Monday, May 15, 2017

Trump & Comey meeting transcripts 7 days into presidency - New York Times


Trump Sticks a Fork in Comey

MAY 13, 2017
dowd-circular-thumbLarge-v8.jpg
Maureen Dowd
WASHINGTON — You knew there had to be a tape of the Infamous Dinner.
Fortuitously, it popped up in my mailbox this weekend. And here’s a transcript from that fateful wintry meeting between F.B.I. Director James Comey and Donald Trump at the White House, seven days after the president was sworn in:
TRUMP I’m so glad you called and asked to come over, James. Let me give you a hug. Or at least blow you another kiss. (Smooching sound.)
COMEY Actually, that’s not factually correct, Mr. President. You summoned me.
TRUMP No, you summoned me.
COMEY That’s not ——
TRUMP You called me and said you wanted to come over and congratulate me on my amazing victory and my record-breaking inaugural crowds and beg like a dog to keep your job.
COMEY I would never call to invite myself over, Mr. President. I feel uneasy being here. I refused to play basketball with President Obama, even though I knew I could dunk over him, for fear of seeming too chummy. As F.B.I. director, I have to stay above the political fray.
TRUMP Are you kidding me? Who is more political than you? With all your wacky meddling in the election and rooting around in the laptop of that pervert Anthony Weiner, you’re even more famous than me. And you know how much I hate that. Sometimes people work for me and they do a good job and then they get a big head. And then I chop off their heads.

COMEY Mr. President, I cannot let politics affect my decisions because if I ever start considering who might be affected, and in what way, by what we do, we’re done.
TRUMP Let me press my cool red button. Vlad gave it to me. It’s a reset button and it works a lot better than the one Hillary gave to Lavrov. I use it to ring my butler for Diet Cokes. You know, it’s funny, I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke.
COMEY Have you thought about Weight Watchers?
TRUMP I love Oprah but I think I look phenomenal.
I am really, really good looking. You look good, too. You’re a tall drink of water. Like a giraffe crossed with Eliot Ness. What are you, 6-foot-8, 6-foot-9? Central casting. But don’t let your head get too big. Don’t be a showboat. Don’t be a grandstander. That’s my shtick. Do you play golf? How far do you drive? Trump hits it strong and long — 285 yards. Have some salad. We got you creamy vinaigrette. I always do Thousand Island.
COMEY Isn’t Thousand Island the same as Russian dressing?
TRUMP I’m glad you brought that up. I would like you to pledge your ever-ending loyalty, in the immortal words of Luca Brasi. You know, I used to be called The Don and compared to John Gotti, but with more bling. I would like you to tell me three times, before the cock crows, that I am not under investigation for working with Russia to defeat Hillary. Because I certainly did not need help defeating Crooked Hillary. I have to know you’re my guy.
COMEY I am not your guy, Mr. President. I’m America’s guy. I can pledge my honesty to you.
TRUMP You should try truthful hyperbole or just make stuff up. Look how well that worked for me. Did it ever occur to you that your wacky, neurotic, dopey bouts of piety and vanity during the campaign broke F.B.I. rules and ruined your reputation? You’ll be lucky if I decide to let you stay.
COMEY I worry that you don’t have the slightest understanding of how our democracy works. Everyone thinks you’re off your rocker.
TRUMP That’s funny, because I think there’s something off about you.
COMEY It makes me mildly nauseous to think I could have helped make you president.

TRUMP You didn’t. I made myself president. Did you see the 1.5 million people at my inauguration? I have a picture of the crowd on the wall here. The dishonest press would never admit it. Now, James, I need you to eat your meatloaf and forget about this Russia thing with Trump. Russia is a made-up story — with a few exceptions. I need you to drop that goofy investigation and start priming the pump on investigating the leaks in your shop and in the C.I.A. that hurt Trump. You could also check the files on Ted Cruz’s dad and Lee Harvey Oswald while you’re at it.
COMEY But no one leaks more than you. You are your own Deep Throat. There have been rumors that you have been taping people since the ’80s. Are you taping this conversation?
TRUMP I have nothing further to add on that. Ah, here’s dessert. The most beautiful chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen. I get two scoops of ice cream and you only get one. Because I’m the president. Can you believe it?
I’ve got an idea! See that 60-inch flat-screen TV I put in, under the crystal chandelier I put up? Why don’t you stay and watch me watch Bill O’Reilly — he’s a great guy — and then I’ll tweet about the show and then O’Reilly will read my tweet as breaking news and you can watch that and then I’ll flip to CNN and you can watch me hate-watch that dummy Don Lemon and then I’ll pretend I didn’t. Fun! And don’t forget: If you’re not loyal, you might look up at a TV one day and find out you’re fired.
I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@MaureenDowd) and join me on Facebook.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. 

New York Times 

The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior - New York Times

The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
MAY 13, 2017
It wasn’t so long ago that Republicans in Congress cared about how a president comported himself in office. They cared a lot! The president is, after all, commander in chief of the armed forces, steward of the most powerful nation on earth, role model for America’s children — and he should act at all times with the dignity his station demands. It’s not O.K. to behave in a manner that demeans the office and embarrasses the country. Shirt sleeves in the Oval Office? Disrespectful. Shoes on the Resolute desk? Even worse. Lying? Despicable, if not impeachable.
Now seems like a good moment to update the standards. What do Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders think a president may say or do and still deserve their enthusiastic support? We offer this handy reference list in hopes of protecting them from charges of hypocrisy in the future. They can consult it should they ever feel tempted to insist on different standards for another president. So, herewith, the Congressional Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior.
If you are the president, you may freely:
• attack private citizens on Twitter
• delegitimize federal judges who rule against you
• refuse to take responsibility for military actions gone awry
• fire the F.B.I. chief in the middle of his expanding investigation into your campaign and your associates
Sunday Review

EDITORIAL
The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior
14sun1web-articleLarge.jpg
President Trump’s signature on an executive order.
STEPHEN CROWLEY / THE NEW YORK TIMES
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
MAY 13, 2017
It wasn’t so long ago that Republicans in Congress cared about how a president comported himself in office. They cared a lot! The president is, after all, commander in chief of the armed forces, steward of the most powerful nation on earth, role model for America’s children — and he should act at all times with the dignity his station demands. It’s not O.K. to behave in a manner that demeans the office and embarrasses the country. Shirt sleeves in the Oval Office? Disrespectful. Shoes on the Resolute desk? Even worse. Lying? Despicable, if not impeachable.
Now seems like a good moment to update the standards. What do Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders think a president may say or do and still deserve their enthusiastic support? We offer this handy reference list in hopes of protecting them from charges of hypocrisy in the future. They can consult it should they ever feel tempted to insist on different standards for another president. So, herewith, the Congressional Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior.
If you are the president, you may freely:
• attack private citizens on Twitter
• delegitimize federal judges who rule against you
• refuse to take responsibility for military actions gone awry
• fire the F.B.I. chief in the middle of his expanding investigation into your campaign and your associates


• accuse a former president, without evidence, of an impeachable offense
• employ top aides with financial and other connections to a hostile foreign power

• blame the judiciary, in advance, for any terror attacks
• call the media “the enemy of the American people”
• demand personal loyalty from the F.B.I. director
• threaten the former F.B.I. director
• accept foreign payments to your businesses, in possible violation of the Constitution
• occupy the White House with the help of a hostile foreign power
• intimidate congressional witnesses
• allow White House staff members to use their personal email for government business
• neglect to fill thousands of crucial federal government positions for months
• claim, without evidence, that millions of people voted illegally
• fail to fire high-ranking members of your national security team for weeks, even after knowing they lied to your vice president and exposed themselves to blackmail

ADVERTISEMENT: GUCCI









 
B11370825.151252818.gif
• refuse to release tax returns
• hide the White House visitors’ list from the public
• vacation at one of your private residences nearly every weekend

• use an unsecured personal cellphone
• criticize specific businesses for dropping your family members’ products
• review and discuss highly sensitive intelligence in a restaurant, and allow the Army officer carrying the “nuclear football” to be photographed and identified by name
• obstruct justice
• hire relatives for key White House posts, and let them meet with foreign officials and engage in business at the same time
• promote family businesses on federal government websites
• collude with members of Congress to try to shut down investigations of you and your associates
• threaten military conflict with other nations in the middle of news interviews
• compare the U.S. intelligence community to Nazis
• display complete ignorance about international relations, your own administration’s policies, American history and the basic structure of our system of government

• skip daily intelligence briefings
• repeat untruths
• lie
If you’re a Republican legislator, stick this list on the fridge and give it a quick read the next time you get upset at a president.
If you think we have left something out, please leave a comment with this article, or on our Facebook page. We’ll update the Congressional Republican’s Guide with some of your suggestions in a follow-up article.

New York Times

Russian money-laundering details remain in the dark as US settles fraud case - CNN

Russian money-laundering details remain in the dark as US settles fraud case

Updated 2244 GMT (0644 HKT) May 13, 2017
New York (CNN)A major US investigation into Russian money laundering has come to an abrupt end. 
The case aimed to expose how Russian mobsters allegedly stole $230 million and hid some of the cash in New York City real estate. Also sure to come up was the suspicious death of the Russian lawyer who exposed the alleged fraud, though US prosecutors weren't alleging that the defendants were behind it.
The trial was set to start on Monday, but late Friday night, federal prosecutors in New York announced they settled the case with Prevezon, the company accused of buying up "high-end commercial space and luxury apartments" with laundered money.
The abrupt conclusion has some involved in the trial wondering why this Russian investigation had been cut short. 
"What most concerns me is: Has there been any political pressure applied in this?" asked Louise Shelley, an illicit finance expert who was set to testify in support of the US government on Tuesday.
Shelley — who founded George Mason University's Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center — said the alleged money launderers got off easy.
Shelley — who founded George Mason University's Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center — said the alleged money launderers got off easy.
ADVERTISING

"I think they won something. There's no recognition of wrongdoing," she said.
The US Attorney's office did not respond to CNN's request for comment. 
In the settlement, Prevezon and its business associates did not acknowledge any wrongdoing, and the government agreed to "release" them all from any future lawsuits in connection with this case.
The case against Prevezon was a civil matter, so the federal government's inherent goal was to recover money. That it did.
The $5.9 million settlement is three times the value of the $1.9 million in supposedly laundered money tied to funds stolen from the Russian state coffers. But it's far less than the value of Prevezon's real estate in Manhattan -- which Shelley estimates at $17 million -- that had been partially acquired with those allegedly laundered funds.
Russia's largest ever tax fraud
The alleged fraud behind the Prevezon case goes back a decade. According to US investigators, corrupt Russian government officials allegedly teamed up with a powerful Russian organized crime organization to pull off that country's largest ever tax fraud.
Russian crime rings often use identity theft to file fake tax refunds. In this case, the government says that the defendants essentially did that on a grand scale: allegedly stealing the corporate identity of Hermitage Capital Management, an investment firm in Russia. According to the complaints, the defendants then allegedly created fake losses, claimed fake tax refunds -- and made off with the stolen rubles.
Hermitage's lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, exposed the alleged fraud — and was later jailed by the very investigators he fingered in the plot. He was tortured and killed in prison, according to Russia's own Presidential Human Rights Commission. The Russian government insists that Magnitsky, age 37, died of a heart failure with no signs of violence.
The conspirators allegedly laundered the illicit cash through shell companies, luxury cars, real estate around the world, and international bank accounts.
But without a trial, the illicit money trail remains unproven to the public.
The settlement allowed both sides to still claim a victory.
Prevezon said this is proof it did nothing wrong. In a statement, the firm said: "From the outset, Prevezon and its owner Denis Katsyv have maintained their innocence and have repeatedly stated that they had no involvement in or knowledge of any fraudulent activities and never received any funds from any criminal activity."
Prevezon claimed prosecutors "brought this case without conducting any independent investigation, relying exclusively on the claims of William Browder," the head of Hermitage.
Meanwhile, American prosecutors claimed this served as a deterrent for future money launderers.
"We will not allow the U.S. financial system to be used to launder the proceeds of crimes committed anywhere -- here in the U.S., in Russia, or anywhere else," acting Manhattan US Attorney Joon H. Kim said in a statement.
The case had initially been brought by US Attorney Preet Bharara, but he was fired by President Donald Trump in March. 
Bharara congratulated the prosecutors on Twitter late Friday night: "Congrats to Joon & team in Russian money laundering case (underlying fraud uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky, died suspiciously in Moscow jail)."
There was one witness set to testify at the trial who had a very personal connection to the case: Jamison Firestone, whose law firm partner was Magnitsky.
On Saturday, Firestone lamented that details about the Russian government, mobsters and investors who allegedly received these funds won't be aired at trial.
"I wanted this all to come out," he told CNN on Saturday. "The embarrassing stuff exposes the Russian government's entire money laundering machine."
But Firestone said this settlement is one step closer to justice. Estonia, the UK, and the US have already adopted "Magnitsky laws" to sanction Russians connected to the fraud. This settlement is the first time a court in the West has forced someone allegedly involved in the money laundering to pay up.
"We're just going to keep doing this until we expose them all," he told CNN. "These people may escape prosecution as long as the Putin government stands, but it won't stand forever. Putin is going to die before they do, and hopefully they will die in tiny prison cells like Sergei Magnitsky did."

CNN

Sunday, May 14, 2017

How to handle a computer hack such as RANSOMWARE Virus - Financial Times

How to handle a computer hack such as RANSOMWARE Virus
Sometimes a hack is obvious. When Sony Pictures employees arrived at work on the morning of November 24, 2014 they found their computers were inoperable and the screens displayed a creepy-looking red skull with the message: “Hacked by #GOP”. 
More often, attacks are harder to recognise. For TalkTalk, the UK telecoms company that discovered on October 21 2015 that it had been hacked, the truth sank in much more gradually. Dido Harding, the chief executive, explained in a television interview two days later that by “lunchtime all we knew was that our website was running slowly and that we had the indications of a hacker trying to attack us”. 
It took TalkTalk 36 hours after discovering the hack to release a statement saying it had been attacked and warning customers that their data may have been compromised — a delay for which it would later be criticised.
Most hacks follow warnings that were overlooked: emailed tip-offs, both internal and external, about a potential security risk that were never read, phone calls that were ignored. 
Richard De Vere, a consultant at cyber security company The AntiSocial Engineer, says he contacted TalkTalk about a separate problem two weeks before the hack was made public. He had discovered that several self-hosted websites that used the company’s talktalk.net domain were infected with malware and could be used to aid social engineering attacks, where criminals trick people into revealing confidential information. 
He felt TalkTalk did not take him seriously. “After a week of emails and calls, nothing seemed to happen,” he recalls. Frustrated with the lack of progress, on October 9 Mr De Vere published a blog making the matter public. TalkTalk’s head of IT then contacted him via LinkedIn and the company decommissioned the talktalk.net domain. 
‘Most of the time these calls are not serious’
Mr De Vere says he later alerted TalkTalk to the main attack. This time the company’s senior technicians were listening.
John Smith, who worked as a chief information security officer (CISO) for private sector companies for 14 years, says IT security professionals often do not give tip-offs the necessary attention straight away. “Most of the time these calls are not serious, but you need to pay attention every time,” says Mr Smith (who is quoted under an assumed name to protect the identity of the organisations he has worked for). 
Verifying that there really has been a breach can be difficult, says Tammy Moskites, chief information officer and CISO at Venafi, a Utah-based IT security company. Leaked credit card numbers, for example, can be checked. But if a mix of types of information appears to have been exposed — for example, emails, credit card numbers and passwords — it can be difficult to know for sure whether this is due to an attack on a company’s computer systems or if information has leaked in other ways. These include customers falling victim to a scam or another company, which stores similar customer data, being attacked.
Once the hack is confirmed, things begin to move very quickly. “This is the ‘golden hour’ where every minute counts,” says Jamie Saunders, who leads the UK’s National Crime Agency’s efforts to fight cyber crime. 
The company’s first call should be to its incident response unit — a dedicated team trained to deal with attacks. This can be an in-house group or an external company on retainer. Having an incident team makes the biggest difference in reducing the cost of an attack, says Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the US-based Ponemon Institute, a security research group. However, only 29 per cent of UK companies have formal written cyber security policies, according to a 2016 UK government survey. 
“Detecting [a cyber attack] early is key,” says James Hatch, director of cyber services at BAE Systems, who advises companies on how to defend themselves. “It could be the difference between losing 10 per cent of your [computers] and 50 per cent.” 
“You are trying to get everyone into the war room very quickly,” says Mr Smith. “You have a plan for this kind of incident, you may have practised it. But right now you are wondering if the right people are reachable. It always seems to happen at the start of a long weekend and no one is around.” Having 24-hour-a-day, seven-day a week rota for staff can be crucial, he says.
JPMorgan, for example, did not have a CISO when it suffered a security breach in 2014. Neither did Target, the US retailer, when it was hacked in 2013, exposing 40m customer records. The cyber attack against Sony Pictures also came at a particularly vulnerable time for the company, when a new CISO was less than three months into the job. 
“For the first few hours you are just trying to find out what happened. Are the hackers still in your system? Can you see data still being transferred out? Some companies panic and want to just pull the plug out of the socket at that point to protect their system, but you cannot simply switch off. It sends a bad message to the outside world and impacts business operations,” says Mr Smith. 
‘You are actually wetting your pants at this point. Your goal was to prevent something like this happening and that hasn’t worked. No one wants this kind of blot on their career.’ 
JOHN SMITH, A FORMER CHIEF INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER
It is reasonable for executives to be anxious. Both Gregg Steinhafel and Beth Jacob, Target’s former chief executive and ex-information officer respectively, lost their jobs following the data breach. The average tenure of a CISO at a company is a little more than two years, according to the Ponemon Institute. This is partly due to the fact that these professionals are in such high demand, but also due to job insecurity of those in the role.
At this stage, companies are often most concerned about making sure news of the hack does not spread. “You want as few people as possible talking about it,” says Mr Smith. “You call the CEO and tell him to keep his mobile phone switched on. You issue a gag order to everyone else.” 
There will be difficult discussions about which external bodies — from law enforcement and regulators to customers — must be told. “Nobody wants anyone else involved,” says Mr Smith. 
Another consideration is not wanting to let the hackers know they have been discovered, says Ms Moskites, the Venafi CISO. “If the hackers are still inside your system you may have to be creative about how you communicate if you don’t want to alert them.”
But complete secrecy may not be an option. If the cyber attack came from hacktivists who want to make a political statement, news is probably already leaking out. During the Sony hack, several Sony-related Twitter accounts were taken over and posted a picture showing Michael Lynton, chief executive of Sony Pictures, in an eerie environment, surrounded by skeletons and gravestones.
Most states in the US require companies to notify their customers, immediately or without unnecessary delay, if their personal data have been lost. In Europe, some countries, including Germany, Austria, Norway and the Netherlands, have introduced similar laws. EU data protection regulation, due to come into force in 2018, will extend this requirement across all member states. Under the new rules companies can face hefty fines for failing to disclose a loss of data. 
Even before the new rules come in, European telecoms companies are obliged to notify regulators about data breaches and if a company holds data on US citizens, it may be required to disclose the breach in the US. Disclosure rules in each US state differ slightly. 
“It is a potential nightmare,” says Antonis Patrikios, partner at Field Fisher Waterhouse, a UK-based law firm. “Companies are just starting to realise how complex this can be. It is important to think about your notification strategy before an incident happens. If you leave this to be decided when you are in the middle of dealing with an attack it can be a lot more complicated.” 
The company must also consider whether to call the police. Some 2.5m cyber crime offences take place in the UK each year, according to estimates by the government’s Office for National Statistics. “Almost every large organisation will have some kind of breach each year,” says Mr Hatch of BAE Systems. Only a fraction of these are ever reported to the authorities. 
“We are seeing companies that are more willing to engage us, but that is not the majority,” says Mr Saunders of the UK government’s National Cyber Crime Unit. “Some have had bad experiences. There are plenty of disincentives for companies on reporting. They don’t want PC Plod to come in and stop them from working. We are trying to become more sensitive to business priorities.” 
In the TalkTalk case, the police became involved immediately after the hack was detected, but there was tension over priorities.
“The advice we received from the Metropolitan Police was not to tell our customers,” said Baroness Harding, TalkTalk’s chief executive, in a testimony to the UK government’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee. “I totally understand why the police wanted us to stay quiet because they have a different objective. They want to catch the criminals. We had some constructive discussion with them … on how to marry the conflicting objectives.” 
Mr Smith admits he, like many corporate CISOs, believes pursuing criminals is a waste of time. “It is difficult to ascertain exactly where the hack came from — they are typically routed through so many countries,” he says. “Even if you found the computer that the attack was coming from, would you know you had really found the right people? If you have your business hat on you don’t really want to spend time on that.”
The company’s IT security team will be working around the clock at this stage. Some will have been in the office for 30 hours straight after the hack was discovered, surviving on takeaway pizza and strong coffee. 
The work will be tedious, often involving going through millions, if not billions, of log entries to find out exactly when and how the breach took place. 
The company should brace itself for unpleasant surprises — starting with finding out just how long the hackers have been in the system. “As you investigate you suddenly realise, ‘Oh my God, we were breached in April and it is now October — what happened?’” says Ms Moskites. 
It takes companies an average of 229 days — more than seven months — to discover a malicious attack, according to research by the Ponemon Institute. “It is not unusual for a problem to have been there a long time,” says Dave Palmer, director of technology at Darktrace, a UK-based cyber security company. “In one case we found that the problem had been there for eight years.”
‘You need a war room that has a washroom connected to it and a couple of sofas that people can sleep on. The team will bring in sleeping bags’
The way in which the company was breached may also be a surprise. Hardware that was not even considered an issue may have been the weak point. Mr Palmer gives the example of a law firm that discovered its video conferencing system had been compromised and had been livestreaming all the conversations to an unknown location from the boardroom for a week. 
Part of the challenge is keeping up security for an increasingly complex network. The IT team may have decommissioned old servers and simply forgotten to disconnect a couple. “It is like forgetting to get the old food from out of the back of the fridge,” says Ms Moskites. 
The attack may also have been embarrassingly simple. Former hackers themselves say that the skill level in many hacks is not high. “There is this joke in the hacker community that companies always say they got hit by an ‘advanced persistent threat’ to make it sound like it was something very complicated,” says Lauri Love, a British hacker who is accused of breaking into Pentagon computers and is currently fighting extradition to the US. Mr Love is now part of Hacker House, a social enterprise start-up that aims to encourage young computer experts to use their skills for positive ends. 
“There is a lot of code running on computers and some of it is kept up-to-date ... and some of it is not up to scratch. If you are persistent you will find it,” Mr Love says.
“It isn’t about Russia, China or GCHQ [the UK’s information security agency] launching outlandish, Mission Impossible-style attacks,” agrees Mr Palmer. “Mostly it is about routine, indiscriminate attacks.” Cyber attack tools can be bought on the black market by non-experts and criminals will often use these to target a wide range of companies, seeing which businesses are most vulnerable. 
In its review of the TalkTalk hacking case, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee noted that it was “no longer a defence” for a company to claim to be unaware of “established and in some cases routine” forms of cyber penetration. The committee recommended introducing an escalating series of fines if companies are caught out by basic attacks.
The average cost of a data breach is $4m, according to security researcher Mr Ponemon, or around $158 for each compromised record. In fact, the figure can vary considerably. Sony estimated in early 2015 that the combined cost of investigating its hack and offering remediation would be $15m, after recovering some losses from insurance. It will also pay up to $8m to settle a lawsuit brought by former employees whose personal data were stolen. 
By the end of 2015, according to Target’s financial statements, the company recorded costs of nearly $291m related to the 2013 data breach, including crisis communications, the forensic investigation and law suits.
The longer it takes to find a hack, the more costly it is to deal with. If a data breach can be identified within 100 days the cost to the company will on average be $3.2m, compared with an average of $4.4m to deal with hacks found after 100 days, according to the Ponemon Institute. 
TalkTalk has so far estimated that the October 2015 cyber attack will cost about £60m ($78m) to rectify. The company’s business has also taken a hit. Its pre-tax profit for 2016 fell to £14m, compared with £32m last year as about 100,000 customers left. 
TalkTalk's shares fell sharply in the aftermath of the hack and were down 30 per cent nearly a year later. The good news for companies is that the share price tends to recover relatively quickly following a cyber attack. 
Target, for example, saw its share price fall sharply in the immediate aftermath of the December 2013 attack. Nine months later, however, it had recovered. Even revelations that the company would have to pay more than $118m to settle lawsuits filed against it by banks, card issuers and customers failed to depress the share price. Sales growth and other corporate news gradually began to outweigh news of the hack. 
“People have short memories,” says Mr Palmer of Darktrace.
Insurance becomes a key consideration at this point. Insurance can cover the cost of the forensic investigation, the cost of notifying customers affected by the attack and even the cost of lawsuits. But companies must check carefully what they are buying, warns Sarah Stephens, head of cyber, technology and media at JLT Speciality, a UK-based insurance broker. 
‘Cyber insurance can cover the cost of dealing with the crisis, but not the extra work needed to fix the company’s security flaws’
“It can cover lost income from an attack, but not the longer-term impact on reputation,” says Ms Stephens. If cyber criminals transfer money from company accounts, this would not be covered by cyber insurance — but it should be covered under a different, criminal insurance policy. 
Documents leaked as part of the Sony Pictures hack suggest the company had at least $60m worth of cover at the time and Mr Lynton, the chief executive, told reporters the costs would be within insurance limits. 
Target was less lucky. Its cyber insurance policy will cover just $90m, less than a third of the costs. “They did have cyber insurance — just not enough,” says Ms Stephens.
After the hack, the company will typically have a serious review of its IT security. Meanwhile, the CISO, provided they are still in the job, will go on a shopping spree. “If you asked for $1m for a project before the hack and were turned down, you will now get $2m — no questions asked,” says Mr Smith, the former CISO.
“You do get more money. I have seen that quite a bit. But you have to move quickly because there are peaks and valleys in the spending and the further you get from the incident the more it will start to trickle off again,” says Ms Moskites, CISO at Venafi. 
Following the 2013 hack, for example, Target built a new cyber centre, bringing together all its IT security teams. 
But buying in technology will not on its own make companies safer. A complete change of tactics may be needed. TalkTalk is working not only with conventional security companies such as BAE Systems, but is looking for new ways to test its systems.
Mr Love of Hacker House says companies need to go back to basics. For example, they should review how reliant they are on third-party code they have not written themselves, which is probably more vulnerable. Companies must also train employees to become more vigilant and suspicious of emails that look unfamiliar, he says. 
Collaboration with other security professionals could also be improved. One idea that companies are increasingly exploring is so-called bug bounty programmes, where the company pays outsiders who notify it of security flaws. Big US technology companies such as Google and Facebook have operated such programmes for several years. More recently platforms such as Bugcrowd and HackerOne have created places where any company can ask independent security researchers to test its systems.
“After the first week you have a postmortem,” says Ms Moskites. “But when is it done? Just because you fixed the inside of the system, it doesn’t mean it is over. There is brand reputation and possibly many people who are impacted.” 
The fallout from the Sony Pictures hack was widespread. Employees had their social security numbers exposed and will have to be vigilant about identity theft for the rest of their lives. Leaked emails caused embarrassment to the studio, fuelling weeks of showbiz media stories. It ultimately led to the departure of Amy Pascal, co-chair of the film studio. 
Nearly three years after its attack, Target is still dealing with lawsuits.
TalkTalk says it is starting to see customer numbers growing again, but the investigation into the incident is continuing. London’s Metropolitan Police has so far arrested six people in connection with the data breach, ranging in age from 15 to 20 at the time of arrest. The young ages suggest the hackers were cyber vandals rather than career criminals.
The FBI and US President Barack Obama officially linked the Sony Pictures hack to North Korea, although some security professionals say the evidence presented by the FBI was scant. There has also been speculation it could have been an inside job by disgruntled employees. No one has yet been arrested in connection with the hack.








Is there such a thing is Trumponomics ? - Economist

Trumponomics
Donald Trump's economic policy is based on a picture of America that is out of date

From the print edition, May 13th 2017
DONALD TRUMP rules over Washington as if he were a king and the White House his court. His displays of dominance, his need to be the centre of attention and his impetuousness have a whiff of Henry VIII about them. Fortified by his belief that his extraordinary route to power is proof of the collective mediocrity of Congress, the bureaucracy and the media, he attacks any person and any idea standing in his way.
Just how much trouble that can cause was on sensational display this week, with his sacking of James Comey—only the second director of the FBI to have been kicked out. Mr Comey has made mistakes and Mr Trump was within his rights. But the president has succeeded only in drawing attention to questions about his links to Russia and his contempt for the norms designed to hold would-be kings in check.
Just as dangerous, and no less important to ordinary Americans, however, is Mr Trump’s plan for the economy. It treats orthodoxy, accuracy and consistency as if they were simply to be negotiated away in a series of earth-shattering deals. Although Trumponomics could stoke a mini-boom, it, too, poses dangers to America and the world.
AKLHk4sCSNmIQaYuMbV1.jpg

Trumponomics 101
In an interview with this newspaper, the president gave his most extensive description yet of what he wants for the economy. His target is to ensure that more Americans have well-paid jobs by raising the growth rate. His advisers talk of 3% GDP growth—a full percentage point higher than what most economists believe is today’s sustainable pace.
His target is to ensure that Americans have well-paid jobs by raising the growth rate
The Economist
In Mr Trump’s mind the most important path to better jobs and faster growth is through fairer trade deals. Though he claims he is a free-trader, provided the rules are fair, his outlook is squarely that of an economic nationalist. Trade is fair when trade flows are balanced. Firms should be rewarded for investing at home and punished for investing abroad.
The second and third strands of Trumponomics, tax cuts and deregulation, will encourage that domestic investment. Lower taxes and fewer rules will fire up entrepreneurs, leading to faster growth and better jobs. This is standard supply-side economics, but to see Trumponomics as a rehash of Republican orthodoxy is a mistake—and not only because its economic nationalism is a departure for a party that has championed free trade.
The real difference is that Trumponomics (unlike, say, Reaganomics) is not an economic doctrine at all. It is best seen as a set of proposals put together by businessmen courtiers for their king. Mr Trump has listened to scores of executives, but there are barely any economists in the White House. His approach to the economy is born of a mindset where deals have winners and losers and where canny negotiators confound abstract principles. Call it boardroom capitalism.
That Trumponomics is a business wishlist helps explain why critics on the left have laid into its poor distributional consequences, fiscal indiscipline and potential cronyism. And it makes clear why businessmen and investors have been enthusiastic, seeing it as a shot in the arm for those who take risks and seek profits. Stockmarkets are close to record highs and indices of business confidence have soared.
His approach to the economy is born of a mindset where deals have winners and losers
The Economist
In the short term that confidence could prove self-fulfilling. America can bully Canada and Mexico, into renegotiating NAFTA. For all their sermons about fiscal prudence, Republicans in Congress are unlikely to deny Mr Trump a tax cut. Stimulus and rule-slashing may lead to faster growth. And with inflation still quiescent, the Federal Reserve might not choke that growth with sharply higher interest rates.
Unleashing pent-up energy would be welcome, but Mr Trump’s agenda comes with two dangers. The economic assumptions implicit in it are internally inconsistent. And they are based on a picture of America’s economy that is decades out of date.
Contrary to the Trump team’s assertions, there is little evidence that either the global trading system or individual trade deals have been systematically biased against America. Instead, America’s trade deficit—Mr Trump’s main gauge of the unfairness of trade deals—is better understood as the gap between how much Americans save and how much they invest. The fine print of trade deals is all but irrelevant. Textbooks predict that Mr Trump’s plans to boost domestic investment will probably lead to larger trade deficits, as it did in the Reagan boom of the 1980s. If so, Mr Trump will either need to abandon his measure of fair trade or, more damagingly, try to curb deficits by using protectionist tariffs that will hurt growth and sow mistrust around the world.
Trumponomics draws on a blinkered view of America's economy
The Economist
A deeper problem is that Trumponomics draws on a blinkered view of America’s economy. Mr Trump and his advisers are obsessed with the effect of trade on manufacturing jobs, even though manufacturing employs only 8.5% of America’s workers and accounts for only 12% of GDP. Service industries barely seem to register. This blinds Trumponomics to today’s biggest economic worry: the turbulence being created by new technologies. Yet technology, not trade, is ravaging American retailing, an industry that employs more people than manufacturing. And economic nationalism will speed automation: firms unable to outsource jobs to Mexico will stay competitive by investing in machines at home. Productivity and profits may rise, but this may not help the less-skilled factory workers who Mr Trump claims are his priority.
The bite behind the bark
Trumponomics is a poor recipe for long-term prosperity. America will end up more indebted and more unequal. It will neglect the real issues, such as how to retrain hardworking people whose skills are becoming redundant. Worse, when the contradictions become apparent, Mr Trump’s economic nationalism may become fiercer, leading to backlashes in other countries—further stoking anger in America. Even if it produces a short-lived burst of growth, Trumponomics offers no lasting remedy for America’s economic ills. It may yet pave the way for something worse.

Economist