation and rudimentary Ebola case management facilities had been set up in Mbandaka to cope with cases, Mr Salama said.
He said the disease may have been brought there by two or three people who had attended the funeral of an Ebola victim in Bikoro to the south of Mbandaka before travelling to the city.
On Wednesday more than 4,000 doses of an experimental vaccine sent by the WHO arrived in the country with another batch expected soon.
These would be given as a priority to people in Mbandaka who had been in contact with those suspected of carrying the Ebola virus before people in any other affected area in order to stop Ebola spreading in the urban region and beyond, Mr Salama said.
How the virus attacks human cells
The vaccine from pharmaceutical firm Merck is unlicensed but was effective in limited trials during the West Africa Ebola Outbreak. It needs to be stored at a temperature of between -60 and -80 C. Electricity supplies in Congo are unreliable.
Health workers had identified 430 people who may have had contact with the disease and were working to trace more than 4,000 contacts of Ebola patients, who had spread across north-west DR Congo, the WHO said.
Many of these people were in areas only reachable by motorbike, Mr Salama said.
What about travel restrictions?
The WHO said it was not recommending any trade or travel restrictions either within DR Congo, for example between Mbandaka and Kinshasa, or internationally.
But Mr Salama said that 13 countries in the region were boosting border screening measures and said DR Congo itself was increasing exit screening measures.
"The good news is that the DR Congo population is very used to Ebola outbreaks. They know to protect themselves by avoiding mass gatherings and mass funerals. They know as well that traditional healers can amplify the outbreak," he added.
An experimental vaccine has arrived in the country
Observers described the international response so far as "remarkable and very rapid".
"The logistic issues... will also be considerable on the ground to identify who should be vaccinated and to get out in this vast and very difficult area and provide vaccination in an appropriate way," New York-based Ebola expert Dr Laurie Garrett told the BBC.
"It's never been done before in the midst of an exploding outbreak so we'll watch it very closely."
Why does Ebola keep coming back?
There have been three outbreaks in DR Congo since the 2014-16 epidemic. Ebola is thought to be spread over long distances by fruit bats and is often transmitted to humans via contaminated bushmeat.
It can also be introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, organs or other bodily fluids of infected animals. These can include chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys, antelope and porcupines.
The disease is endemic to the area and it is not possible to eradicate all the animals who might be a host for Ebola. As long as humans come in contact with them, there is always a possibility that Ebola could return.
Stormy Daniels: Trump discloses payment to reimburse lawyer - BBC News
May 17, 2018
Stormy Daniels: Trump discloses payment to reimburse lawyer
Was Trump's Stormy Daniels payment legal?
US President Donald Trump has officially disclosed his reimbursement to his lawyer, who paid a porn star to hush up her claims of an affair.
The Office of Government Ethics found on Wednesday that Mr Trump ought to have revealed the payment in his previous financial disclosure.
The filing shows he paid Michael Cohen between $100,001 (£75,000) and $250,000 for expenses incurred in 2016.
Mr Trump previously denied knowing of the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
The conflicting statements in the Stormy Daniels saga
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
The big question at heart of Stormy Daniels saga
Media captionStormy Daniels: "I was threatened"
The White House stated in a footnote to the filing that it was listing the payment "in the interest of transparency", and contended it did not have to make the disclosure.
However, the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) wrote in a letter that "the payment made by Mr Cohen is required to be reported" in the liabilities section of the statement.
In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the OGE acting director said: "You may find the disclosure relevant to any inquiry you may be pursuing."
The deputy attorney general is overseeing the Department of Justice investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.
The Stormy Daniels payment is a potential legal problem for the president because it could be seen as an illegal campaign contribution.
Mr Cohen, whose records relating to the settlement were seized in an FBI raid last month, is now reportedly under criminal investigation.
Ms Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges that she and Mr Trump had sex in a hotel room in Lake Tahoe, a resort area between California and Nevada, in 2006. Mr Trump's lawyer said his client "vehemently denies" the claim.
If the actress's account is true, the tryst would have happened just a few months after Melania Trump gave birth to her son, Barron, whose father is Mr Trump.
Stormy Daniels says she had sex with Mr Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel in 2006
In April, Mr Trump said he was unaware Mr Cohen had paid Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election.
Mr Trump's payment to Mr Cohen was first confirmed a fortnight ago by Rudy Giuliani, another of the president's attorneys, in a television interview.
Mr Giuliani said the transaction was to keep Ms Daniels quiet about her "false and extortionist accusation" that she had sex with Mr Trump, suggesting her claim could have damaged his candidacy.
Later that week, the president said the newly hired Mr Giuliani needed time to "get his facts straight".
Also on Wednesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee backed up the American intelligence community's findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election to help Mr Trump.
The panel's assessment contradicts a conclusion in March by the House Intelligence Committee rejecting allegations that the Kremlin had aimed to boost the Republican candidate's chances.
Mr Trump earned $100,000-$1m in royalties from The Art of the Deal in 2017
What else did we learn?
The disclosure shows millions in 2017 income from rents, licences, book and television royalties, company shares, hotel management fees and golf courses, with interests from India to Dubai.
What happened to worries about Trump's business?
His Washington hotel in a former Post Office building brought in more than $40m in 2017, its first full year in operation.
His golf courses, including the president's Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, did not appear to see major gains, despite frequent visits from the president.
Mar-a-Lago contributed $25m in income, compared with about $37m on the previous report.
The president reported royalties from his 1987 book The Art of the Deal in the same $100,000-$1m range as he did last year - and sales for some of his lesser titles picked up.
Many of his shareholdings are in mutual and index funds, rather than the cross-section of American companies he once owned.
Stormy Daniels: Trump discloses payment to reimburse lawyer
Was Trump's Stormy Daniels payment legal?
US President Donald Trump has officially disclosed his reimbursement to his lawyer, who paid a porn star to hush up her claims of an affair.
The Office of Government Ethics found on Wednesday that Mr Trump ought to have revealed the payment in his previous financial disclosure.
The filing shows he paid Michael Cohen between $100,001 (£75,000) and $250,000 for expenses incurred in 2016.
Mr Trump previously denied knowing of the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
The conflicting statements in the Stormy Daniels saga
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
The big question at heart of Stormy Daniels saga
Media captionStormy Daniels: "I was threatened"
The White House stated in a footnote to the filing that it was listing the payment "in the interest of transparency", and contended it did not have to make the disclosure.
However, the head of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) wrote in a letter that "the payment made by Mr Cohen is required to be reported" in the liabilities section of the statement.
In his letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the OGE acting director said: "You may find the disclosure relevant to any inquiry you may be pursuing."
The deputy attorney general is overseeing the Department of Justice investigation into whether Trump aides colluded with alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.
The Stormy Daniels payment is a potential legal problem for the president because it could be seen as an illegal campaign contribution.
Mr Cohen, whose records relating to the settlement were seized in an FBI raid last month, is now reportedly under criminal investigation.
Ms Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges that she and Mr Trump had sex in a hotel room in Lake Tahoe, a resort area between California and Nevada, in 2006. Mr Trump's lawyer said his client "vehemently denies" the claim.
If the actress's account is true, the tryst would have happened just a few months after Melania Trump gave birth to her son, Barron, whose father is Mr Trump.
Stormy Daniels says she had sex with Mr Trump at a Lake Tahoe hotel in 2006
In April, Mr Trump said he was unaware Mr Cohen had paid Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election.
Mr Trump's payment to Mr Cohen was first confirmed a fortnight ago by Rudy Giuliani, another of the president's attorneys, in a television interview.
Mr Giuliani said the transaction was to keep Ms Daniels quiet about her "false and extortionist accusation" that she had sex with Mr Trump, suggesting her claim could have damaged his candidacy.
Later that week, the president said the newly hired Mr Giuliani needed time to "get his facts straight".
Also on Wednesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee backed up the American intelligence community's findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 US election to help Mr Trump.
The panel's assessment contradicts a conclusion in March by the House Intelligence Committee rejecting allegations that the Kremlin had aimed to boost the Republican candidate's chances.
Mr Trump earned $100,000-$1m in royalties from The Art of the Deal in 2017
What else did we learn?
The disclosure shows millions in 2017 income from rents, licences, book and television royalties, company shares, hotel management fees and golf courses, with interests from India to Dubai.
What happened to worries about Trump's business?
His Washington hotel in a former Post Office building brought in more than $40m in 2017, its first full year in operation.
His golf courses, including the president's Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, did not appear to see major gains, despite frequent visits from the president.
Mar-a-Lago contributed $25m in income, compared with about $37m on the previous report.
The president reported royalties from his 1987 book The Art of the Deal in the same $100,000-$1m range as he did last year - and sales for some of his lesser titles picked up.
Many of his shareholdings are in mutual and index funds, rather than the cross-section of American companies he once owned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
