‘Blackmail and pressure will never work’ says China, as Donald Trump mulls 25% tariff on US$200bn imports – reports
1 August 2018 17:30 AFP2 min read
US President Donald Trump is now considering a 25 percent tariff on US$200 billion in Chinese imports, rather than the 10 percent previously touted, reports said Tuesday.
The US imposed tariffs of 25 percent on US$34 billion of Chinese products earlier this month, with plans to add another US$16 billion of imports on Tuesday.
Trump initially threatened to levy 10 percent on an additional US$200 billion but that figure may now rise to 25 percent, sources told the Washington Post and Bloomberg.
It would represent a ramping up of pressure over Washington’s trade standoff with Beijing.
In Beijing Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Wednesday that “blackmail and pressure from the US side will never work on China”.
“If the US takes measures to further escalate this situation, we will surely take counter-measures to firmly uphold our legitimate rights and interests,” he told a regular briefing.
In 2017 the United States had a US$376 billion trade deficit with China, which it is keen to reduce.
Trump recently threatened to slap punitive tariffs on all Chinese exports to the US, which amounted to more than US$500 billion last year.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
People are responding to Donald Trump's claim that 'collusion is not a crime' - Independent
August 1, 2018.
People are responding to Donald Trump's claim that 'collusion is not a crime'
Posted about 23 hours ago by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
There’s honestly not a lot left to say about Donald Trump’s Twitter account.
It seems that everything he ever writes is destined to make headline news - from ‘covfefe’ to sassy takedowns of Meryl Streep, there’s a wealth of meme-worthy material which rarely escapes scrutiny.
But this morning’s misstep was more concerning.
Not only did he accuse (for approximately the millionth time) Hillary Clinton of collusion, he also made a factually dubious claim: that collusion is not a crime.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
9:58 PM - Jul 31, 2018
This information seemingly came courtesy of lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who also went viral this week for tweeting the word ‘you’.
Yes, really.
There’s a lot to unpack here: if collusion isn’t a crime, why is he so determined to crucify Clinton for it? Will the nickname ‘Crooked Clinton’ ever catch on? Is this just another example of the President trying to avoid accountability for his alleged ties to Russia by arguing that the whole investigation is based on nothing?
Apparently so.
Shortly after Trump tweeted, Global News stepped in to fact-check his claims.
Although their exploration of the law acknowledges that ‘election collusion’ actually isn’t a precise legal term, it goes on to unpack the allegations made against Trump and finds that, in the context of the ongoing FBI investigation, his reported collusion could definitely have legal consequences.
The article concludes:
In other words, ‘collusion’ might be shorthand. But if it relates to Russia and U.S. elections, it can still be very much against the law.
Now that’s cleared up, it’s time to look at the inevitable slew of hilarious responses that ensued.
Some made jokes about the president’s willingness to defend his own missteps whilst simultaneously placing blame on others.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
Others made jokes linked to his recent claim that he would introduce tax cuts for the mega-rich, or just generally outlined his willingness to flip-flop on his statements.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
dylan
✔
@dyllyp
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Donald Trump in 2016: Lock Hillary up for collusion!
Donald Trump in 2017: There was no collusion with the Russians!
Donald Trump in 2018: Collusion is not a crime!
I hope they let you tweet from prison, because this shit is hysterical.
12:04 AM - Aug 1, 2018
Matthew Yglesias
✔
@mattyglesias
Small brain: No collusion
Big brain: Collusion isn’t illegal
Galaxy brain: Hillary did the collusion
10:34 PM - Jul 31, 2018 · Washington, DC
Jokes aside, people were quick to point out that the issue was related to language as opposed to actual legislation.
‘Election collusion’ might not technically be a crime, but conspiracy is.
Brian Krassenstein
@krassenstein
Trump this morning: "Collusion is not a crime."
Yeah but...
'Conspiracy to defraud the United States'
and
'Conspiracy to commit Fraud and related activity in connection with computers'
ARE CRIMES!!
11:53 PM - Jul 31, 2018
People are responding to Donald Trump's claim that 'collusion is not a crime'
Posted about 23 hours ago by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
There’s honestly not a lot left to say about Donald Trump’s Twitter account.
It seems that everything he ever writes is destined to make headline news - from ‘covfefe’ to sassy takedowns of Meryl Streep, there’s a wealth of meme-worthy material which rarely escapes scrutiny.
But this morning’s misstep was more concerning.
Not only did he accuse (for approximately the millionth time) Hillary Clinton of collusion, he also made a factually dubious claim: that collusion is not a crime.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
9:58 PM - Jul 31, 2018
This information seemingly came courtesy of lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who also went viral this week for tweeting the word ‘you’.
Yes, really.
There’s a lot to unpack here: if collusion isn’t a crime, why is he so determined to crucify Clinton for it? Will the nickname ‘Crooked Clinton’ ever catch on? Is this just another example of the President trying to avoid accountability for his alleged ties to Russia by arguing that the whole investigation is based on nothing?
Apparently so.
Shortly after Trump tweeted, Global News stepped in to fact-check his claims.
Although their exploration of the law acknowledges that ‘election collusion’ actually isn’t a precise legal term, it goes on to unpack the allegations made against Trump and finds that, in the context of the ongoing FBI investigation, his reported collusion could definitely have legal consequences.
The article concludes:
In other words, ‘collusion’ might be shorthand. But if it relates to Russia and U.S. elections, it can still be very much against the law.
Now that’s cleared up, it’s time to look at the inevitable slew of hilarious responses that ensued.
Some made jokes about the president’s willingness to defend his own missteps whilst simultaneously placing blame on others.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
Others made jokes linked to his recent claim that he would introduce tax cuts for the mega-rich, or just generally outlined his willingness to flip-flop on his statements.
TechnicallyRon
✔
@TechnicallyRon
STEALING A TIGER FROM THE ZOO IS NOT A CRIME BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER I DIDN'T STEAL A TIGER FROM THE ZOO BUT HILARY DID AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE STEALING TIGERS FROM THE ZOO IS ILLEGAL.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Collusion is not a crime, but that doesn’t matter because there was No Collusion (except by Crooked Hillary and the Democrats)!
11:19 PM - Jul 31, 2018
dylan
✔
@dyllyp
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
Donald Trump in 2016: Lock Hillary up for collusion!
Donald Trump in 2017: There was no collusion with the Russians!
Donald Trump in 2018: Collusion is not a crime!
I hope they let you tweet from prison, because this shit is hysterical.
12:04 AM - Aug 1, 2018
Matthew Yglesias
✔
@mattyglesias
Small brain: No collusion
Big brain: Collusion isn’t illegal
Galaxy brain: Hillary did the collusion
10:34 PM - Jul 31, 2018 · Washington, DC
Jokes aside, people were quick to point out that the issue was related to language as opposed to actual legislation.
‘Election collusion’ might not technically be a crime, but conspiracy is.
Brian Krassenstein
@krassenstein
Trump this morning: "Collusion is not a crime."
Yeah but...
'Conspiracy to defraud the United States'
and
'Conspiracy to commit Fraud and related activity in connection with computers'
ARE CRIMES!!
11:53 PM - Jul 31, 2018
The One Man Putin Can’t Get Out of His Head - Bloomberg
The One Man Putin Can’t Get Out of His Head
Bill Browder says renewed threats from Russia mean his efforts to punish its kleptocrats are working.
By Joe Nocera
August 1, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
“A real deterrent for bad behavior.” Photographer: Bertrand Guay/AFP/Getty Images
Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. He is co-author of “Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA.”
It’s just amazing how badly Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to put Bill Browder behind bars.
You know who Browder is, don’t you? He’s the hedge fund manager 1 who set up shop in Russia just as the country was privatizing, only to later become a critic of its oligarchs, which resulted in his being run out of the country, after which a handful of Russian officials “took over” his company and used it, in classic Russian fashion, to claim a phony $230 million tax refund. Which they received within 24 hours.
Although Browder persuaded most of his staff to move to London with him, his outside counsel, Sergei Magnitsky, refused to leave and instead investigated the tax fraud, after which he was tossed in prison, where his health deteriorated amid the brutal conditions and he died eight months later, at 37, apparently murdered by his captors.
Browder vowed to devote himself to avenging Magnitsky’s death, and began a worldwide campaign to have nations pass something called the “Magnitsky Act,” which denies visas and freezes the assets of human rights abusers, starting with the officials involved in Magnitsky’s death. It became law in the U.S. in 2012. Since then, an additional six countries have enacted their own Magnitsky Act, with nine more teed up, including Germany, Sweden and Australia. Meanwhile, Browder wrote a best-selling memoir in 2015, “Red Notice,” and has worked tirelessly to spotlight Russia’s human rights and rule-of-law abuses.
Yeah, that guy.
The Magnitsky Act has messed with the heads of Putin and the Russian elite like nothing else. The economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Europe after Russia’s takeover of Crimea scarcely compare. Economic sanctions merely hurt the Russian population. The Magnitsky Act hit Putin and his cronies where it hurt: in their pocketbooks. Any Russian with wealth keeps most of it outside the country. And most wealthy Russians own property in places like London, Miami and New York. The Magnitsky Act prevents the elites from accessing their money and visiting their property. From the Russian point of view, it is galling that this one man has been able to so humiliate the Russian elite. And Putin wants revenge.
Just a few weeks ago, during the Helsinki summit, Putin said he would be willing to allow special counsel Robert Mueller to question the Russian hackers he’d indicted if Russia could interrogate “certain U.S. officials it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs,” as the Washington Post put it. (“An incredible offer,” replied a clueless President Donald Trump before being wised up when he returned to Washington.) Who were those U.S. officials? With the exception of former ambassador Michael McFaul, they were all associated with the passage of the Magnitsky Act, starting with Browder, whom Putin ludicrously accused during the press conference of avoiding taxes on $1.5 billion and contributing $400 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Indeed, Russian prosecutors have already tried Browder twice in absentia, sentencing him to nine years in prison each time. (Prosecutors also convicted Magnistky — posthumously! — of tax fraud.) In May, during a trip to Spain, Browder was detained by the police after Russia issued an arrest warrant via Interpol. It was the sixth time the Russian government has attempted to use Interpol, the international agency that facilities police cooperation, to nab Browder. Interpol has consistently rejected Russia’s efforts, and the Spanish police released Browder once Interpol intervened.
In July, about the same time as the summit, a Russian prosecutor said that the country would redouble its efforts to capture Browder — “He shouldn’t sleep peacefully at night,” the prosecutor said — and sent out a seventh Interpol request. Late last week, the ministry of foreign affairs announced that it was opening yet another case against Browder, describing him as the head of a “criminal organization.” (A few years earlier, a Russian company hired Fusion GPS — the same political research firm that hired Christopher Steele to compile the Trump dossier — to collect “evidence” against Browder, which is now regularly cited by the government.) On Monday, Bloomberg News reported that a Supreme Court justice in Russia had rejected a settlement reached by HSBC with Russian prosecutors. HSBC’s crime? It was the trustee for Browder’s hedge fund when he operated in Russia.
After last week’s announcement by the ministry of foreign affairs, I called Browder. Over the years, I’ve written about him and the Magnitsky Act; it now occurred to me that this constant harassment by Russia had to be affecting his life. It was.
He told me that the prosecutor’s dark warning was a reminder — not that he really needed one — that he has to be constantly looking over his shoulder. He has full-time security, of course. And he is very careful when he travels — he told me that he recently decided to skip a planned trip to Italy because the new prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, is “pro-Putin.” When I asked if he was worried Putin might try to have him killed, as he has allegedly done to various others he viewed as enemies, he didn’t shrug off the idea. But he said he thought was protected by his visibility — “If they kill me, everyone will know who did it,” he said.
Then again, Browder went on to say, every time Putin and the Russian government take steps against him, it proves the potency of the law as an instrument to punish human rights abusers. “We couldn’t get better recognition of how powerful this tool is. It is a total vindication of all our efforts these past years.”
“The primary objective of Putin and his senior people,” Browder went on, “is to steal money. They are kleptocrats in the truest sense. But to do it, they have to commit grave human rights abuses. And once they have the money they have to move it to the west, where there are property rights. Because the Magnitsky Act freezes that money, it puts their business model at risk. That’s why it makes them so crazy.”
So what’s his end game?
“My goal is for every civilized country in the world to have a Magnitsky Act and to use it aggressively,” he replied. “I want this to become a pedestrian piece of policy that is enacted almost routinely, so that it becomes a real deterrent for bad behavior.”
One final thought about the Magnitsky Act. Remember the aftermath of that infamous 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, the one where Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who claimed she had dirt on Clinton? When the meeting was later exposed, Trump Jr. claimed that all they talked about was “Russian adoption policy.” That was code for the Magnitsky Act. Russia has banned adoptions of Russian children by Americans as a retaliatory measure. It seems likely that Veselnitskaya, whose clients include the company that commissioned the Fusion GPS report against Browder — and who has ties to the Kremlin — was probing to see if Trump might be willing to trade an end to the Magnitsky Act for lifting the adoption ban if he became president.
That meeting, of course, is now an important piece of Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the campaign and Russia. Which means that if, in the end, that investigation does serious damage to the Trump presidency, you may well have Bill Browder to blame.
Or thank, as the case may be.
Bill Browder says renewed threats from Russia mean his efforts to punish its kleptocrats are working.
By Joe Nocera
August 1, 2018, 7:00 PM GMT+10
“A real deterrent for bad behavior.” Photographer: Bertrand Guay/AFP/Getty Images
Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. He is co-author of “Indentured: The Inside Story of the Rebellion Against the NCAA.”
It’s just amazing how badly Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to put Bill Browder behind bars.
You know who Browder is, don’t you? He’s the hedge fund manager 1 who set up shop in Russia just as the country was privatizing, only to later become a critic of its oligarchs, which resulted in his being run out of the country, after which a handful of Russian officials “took over” his company and used it, in classic Russian fashion, to claim a phony $230 million tax refund. Which they received within 24 hours.
Although Browder persuaded most of his staff to move to London with him, his outside counsel, Sergei Magnitsky, refused to leave and instead investigated the tax fraud, after which he was tossed in prison, where his health deteriorated amid the brutal conditions and he died eight months later, at 37, apparently murdered by his captors.
Browder vowed to devote himself to avenging Magnitsky’s death, and began a worldwide campaign to have nations pass something called the “Magnitsky Act,” which denies visas and freezes the assets of human rights abusers, starting with the officials involved in Magnitsky’s death. It became law in the U.S. in 2012. Since then, an additional six countries have enacted their own Magnitsky Act, with nine more teed up, including Germany, Sweden and Australia. Meanwhile, Browder wrote a best-selling memoir in 2015, “Red Notice,” and has worked tirelessly to spotlight Russia’s human rights and rule-of-law abuses.
Yeah, that guy.
The Magnitsky Act has messed with the heads of Putin and the Russian elite like nothing else. The economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Europe after Russia’s takeover of Crimea scarcely compare. Economic sanctions merely hurt the Russian population. The Magnitsky Act hit Putin and his cronies where it hurt: in their pocketbooks. Any Russian with wealth keeps most of it outside the country. And most wealthy Russians own property in places like London, Miami and New York. The Magnitsky Act prevents the elites from accessing their money and visiting their property. From the Russian point of view, it is galling that this one man has been able to so humiliate the Russian elite. And Putin wants revenge.
Just a few weeks ago, during the Helsinki summit, Putin said he would be willing to allow special counsel Robert Mueller to question the Russian hackers he’d indicted if Russia could interrogate “certain U.S. officials it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs,” as the Washington Post put it. (“An incredible offer,” replied a clueless President Donald Trump before being wised up when he returned to Washington.) Who were those U.S. officials? With the exception of former ambassador Michael McFaul, they were all associated with the passage of the Magnitsky Act, starting with Browder, whom Putin ludicrously accused during the press conference of avoiding taxes on $1.5 billion and contributing $400 million to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Indeed, Russian prosecutors have already tried Browder twice in absentia, sentencing him to nine years in prison each time. (Prosecutors also convicted Magnistky — posthumously! — of tax fraud.) In May, during a trip to Spain, Browder was detained by the police after Russia issued an arrest warrant via Interpol. It was the sixth time the Russian government has attempted to use Interpol, the international agency that facilities police cooperation, to nab Browder. Interpol has consistently rejected Russia’s efforts, and the Spanish police released Browder once Interpol intervened.
In July, about the same time as the summit, a Russian prosecutor said that the country would redouble its efforts to capture Browder — “He shouldn’t sleep peacefully at night,” the prosecutor said — and sent out a seventh Interpol request. Late last week, the ministry of foreign affairs announced that it was opening yet another case against Browder, describing him as the head of a “criminal organization.” (A few years earlier, a Russian company hired Fusion GPS — the same political research firm that hired Christopher Steele to compile the Trump dossier — to collect “evidence” against Browder, which is now regularly cited by the government.) On Monday, Bloomberg News reported that a Supreme Court justice in Russia had rejected a settlement reached by HSBC with Russian prosecutors. HSBC’s crime? It was the trustee for Browder’s hedge fund when he operated in Russia.
After last week’s announcement by the ministry of foreign affairs, I called Browder. Over the years, I’ve written about him and the Magnitsky Act; it now occurred to me that this constant harassment by Russia had to be affecting his life. It was.
He told me that the prosecutor’s dark warning was a reminder — not that he really needed one — that he has to be constantly looking over his shoulder. He has full-time security, of course. And he is very careful when he travels — he told me that he recently decided to skip a planned trip to Italy because the new prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, is “pro-Putin.” When I asked if he was worried Putin might try to have him killed, as he has allegedly done to various others he viewed as enemies, he didn’t shrug off the idea. But he said he thought was protected by his visibility — “If they kill me, everyone will know who did it,” he said.
Then again, Browder went on to say, every time Putin and the Russian government take steps against him, it proves the potency of the law as an instrument to punish human rights abusers. “We couldn’t get better recognition of how powerful this tool is. It is a total vindication of all our efforts these past years.”
“The primary objective of Putin and his senior people,” Browder went on, “is to steal money. They are kleptocrats in the truest sense. But to do it, they have to commit grave human rights abuses. And once they have the money they have to move it to the west, where there are property rights. Because the Magnitsky Act freezes that money, it puts their business model at risk. That’s why it makes them so crazy.”
So what’s his end game?
“My goal is for every civilized country in the world to have a Magnitsky Act and to use it aggressively,” he replied. “I want this to become a pedestrian piece of policy that is enacted almost routinely, so that it becomes a real deterrent for bad behavior.”
One final thought about the Magnitsky Act. Remember the aftermath of that infamous 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, the one where Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who claimed she had dirt on Clinton? When the meeting was later exposed, Trump Jr. claimed that all they talked about was “Russian adoption policy.” That was code for the Magnitsky Act. Russia has banned adoptions of Russian children by Americans as a retaliatory measure. It seems likely that Veselnitskaya, whose clients include the company that commissioned the Fusion GPS report against Browder — and who has ties to the Kremlin — was probing to see if Trump might be willing to trade an end to the Magnitsky Act for lifting the adoption ban if he became president.
That meeting, of course, is now an important piece of Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the campaign and Russia. Which means that if, in the end, that investigation does serious damage to the Trump presidency, you may well have Bill Browder to blame.
Or thank, as the case may be.
Donald Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally 'Never been shopping I guess,' says critic - Independent
August 1, 2018.
Donald Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
'Never been shopping I guess,' says critic
Harriet Agerholm
@HarrietAgerholm
Rihanna appears on British Vogue with super slim eyebrows
Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
Ellie Soutter took own life after missing flight to training, says dad
Gay valedictorian rejected by parents going to college after campaign
Donald Trump has wrongly claimed Americans need photo identification to buy groceries, prompting a slew of accusations he is out of touch with the lives of ordinary people.
The US president made the remarks in a freewheeling speech at a Florida rally, during which he defended his trade policy and accused Democrats of obstructing his agenda.
Mr Trump was railing against the idea of non-US citizens voting and advocating stricter voting laws when he said IDs were required for everything else, including food shopping.
“Only American citizens should vote in American elections, which is why the time has come for voter ID, like everything else,” he said at the event at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa.
Manafort squares off with Mueller and could face decades in prison
“If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”
Photo IDs are not needed to by groceries in shops and supermarkets in the United States, although they are required for purchases such as alcohol, cigarettes or some medicines.
“Where on earth does @realDonaldTrump buy groceries?! (Just kidding, we all know he doesn’t buy groceries),” said Boston City councillor Matt O’Malley on Twitter.
“Wow, never been shopping I guess, unless he is now planning extreme grocery vetting,” actor and screenwriter Kathy Gori said.
Referring to the US president’s discontinued meat brand, Comedian Adam Heath Avitable said: ”I hate having to show photo ID, provide a blood sample, and pee into a cup before I can buy my Trump steaks at the grocery store.”
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about when the billionaire president last bought groceries or anything else himself.
During a raucous rally aimed at boosting support for two Florida Republicans before the state’s primary, Mr Trump also defended his trade policy amid rising tensions with China.
He accused the country of having “targeted our farmers”, saying it was “not good, not nice”.
“You know what our farmers are saying? ‘It’s OK, we can take it,” he added.
Mr Trump’s administration last week announced plans for $12bn (£9bn) in temporary aid to help farmers deal with retaliatory tariffs from trading partners in response to new US policies.
At the Florida rally the US president backed Republican Ron DeSantis in a competitive primary for governor and backed the Senate campaign of his longtime ally, Governor Rick Scott.
“We have to make sure Rick Scott wins and wins big,” Mr Trump told the crowd. “It’s time to vote Bill Nelson out of office.”
Mr Trump, who is seeking Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in the fall, made the case voters need to elect more Republicans, pointing to Democratic opposition to his pick.
Democrats “don’t want to give Trump any victory,” he said. “They will do anything they can to not help the Trump agenda.”
Associated Press contributed to this report
Donald Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
'Never been shopping I guess,' says critic
Harriet Agerholm
@HarrietAgerholm
Rihanna appears on British Vogue with super slim eyebrows
Trump claims Americans need ID to buy groceries at Florida rally
Ellie Soutter took own life after missing flight to training, says dad
Gay valedictorian rejected by parents going to college after campaign
Donald Trump has wrongly claimed Americans need photo identification to buy groceries, prompting a slew of accusations he is out of touch with the lives of ordinary people.
The US president made the remarks in a freewheeling speech at a Florida rally, during which he defended his trade policy and accused Democrats of obstructing his agenda.
Mr Trump was railing against the idea of non-US citizens voting and advocating stricter voting laws when he said IDs were required for everything else, including food shopping.
“Only American citizens should vote in American elections, which is why the time has come for voter ID, like everything else,” he said at the event at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa.
Manafort squares off with Mueller and could face decades in prison
“If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture.”
Photo IDs are not needed to by groceries in shops and supermarkets in the United States, although they are required for purchases such as alcohol, cigarettes or some medicines.
“Where on earth does @realDonaldTrump buy groceries?! (Just kidding, we all know he doesn’t buy groceries),” said Boston City councillor Matt O’Malley on Twitter.
“Wow, never been shopping I guess, unless he is now planning extreme grocery vetting,” actor and screenwriter Kathy Gori said.
Referring to the US president’s discontinued meat brand, Comedian Adam Heath Avitable said: ”I hate having to show photo ID, provide a blood sample, and pee into a cup before I can buy my Trump steaks at the grocery store.”
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about when the billionaire president last bought groceries or anything else himself.
During a raucous rally aimed at boosting support for two Florida Republicans before the state’s primary, Mr Trump also defended his trade policy amid rising tensions with China.
He accused the country of having “targeted our farmers”, saying it was “not good, not nice”.
“You know what our farmers are saying? ‘It’s OK, we can take it,” he added.
Mr Trump’s administration last week announced plans for $12bn (£9bn) in temporary aid to help farmers deal with retaliatory tariffs from trading partners in response to new US policies.
At the Florida rally the US president backed Republican Ron DeSantis in a competitive primary for governor and backed the Senate campaign of his longtime ally, Governor Rick Scott.
“We have to make sure Rick Scott wins and wins big,” Mr Trump told the crowd. “It’s time to vote Bill Nelson out of office.”
Mr Trump, who is seeking Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in the fall, made the case voters need to elect more Republicans, pointing to Democratic opposition to his pick.
Democrats “don’t want to give Trump any victory,” he said. “They will do anything they can to not help the Trump agenda.”
Associated Press contributed to this report
Lloyds Bank sets aside another £460m for PPI claims - BBC News
August 1, 2018.
Lloyds Bank sets aside another £460m for PPI claims
Lloyds Banking Group has said it has put aside another £460m in costs for payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling claims.
That means it has now allocated more than £19.2bn to settle the claims. The bank said it expected 13,000 PPI complaints a week until August 2019.
The provision came as Lloyds said its profits for the first six months of the year rose by nearly a quarter.
It made pre-tax profits of £3.1bn, 23% higher than the same time last year.
Chief executive António Horta-Osório said: "We have delivered another strong and sustainable financial performance with increased statutory profits, higher returns and a strong capital build."
Lloyds said the latest PPI charge was "largely driven by a potentially higher total volume of complaints and associated administration costs due to higher reactive complaint volumes received over the past six months and ongoing volatility".
It added: "The remaining provision is consistent with an average of approximately 13,000 complaints per week through to the industry deadline of the end of August 2019."
It said that every extra 1,000 complaints a week above that level would cost it another £150m.
Branches pledge
The bank said it had sold an estimated 16 million PPI policies since 2000, including policies that were not mis-sold and those that had been successfully claimed upon.
It has already dealt with about 53% of those policies.
Analysis:
by BBC personal finance reporter Kevin Peachey
PPI mis-selling was a huge financial scandal and now, for many, the reason for a lot of unwanted calls about claiming compensation.
But it is worth stepping back for a minute to look at the staggering numbers involved.
Latest figures from the regulator show that in May alone, compensation of more than £400m was paid out by the industry.
No wonder banks were so delighted when a claims deadline was set for 29 August 2019.
On the flipside, claims management companies (CMCs) are furious. This week a trade body for CMCs claimed that half of us are unaware of the cut-off date.
They will be busy in the next 12 months, so expect more calls.
Despite those efforts, many people are missing out on compensation that is rightfully theirs and that they can claim themselves without charge.
Lloyds said it was committed to maintaining the UK's largest network of branches, despite its announcement of 49 branch closures in April.
It said it also had the largest digital bank in the UK, with active users increasing to almost 14 million, including about 10 million mobile banking users.
Lloyds said its balance sheet remained strong, with its common equity tier one capital ratio increasing to 15.1% pre-dividend.
It said it would pay an interim dividend of 1.07 pence a share.
The government sold its last shares in Lloyds in May 2017, eight years after pumping in £20bn to save it.
Lloyds' share price rose nearly 2% in early trading, but it remains lower than it was a year ago.
Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "António Horta-Osório must be wondering just what he has to pull out of the bag to push the stock price up.
"Since taking over the reins in 2011, Horta-Osório has presided over a bank which has swung from an annual loss of £260m to a profit of £3.5bn. The share price, meanwhile, is at roughly the same level it stood at when he became CEO.
"That's largely because Brexit means some investors don't want to touch UK domestic companies like Lloyds with a bargepole.
"While this sentiment doesn't look like shifting any time soon, Lloyds shareholders are being paid to wait. The bank is expected to deliver a total dividend of 3.44p this year, equivalent to a 5.5% income yield. Not bad, if you can get it."
Lloyds Bank sets aside another £460m for PPI claims
Lloyds Banking Group has said it has put aside another £460m in costs for payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling claims.
That means it has now allocated more than £19.2bn to settle the claims. The bank said it expected 13,000 PPI complaints a week until August 2019.
The provision came as Lloyds said its profits for the first six months of the year rose by nearly a quarter.
It made pre-tax profits of £3.1bn, 23% higher than the same time last year.
Chief executive António Horta-Osório said: "We have delivered another strong and sustainable financial performance with increased statutory profits, higher returns and a strong capital build."
Lloyds said the latest PPI charge was "largely driven by a potentially higher total volume of complaints and associated administration costs due to higher reactive complaint volumes received over the past six months and ongoing volatility".
It added: "The remaining provision is consistent with an average of approximately 13,000 complaints per week through to the industry deadline of the end of August 2019."
It said that every extra 1,000 complaints a week above that level would cost it another £150m.
Branches pledge
The bank said it had sold an estimated 16 million PPI policies since 2000, including policies that were not mis-sold and those that had been successfully claimed upon.
It has already dealt with about 53% of those policies.
Analysis:
by BBC personal finance reporter Kevin Peachey
PPI mis-selling was a huge financial scandal and now, for many, the reason for a lot of unwanted calls about claiming compensation.
But it is worth stepping back for a minute to look at the staggering numbers involved.
Latest figures from the regulator show that in May alone, compensation of more than £400m was paid out by the industry.
No wonder banks were so delighted when a claims deadline was set for 29 August 2019.
On the flipside, claims management companies (CMCs) are furious. This week a trade body for CMCs claimed that half of us are unaware of the cut-off date.
They will be busy in the next 12 months, so expect more calls.
Despite those efforts, many people are missing out on compensation that is rightfully theirs and that they can claim themselves without charge.
Lloyds said it was committed to maintaining the UK's largest network of branches, despite its announcement of 49 branch closures in April.
It said it also had the largest digital bank in the UK, with active users increasing to almost 14 million, including about 10 million mobile banking users.
Lloyds said its balance sheet remained strong, with its common equity tier one capital ratio increasing to 15.1% pre-dividend.
It said it would pay an interim dividend of 1.07 pence a share.
The government sold its last shares in Lloyds in May 2017, eight years after pumping in £20bn to save it.
Lloyds' share price rose nearly 2% in early trading, but it remains lower than it was a year ago.
Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "António Horta-Osório must be wondering just what he has to pull out of the bag to push the stock price up.
"Since taking over the reins in 2011, Horta-Osório has presided over a bank which has swung from an annual loss of £260m to a profit of £3.5bn. The share price, meanwhile, is at roughly the same level it stood at when he became CEO.
"That's largely because Brexit means some investors don't want to touch UK domestic companies like Lloyds with a bargepole.
"While this sentiment doesn't look like shifting any time soon, Lloyds shareholders are being paid to wait. The bank is expected to deliver a total dividend of 3.44p this year, equivalent to a 5.5% income yield. Not bad, if you can get it."
A US federal judge in Seattle has blocked the release of software that allows consumers to 3D-print firearms. - BBC News
August 1, 2018
US release of 3D-printed gun software blocked
A US federal judge in Seattle has blocked the release of software that allows consumers to 3D-print firearms.
Gun access advocacy group Defense Distributed published downloadable gun blueprints five days early on Friday.
The firm had reached a settlement with the Trump administration in June to allow it to legally publish the plans.
But eight states and the District of Columbia sued the government on Monday to block the settlement, arguing the untraceable guns were a safety risk.
US District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order halting the release hours before the 1 August deadline, saying the blueprints could fall into the wrong hands.
3D-printed firearms, explained
Will 3D printing change my world?
"There are 3D printers in public colleges and public spaces and there is the likelihood of potential irreparable harm," he said.
Judge Lasnik scheduled another hearing for 10 August.
Although Defense Distributed had been expected to publish the blueprints on Wednesday, it uploaded files for nine types of gun to its website last week. Between Friday and Sunday, more than 1,000 people downloaded the files for building a gun apparently modelled on the AR-15 rifle - the gun used in many of America's mass shootings.
Why is the release being blocked?
The lawsuit against the Trump administration was filed in Seattle by the Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland and District of Columbia are involved.
The complaint calls the 1 August release of gun blueprints "a bell that cannot be un-rung".
It raises concerns about national security implications and the safety of citizens.
The Liberator became the first gun to be made wholly with 3D-printed parts in 2013
The 3-D printed guns are untraceable and no background checks are required. So there are fears that known criminals could easily access them.
Security experts also fear that the DIY guns could evade metal detectors used in public buildings and airports.
What's been the reaction?
Speaking outside the court, Washington attorney general Bob Ferguson called the judge's decision a "complete, total victory".
"Everything we asked for we got from Judge Lasnik," he said, and called on President Trump to make it "unlawful for anyone to make this information available for anyone".
The president had tweeted on Tuesday before the ruling that selling 3D guns to the public "doesn't seem to make much sense" after settling with Defense Distributed in June.
But the group's founder Cody Wilson told the BBC the 3D gun was not a threat to public safety.
"I haven't watched any crimes be committed with it," he said.
"As far as I know only one person's ever been arrested because of this gun and it was a gentleman in Japan who was curious about making it."
How was the printable gun developed?
The arguments began in 2013 when Mr Wilson, a self-styled crypto-anarchist, showed off the world's first 3D-printed gun.
Files showing how to replicate the process were immediately made available on the Defense Distributed website and downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.
It led the US State Department to order them to be removed from the internet.
There followed a four-year legal battle, with Defense Distributed joining forces with the Second Amendment Foundation - which defends the right to own guns - to sue the State Department.
Last month, in a surprise move, it won its case, with the US Justice Department ruling that Americans may "access, discuss, use and reproduce" the technical data.
Mr Wilson hailed his victory as the beginning of "the age of the downloadable gun".
But critics are concerned it will see a massive rise in so-called ghost guns, unregistered weapons the government is unaware of and is unable to trace.
Since the legal action began, Defense Distributed has been working on new gun designs and has also created a milling device - known as Ghost Gunner - that can turn parts purchased online into a fully working weapon.
US release of 3D-printed gun software blocked
A US federal judge in Seattle has blocked the release of software that allows consumers to 3D-print firearms.
Gun access advocacy group Defense Distributed published downloadable gun blueprints five days early on Friday.
The firm had reached a settlement with the Trump administration in June to allow it to legally publish the plans.
But eight states and the District of Columbia sued the government on Monday to block the settlement, arguing the untraceable guns were a safety risk.
US District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order halting the release hours before the 1 August deadline, saying the blueprints could fall into the wrong hands.
3D-printed firearms, explained
Will 3D printing change my world?
"There are 3D printers in public colleges and public spaces and there is the likelihood of potential irreparable harm," he said.
Judge Lasnik scheduled another hearing for 10 August.
Although Defense Distributed had been expected to publish the blueprints on Wednesday, it uploaded files for nine types of gun to its website last week. Between Friday and Sunday, more than 1,000 people downloaded the files for building a gun apparently modelled on the AR-15 rifle - the gun used in many of America's mass shootings.
Why is the release being blocked?
The lawsuit against the Trump administration was filed in Seattle by the Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland and District of Columbia are involved.
The complaint calls the 1 August release of gun blueprints "a bell that cannot be un-rung".
It raises concerns about national security implications and the safety of citizens.
The Liberator became the first gun to be made wholly with 3D-printed parts in 2013
The 3-D printed guns are untraceable and no background checks are required. So there are fears that known criminals could easily access them.
Security experts also fear that the DIY guns could evade metal detectors used in public buildings and airports.
What's been the reaction?
Speaking outside the court, Washington attorney general Bob Ferguson called the judge's decision a "complete, total victory".
"Everything we asked for we got from Judge Lasnik," he said, and called on President Trump to make it "unlawful for anyone to make this information available for anyone".
The president had tweeted on Tuesday before the ruling that selling 3D guns to the public "doesn't seem to make much sense" after settling with Defense Distributed in June.
But the group's founder Cody Wilson told the BBC the 3D gun was not a threat to public safety.
"I haven't watched any crimes be committed with it," he said.
"As far as I know only one person's ever been arrested because of this gun and it was a gentleman in Japan who was curious about making it."
How was the printable gun developed?
The arguments began in 2013 when Mr Wilson, a self-styled crypto-anarchist, showed off the world's first 3D-printed gun.
Files showing how to replicate the process were immediately made available on the Defense Distributed website and downloaded hundreds of thousands of times.
It led the US State Department to order them to be removed from the internet.
There followed a four-year legal battle, with Defense Distributed joining forces with the Second Amendment Foundation - which defends the right to own guns - to sue the State Department.
Last month, in a surprise move, it won its case, with the US Justice Department ruling that Americans may "access, discuss, use and reproduce" the technical data.
Mr Wilson hailed his victory as the beginning of "the age of the downloadable gun".
But critics are concerned it will see a massive rise in so-called ghost guns, unregistered weapons the government is unaware of and is unable to trace.
Since the legal action began, Defense Distributed has been working on new gun designs and has also created a milling device - known as Ghost Gunner - that can turn parts purchased online into a fully working weapon.
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Lawmakers struggle with response to Trump-Putin relationship - CBS News
July 31, 2018, 6:02 AM
Lawmakers struggle with response to Trump-Putin relationship
Congress is producing an unusual outpouring of bills, resolutions and new sanctions proposals to push back at President Donald Trump's approach to Vladimir Putin, shore up relations with NATO allies and prevent Russian interference in the midterm election.
But it remains uncertain if any of their efforts will yield results. Lawmakers are struggling with internal party divisions as well as their own onslaught of proposals as they try to move beyond a symbolic rebuke of Trump's interactions with the Russian president and exert influence both at home and abroad. And while many Democrats are eager for quick votes, some Republicans prefer none at all.
As Trump and Putin weigh another face-to-face meeting, lawmakers in both parties — particularly in the Senate — appear motivated to act.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a rare warning that Russia "better quit messing around" in U.S. elections as he tasked two Senate committees to start working on sanctions-related legislation and other measures to deter Russia.
In the House, Speaker Paul Ryan joined McConnell in saying that Putin would not be welcome on Capitol Hill, though he did not push forward any Russia-related legislation before his chamber recessed for August.
Still, the past few weeks have been one of the rare moments in the Trump era that Republicans and Democrats have jointly asserted the role of Congress as a counterweight to the administration.
"You look at the action of Congress since the summit in Helsinki, you find Democrats and Republicans both standing up and saying no," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., in an interview on C-SPAN with The Associated Press and The Washington Post.
For starters, there's a bipartisan push from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and others to "explicitly prohibit" the president from withdrawing from NATO without Senate approval.
Other senators are debating action to prevent meddling in the midterm election. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., call the protection of the election system a "national security priority."
Graham said it's "extremely important that Congress recognize the threat to our electoral system coming from Russia and act in a decisive way."
In addition, legislation from McCain and Cardin would require approval from Congress before Trump could reverse sanctions issued under the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which bans visas for travel and freezes assets of key Russians involved in alleged human rights abuses.
Russia's displeasure at the 2012 Magnitsky Act played into what Trump initially called an "incredible offer" from Putin at the summit to allow U.S. questioning of Russians indicted by the Justice Department for hacking Democratic emails. In return, Putin requested the ability to investigate Americans involved in the Magnitsky Act.
McCain called it a "perverse proposal" and Trump has since backed away from it.
With some 100 days before the midterm election, some say Congress is not acting fast enough.
One bill that has been given a go-ahead nod from McConnell is legislation from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., that attempts to warn Putin off more election interference by setting up tough new sanctions on Russia if it does try to intervene.
The measure is slowly making its way through the Senate Banking Committee, but some lawmakers in the House and Senate have raised concerns it casts too wide a net and could cause problems for allied nations that do business with Russia.
Rubio says he's willing to adjust the legislation to meet concerns, but says the goal is for Russia to understand there will be a price to pay for further election interference. He adds the legislation was introduced months before the Helsinki summit and isn't intended to embarrass or attack the president.
"I'm deeply concerned about their ability to interfere in our politics," Rubio said in an interview. "We want them to know what the price is going to be to make that choice."
The legislation would likely see overwhelming support, lawmakers in both parties say. But a vote is not scheduled.
Some symbolic measures on Russia have failed to make it out of the starting gate.
Already, the Senate has blocked a symbolic resolution from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., to reaffirm the findings of the American intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Twice over the past two weeks, Republicans objected to motions to advance the measure, saying they prefer a more strategic approach that goes beyond symbolic resolutions.
House Democrats were similarly thwarted in their attempts to slap new sanctions on anyone who has interfered in U.S. elections and bolster election security funds to the states as Republicans blocked those votes.
Key Republicans are panning more federal spending on election security. The GOP chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, said Monday that he worried federal funds would come with "strings attached" that would interfere with elections operations he believes should be left to the states.
Ryan says the U.S. has "learned a great deal" about Russian interference. "So, I think we're far better prepared today than we were just a couple of years ago."
But the Speaker added there's more for Congress to do.
Lawmakers struggle with response to Trump-Putin relationship
Congress is producing an unusual outpouring of bills, resolutions and new sanctions proposals to push back at President Donald Trump's approach to Vladimir Putin, shore up relations with NATO allies and prevent Russian interference in the midterm election.
But it remains uncertain if any of their efforts will yield results. Lawmakers are struggling with internal party divisions as well as their own onslaught of proposals as they try to move beyond a symbolic rebuke of Trump's interactions with the Russian president and exert influence both at home and abroad. And while many Democrats are eager for quick votes, some Republicans prefer none at all.
As Trump and Putin weigh another face-to-face meeting, lawmakers in both parties — particularly in the Senate — appear motivated to act.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a rare warning that Russia "better quit messing around" in U.S. elections as he tasked two Senate committees to start working on sanctions-related legislation and other measures to deter Russia.
In the House, Speaker Paul Ryan joined McConnell in saying that Putin would not be welcome on Capitol Hill, though he did not push forward any Russia-related legislation before his chamber recessed for August.
Still, the past few weeks have been one of the rare moments in the Trump era that Republicans and Democrats have jointly asserted the role of Congress as a counterweight to the administration.
"You look at the action of Congress since the summit in Helsinki, you find Democrats and Republicans both standing up and saying no," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., in an interview on C-SPAN with The Associated Press and The Washington Post.
For starters, there's a bipartisan push from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and others to "explicitly prohibit" the president from withdrawing from NATO without Senate approval.
Other senators are debating action to prevent meddling in the midterm election. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., call the protection of the election system a "national security priority."
Graham said it's "extremely important that Congress recognize the threat to our electoral system coming from Russia and act in a decisive way."
In addition, legislation from McCain and Cardin would require approval from Congress before Trump could reverse sanctions issued under the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which bans visas for travel and freezes assets of key Russians involved in alleged human rights abuses.
Russia's displeasure at the 2012 Magnitsky Act played into what Trump initially called an "incredible offer" from Putin at the summit to allow U.S. questioning of Russians indicted by the Justice Department for hacking Democratic emails. In return, Putin requested the ability to investigate Americans involved in the Magnitsky Act.
McCain called it a "perverse proposal" and Trump has since backed away from it.
With some 100 days before the midterm election, some say Congress is not acting fast enough.
One bill that has been given a go-ahead nod from McConnell is legislation from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., that attempts to warn Putin off more election interference by setting up tough new sanctions on Russia if it does try to intervene.
The measure is slowly making its way through the Senate Banking Committee, but some lawmakers in the House and Senate have raised concerns it casts too wide a net and could cause problems for allied nations that do business with Russia.
Rubio says he's willing to adjust the legislation to meet concerns, but says the goal is for Russia to understand there will be a price to pay for further election interference. He adds the legislation was introduced months before the Helsinki summit and isn't intended to embarrass or attack the president.
"I'm deeply concerned about their ability to interfere in our politics," Rubio said in an interview. "We want them to know what the price is going to be to make that choice."
The legislation would likely see overwhelming support, lawmakers in both parties say. But a vote is not scheduled.
Some symbolic measures on Russia have failed to make it out of the starting gate.
Already, the Senate has blocked a symbolic resolution from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., to reaffirm the findings of the American intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Twice over the past two weeks, Republicans objected to motions to advance the measure, saying they prefer a more strategic approach that goes beyond symbolic resolutions.
House Democrats were similarly thwarted in their attempts to slap new sanctions on anyone who has interfered in U.S. elections and bolster election security funds to the states as Republicans blocked those votes.
Key Republicans are panning more federal spending on election security. The GOP chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, said Monday that he worried federal funds would come with "strings attached" that would interfere with elections operations he believes should be left to the states.
Ryan says the U.S. has "learned a great deal" about Russian interference. "So, I think we're far better prepared today than we were just a couple of years ago."
But the Speaker added there's more for Congress to do.
EU slaps sanctions on six Russian groups over Crimea bridge - Reuters
JULY 31, 2018
EU slaps sanctions on six Russian groups over Crimea bridge
Reuters Staff
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union has imposed asset freezes on six Russian firms for their involvement in the construction of a new road-and-rail bridge linking Russia to the annexed Crimean peninsula which the bloc says is illegal.
Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 during an uprising which toppled Ukraine’s pro-Russian president. The West condemned the move as an illegal annexation and imposed sanctions on Moscow.
The $3.6 billion bridge across the Kerch strait, part of which was unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin in May, has drawn strong rebukes from the EU which says it is a further violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
FILE PHOTO: A general view shows a road-and-rail bridge, which is constructed to connect the Russian mainland with the Crimean peninsula, as a man walks in the waters of the Kerch Strait, Crimea April 14, 2018. REUTERS/Pavel Rebrov/File Photo
The six companies cited in Tuesday’s statement from the Council of the European Union include construction firms PJSC Mostotrest and CJSC VAD.
The firms will have their assets in the EU frozen and EU persons and entities will not be able to make funds available to them, the Council said.
“Through their actions they supported the consolidation of Russia’s control over the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula, which in turn further undermines the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine,” the Council said.
Ukraine’s foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin said he welcomed the additional sanctions.
“Important warning also for European businesses not to go down same slippery slope,” Klimkin wrote on Twitter.
The other companies targeted are engineering firm GPSM, Zaliv Shipyard and construction groups SGM and Stroygazmontazh Most OOO.
Reporting by Robert-Jan Bartunek; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky
EU slaps sanctions on six Russian groups over Crimea bridge
Reuters Staff
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union has imposed asset freezes on six Russian firms for their involvement in the construction of a new road-and-rail bridge linking Russia to the annexed Crimean peninsula which the bloc says is illegal.
Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 during an uprising which toppled Ukraine’s pro-Russian president. The West condemned the move as an illegal annexation and imposed sanctions on Moscow.
The $3.6 billion bridge across the Kerch strait, part of which was unveiled by Russian President Vladimir Putin in May, has drawn strong rebukes from the EU which says it is a further violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
FILE PHOTO: A general view shows a road-and-rail bridge, which is constructed to connect the Russian mainland with the Crimean peninsula, as a man walks in the waters of the Kerch Strait, Crimea April 14, 2018. REUTERS/Pavel Rebrov/File Photo
The six companies cited in Tuesday’s statement from the Council of the European Union include construction firms PJSC Mostotrest and CJSC VAD.
The firms will have their assets in the EU frozen and EU persons and entities will not be able to make funds available to them, the Council said.
“Through their actions they supported the consolidation of Russia’s control over the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula, which in turn further undermines the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine,” the Council said.
Ukraine’s foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin said he welcomed the additional sanctions.
“Important warning also for European businesses not to go down same slippery slope,” Klimkin wrote on Twitter.
The other companies targeted are engineering firm GPSM, Zaliv Shipyard and construction groups SGM and Stroygazmontazh Most OOO.
Reporting by Robert-Jan Bartunek; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky
China tempts Britain with free trade, says door to U.S. talks open - Reuters
JULY 30, 2018
China tempts Britain with free trade, says door to U.S. talks open
Ben Blanchard
BEIJING (Reuters) - China offered Britain talks on a post-Brexit free trade deal on Monday, reaching out to London as Beijing remains mired in an increasingly bitter trade war with Washington, even as a senior Chinese diplomat reiterated its door remained open for dialogue.
China has been looking for allies in its fight with the United States, initiated by the Trump administration, which says China’s high-tech industries have stolen intellectual property from American firms and demanded Beijing act to buy more U.S. products to reduce a $350 billion trade surplus.
Britain has pushed a strong message to Chinese companies that it is fully open for business as it prepares to leave the European Union next year, and China is one of the countries with which Britain would like to sign a post-Brexit free trade deal.
Speaking to reporters in Beijing after meeting British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, said both countries agreed to step up trade with and investment in each other.
Hunt said Wang had made an offer “to open discussions about a possible free trade deal done between Britain and China post Brexit”.
“That’s something that we welcome and we said that we will explore,” Hunt said, without elaborating.
Wang, standing next to Hunt at a state guest house in the western suburbs of Beijing, made no direct mention of the free trade talks offer but said both countries had “agreed to proactively join up each others’ development strategies, and expand the scale of trade and mutual investment”.
China and Britain should also oppose trade protectionism and uphold global free trade, Wang added.
While a trade pact with China would be a political win for Britain’s government, formal talks cannot begin until it officially leaves the EU next year. Free trade talks typically take many years to conclude.
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi attends a joint news conference with Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China July 30, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee
CHINA-U.S. TRADE TENSIONS
In the briefing, Wang again slammed Washington for intransigence and intentionally hyping up the idea that the United States is the real victim in their trade dispute.
“The responsibility for the trade imbalance between China and the United States lies not with China,” Wang said, citing the global role of the U.S. dollar, low U.S. savings rates, huge levels of U.S. consumption and U.S. restrictions on high tech exports as amongst the reasons.
The United States has benefited a great deal from trade with China, getting lots of cheap goods, which is good for U.S. consumers, and U.S. companies benefit hugely in China too, he added.
Both China and the United States had appeared to have avoided a full-scale trade war in May, with China agreeing to buy more U.S. agriculture and energy products, but the deal collapsed and the two sides slapped import tariffs on their respective goods.
Washington has since threatened to set tariffs on an additional $450 billion worth of Chinese goods, and no formal negotiations between the two countries have taken place since early June.
China says it is committed to resolving the dispute via talks, and has appealed to other countries to support it in upholding free trade and the multilateral trading system, though European countries in particular have many of the same market access complaints as the United States.
Wang said the current tensions were initiated by the United States, and the two should resolve their issues under the World Trade Organization framework, rather than in accordance with U.S. law.
“China does not want to fight a trade war, but in the face of this aggressive attitude from the United States and violation of rights, we cannot but and must take countermeasures,” he said
China and the United States have had talks and had reached a consensus, but the United States did not meet China half way, he noted.
Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (L) shakes hands with China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi before their meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China July 30, 2018. Andy Wong/Pool via Reuters
“China’s door to dialogue and negotiations is always open, but dialogue needs to be based on equality and mutual respect and on rules,” Wang said. “Any unilateral threats and pressure will only have the opposite effect.
Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Writing by Beijing Monitoring Desk; Editing by Sam Holmes
China tempts Britain with free trade, says door to U.S. talks open
Ben Blanchard
BEIJING (Reuters) - China offered Britain talks on a post-Brexit free trade deal on Monday, reaching out to London as Beijing remains mired in an increasingly bitter trade war with Washington, even as a senior Chinese diplomat reiterated its door remained open for dialogue.
China has been looking for allies in its fight with the United States, initiated by the Trump administration, which says China’s high-tech industries have stolen intellectual property from American firms and demanded Beijing act to buy more U.S. products to reduce a $350 billion trade surplus.
Britain has pushed a strong message to Chinese companies that it is fully open for business as it prepares to leave the European Union next year, and China is one of the countries with which Britain would like to sign a post-Brexit free trade deal.
Speaking to reporters in Beijing after meeting British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, the Chinese government’s top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, said both countries agreed to step up trade with and investment in each other.
Hunt said Wang had made an offer “to open discussions about a possible free trade deal done between Britain and China post Brexit”.
“That’s something that we welcome and we said that we will explore,” Hunt said, without elaborating.
Wang, standing next to Hunt at a state guest house in the western suburbs of Beijing, made no direct mention of the free trade talks offer but said both countries had “agreed to proactively join up each others’ development strategies, and expand the scale of trade and mutual investment”.
China and Britain should also oppose trade protectionism and uphold global free trade, Wang added.
While a trade pact with China would be a political win for Britain’s government, formal talks cannot begin until it officially leaves the EU next year. Free trade talks typically take many years to conclude.
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi attends a joint news conference with Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China July 30, 2018. REUTERS/Jason Lee
CHINA-U.S. TRADE TENSIONS
In the briefing, Wang again slammed Washington for intransigence and intentionally hyping up the idea that the United States is the real victim in their trade dispute.
“The responsibility for the trade imbalance between China and the United States lies not with China,” Wang said, citing the global role of the U.S. dollar, low U.S. savings rates, huge levels of U.S. consumption and U.S. restrictions on high tech exports as amongst the reasons.
The United States has benefited a great deal from trade with China, getting lots of cheap goods, which is good for U.S. consumers, and U.S. companies benefit hugely in China too, he added.
Both China and the United States had appeared to have avoided a full-scale trade war in May, with China agreeing to buy more U.S. agriculture and energy products, but the deal collapsed and the two sides slapped import tariffs on their respective goods.
Washington has since threatened to set tariffs on an additional $450 billion worth of Chinese goods, and no formal negotiations between the two countries have taken place since early June.
China says it is committed to resolving the dispute via talks, and has appealed to other countries to support it in upholding free trade and the multilateral trading system, though European countries in particular have many of the same market access complaints as the United States.
Wang said the current tensions were initiated by the United States, and the two should resolve their issues under the World Trade Organization framework, rather than in accordance with U.S. law.
“China does not want to fight a trade war, but in the face of this aggressive attitude from the United States and violation of rights, we cannot but and must take countermeasures,” he said
China and the United States have had talks and had reached a consensus, but the United States did not meet China half way, he noted.
Britain's Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt (L) shakes hands with China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi before their meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China July 30, 2018. Andy Wong/Pool via Reuters
“China’s door to dialogue and negotiations is always open, but dialogue needs to be based on equality and mutual respect and on rules,” Wang said. “Any unilateral threats and pressure will only have the opposite effect.
Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Writing by Beijing Monitoring Desk; Editing by Sam Holmes
Generals From North and South Korea Meet in Effort to End Military Standoff - TIME
Generals From North and South Korea Meet in Effort to End Military Standoff
By HYUNG-JIN KIM / AP 10:16 PM EDT
(SEOUL, South Korea) — Generals from the rival Koreas met Tuesday at their shared border for talks meant to ease a decades-long military standoff, Seoul officials said. The meeting comes days after North Korea returned the reported remains of U.S. war dead, the most recent sign of blossoming diplomacy after last year’s threats of war.
The general-level officers were discussing ways to implement April’s inter-Korean summit agreements on non-nuclear military issues, but no huge announcement is expected from the talks at the border village of Panmunjom. Some experts say South Korea can’t agree on any drastic measures to reduce animosity unless the North takes serious nuclear disarmament steps.
During the April 27 summit, the leaders of the Koreas agreed to disarm a jointly controlled area at Panmunjom, work to prevent accidental clashes along their disputed sea boundary and halt all hostile acts. Since then, the Koreas dismantled their frontline propaganda loudspeakers, restored a military hotline and held their first general-level talks since 2007.
Tuesday is the second meeting of its kind since the summit. The generals will likely discuss dropping the number of military guards at Panmunjom, withdrawing heavy weapons from the area and pulling some army guard posts away from the Demilitarized Zone, a buffer zone that separates the two countries. They may also talk about ways to make sure their fishermen peacefully operate along the Korean sea boundary, the site of several bloody naval skirmishes in recent years.
The Defense Ministry won’t discuss any detailed agenda for the talks.
The meeting comes four days after North Korea returned what were said to be dozens of remains of American soldiers missing from the 1950-53 Korean War, something that leader Kim Jong Un promised during a June summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.
Trump thanked Kim for “fulfilling a promise” to send back U.S. remains and said it was a step in the right direction following their summit.
During the Singapore meeting, Kim also committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula while Trump promised to provide him with security assurances. But there have been worries that North Korea hasn’t since taken any serious disarmament measures.
The North suspended its missile and nuclear tests and shut down its nuclear test site, and recent satellite photos indicated the country had also begun dismantling key facilities at its main rocket launch site. But many foreign experts say those were not enough to prove it’s serious about its disarmament commitment, saying the North must first submit a list of nuclear assets to be dismantled.
As a reward for returning the U.S. war dead, North Korea may demand that the United States agree on a declaration to end the Korean War as a U.S. security guarantee. That issue could be discussed at Tuesday’s meeting, according to analyst Cho Han Bum at Seoul’s Korea Institute for National Unification.
The Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula in a technical state of war. North Korea has long argued its nukes are aimed at coping with U.S. military threats, saying it wants to sign a peace treaty with the United States to formally end the war. That could then allow the North to demand the pullout of 28,500 U.S. troops deployed in South Korea.
By HYUNG-JIN KIM / AP 10:16 PM EDT
(SEOUL, South Korea) — Generals from the rival Koreas met Tuesday at their shared border for talks meant to ease a decades-long military standoff, Seoul officials said. The meeting comes days after North Korea returned the reported remains of U.S. war dead, the most recent sign of blossoming diplomacy after last year’s threats of war.
The general-level officers were discussing ways to implement April’s inter-Korean summit agreements on non-nuclear military issues, but no huge announcement is expected from the talks at the border village of Panmunjom. Some experts say South Korea can’t agree on any drastic measures to reduce animosity unless the North takes serious nuclear disarmament steps.
During the April 27 summit, the leaders of the Koreas agreed to disarm a jointly controlled area at Panmunjom, work to prevent accidental clashes along their disputed sea boundary and halt all hostile acts. Since then, the Koreas dismantled their frontline propaganda loudspeakers, restored a military hotline and held their first general-level talks since 2007.
Tuesday is the second meeting of its kind since the summit. The generals will likely discuss dropping the number of military guards at Panmunjom, withdrawing heavy weapons from the area and pulling some army guard posts away from the Demilitarized Zone, a buffer zone that separates the two countries. They may also talk about ways to make sure their fishermen peacefully operate along the Korean sea boundary, the site of several bloody naval skirmishes in recent years.
The Defense Ministry won’t discuss any detailed agenda for the talks.
The meeting comes four days after North Korea returned what were said to be dozens of remains of American soldiers missing from the 1950-53 Korean War, something that leader Kim Jong Un promised during a June summit with U.S. President Donald Trump.
Trump thanked Kim for “fulfilling a promise” to send back U.S. remains and said it was a step in the right direction following their summit.
During the Singapore meeting, Kim also committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula while Trump promised to provide him with security assurances. But there have been worries that North Korea hasn’t since taken any serious disarmament measures.
The North suspended its missile and nuclear tests and shut down its nuclear test site, and recent satellite photos indicated the country had also begun dismantling key facilities at its main rocket launch site. But many foreign experts say those were not enough to prove it’s serious about its disarmament commitment, saying the North must first submit a list of nuclear assets to be dismantled.
As a reward for returning the U.S. war dead, North Korea may demand that the United States agree on a declaration to end the Korean War as a U.S. security guarantee. That issue could be discussed at Tuesday’s meeting, according to analyst Cho Han Bum at Seoul’s Korea Institute for National Unification.
The Korean War ended with an armistice, not a peace treaty, leaving the peninsula in a technical state of war. North Korea has long argued its nukes are aimed at coping with U.S. military threats, saying it wants to sign a peace treaty with the United States to formally end the war. That could then allow the North to demand the pullout of 28,500 U.S. troops deployed in South Korea.
Is North Korea secretly continuing its nuclear programme? - BBC News
Is North Korea secretly continuing its nuclear programme?
By Andreas Illmer
BBC News
2 July 2018
Reports that North Korea is continuing its weapons programme, despite pledges to denuclearise, have cast doubt on its sincerity in peace talks.
The recent reports, based on US intelligence leaks, suggest the country is still upgrading its nuclear enrichment sites, among other activities. So what's actually going on?
What are the allegations?
Here's what has been reported across US media:
North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded.
The country is stepping up enrichment at two or more secret sites besides Yongbyon.
Pyongyang continues to produce more mobile launch vehicles for its ballistic missiles.
It has also expanded missile production of solid fuel engines which are more mobile and easier to launch.
How reliable are these reports? They are "only" reports but they are deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
The information is based on multiple unnamed sources from the US intelligence community as well as the 38 North study of satellite images of the Yongbyon site.
Skip Twitter post by @nktpnd
Ankit Panda
✔
@nktpnd
In summary: centrifuges spin at Yongbyon, Kangson, and another facility; KN15 TELs continue to roll out; the Hamhung solid-fuel shop expands considerably.
We shouldn't be surprised; these are in line with Kim's New Year's Day directive on warhead/ballistic missile production.
10:29 AM - Jul 2, 2018
How serious are they?
"None of that activity is in violation of any agreements made at the Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," explains Vipin Narang, MIT professor for political science and specialist on nuclear proliferation.
In the declaration wrapping up that summit, Pyongyang merely agreed to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, something it sees as a phased process.
Details of the process still remain to be worked out by the two sides.
"This was never going to be unilateral and immediate," says Mr Narang. "So Kim Jong-un is free to continue operating the existing sites."
To trust or not to trust, that is the question
Yet the reports that the North is continuing its nuclear activity is still seen as undermining the spirit of the summit and casts doubt on Pyongyang's sincerity to denuclearise.
"The bigger picture here is that North Korea's nuclear programme continues as directed by Kim Jong-un in his speech in January, where he urged the continued production of warheads and ballistic missiles," explains Ankit Panda, editor at The Diplomat magazine.
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
N Korea still poses major threat - Trump
What is the biggest news?
Solid fuel engines are more mobile and hence a big step for Pyongyang. Together with the mobile launchers, it means that North Korea can fire missiles from sites that can be quickly set up and not be detected ahead of time by South Korea or the US.
Yet the biggest revelation has been the details about North Korea's secret enrichment sites. So far, Pyongyang has only ever admitted to one enrichment site: Yongbyon.
Solid fuel and mobile launchers would be a major step for Pyongyang
It's been a longstanding suspicion though that there are more, secret sites. An exclusive NBC report based on US intelligence sources confirmed and named one such site and says there is at least one more secret enrichment site.
"You can imagine a North Korean strategy where - without a full disclosure of all their facilities - they can offer to shut down some of the known sites in order to get sanctions relief," explains Mr Narang.
"At the same time they would clandestinely push ahead at the secret sites."
A sacred mountain and other ideologies
On board the train to Korea's music festival for peace
Inside the North Korean place that ‘doesn’t exist’
Why is timing important?
The information coming from the US intelligence sources is presumably something they have known for quite some time. Mr Trump is likely to have been briefed about that very information in the run-up to the Singapore summit.
So why is it now being leaked to the media?
"The sheer number of leaks on nuclear activity makes it look like an authorised attempt to get that intel out into the public sphere," says Andray Abrahamian of the Griffith Asia Institute.
Experts believe there are two reasons why the US intelligence community might have chosen to disclose its information at this point in time.
Scenario one would be "to counter the narrative coming from the White House that it's 'mission accomplished' and that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat," explains Mr Narang.
It may therefore "constrain Trump a bit so he can't claim successes that have not yet be reached", agrees Mr Abrahamian. "It gets the foreign policy community riled up and increases pressure on Trump not to be soft on the [North] Koreans."
The other scenario would be that it's in fact co-ordinated by the Trump administration to generate leverage. By revealing the extent of US intel, Washington can put pressure on North Korea to admit to its secret sites and operations.
The leaked intel could be a way to say 'Mr Kim, we're watching you'
"The assumption was always that we would let the North Koreans disclose their own sites and check that against the list the US intelligence community maintains," explains Mr Panda. "Immediately you would have a sense of whether or not the North Koreans are negotiating in good faith.
"Now that we have put out what we know about the covert enrichment sites, we can see if the North Koreans will choose to disclose those or not."
Will the pressure work?
What remains is the bigger question of whether post-Singapore summit, this kind of pressure will really be able to steer Pyongyang into line.
The flurry of recent reports of North Korea's continued nuclear and military efforts suggest the country is intent on maintaining its nuclear and ballistic capabilities and even to continuing to produce them.
"It could be that Pyongyang is calculating that no matter what, China is already off the maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against North Korea. And the US really can't sustain it without China," warns Mr Narang.
"Kim Jong-un might simply say 'I've done what I have to in order to break the maximum pressure campaign' - and I think he might be right."
By Andreas Illmer
BBC News
2 July 2018
Reports that North Korea is continuing its weapons programme, despite pledges to denuclearise, have cast doubt on its sincerity in peace talks.
The recent reports, based on US intelligence leaks, suggest the country is still upgrading its nuclear enrichment sites, among other activities. So what's actually going on?
What are the allegations?
Here's what has been reported across US media:
North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded.
The country is stepping up enrichment at two or more secret sites besides Yongbyon.
Pyongyang continues to produce more mobile launch vehicles for its ballistic missiles.
It has also expanded missile production of solid fuel engines which are more mobile and easier to launch.
How reliable are these reports? They are "only" reports but they are deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
The information is based on multiple unnamed sources from the US intelligence community as well as the 38 North study of satellite images of the Yongbyon site.
Skip Twitter post by @nktpnd
Ankit Panda
✔
@nktpnd
In summary: centrifuges spin at Yongbyon, Kangson, and another facility; KN15 TELs continue to roll out; the Hamhung solid-fuel shop expands considerably.
We shouldn't be surprised; these are in line with Kim's New Year's Day directive on warhead/ballistic missile production.
10:29 AM - Jul 2, 2018
How serious are they?
"None of that activity is in violation of any agreements made at the Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," explains Vipin Narang, MIT professor for political science and specialist on nuclear proliferation.
In the declaration wrapping up that summit, Pyongyang merely agreed to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, something it sees as a phased process.
Details of the process still remain to be worked out by the two sides.
"This was never going to be unilateral and immediate," says Mr Narang. "So Kim Jong-un is free to continue operating the existing sites."
To trust or not to trust, that is the question
Yet the reports that the North is continuing its nuclear activity is still seen as undermining the spirit of the summit and casts doubt on Pyongyang's sincerity to denuclearise.
"The bigger picture here is that North Korea's nuclear programme continues as directed by Kim Jong-un in his speech in January, where he urged the continued production of warheads and ballistic missiles," explains Ankit Panda, editor at The Diplomat magazine.
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
N Korea still poses major threat - Trump
What is the biggest news?
Solid fuel engines are more mobile and hence a big step for Pyongyang. Together with the mobile launchers, it means that North Korea can fire missiles from sites that can be quickly set up and not be detected ahead of time by South Korea or the US.
Yet the biggest revelation has been the details about North Korea's secret enrichment sites. So far, Pyongyang has only ever admitted to one enrichment site: Yongbyon.
Solid fuel and mobile launchers would be a major step for Pyongyang
It's been a longstanding suspicion though that there are more, secret sites. An exclusive NBC report based on US intelligence sources confirmed and named one such site and says there is at least one more secret enrichment site.
"You can imagine a North Korean strategy where - without a full disclosure of all their facilities - they can offer to shut down some of the known sites in order to get sanctions relief," explains Mr Narang.
"At the same time they would clandestinely push ahead at the secret sites."
A sacred mountain and other ideologies
On board the train to Korea's music festival for peace
Inside the North Korean place that ‘doesn’t exist’
Why is timing important?
The information coming from the US intelligence sources is presumably something they have known for quite some time. Mr Trump is likely to have been briefed about that very information in the run-up to the Singapore summit.
So why is it now being leaked to the media?
"The sheer number of leaks on nuclear activity makes it look like an authorised attempt to get that intel out into the public sphere," says Andray Abrahamian of the Griffith Asia Institute.
Experts believe there are two reasons why the US intelligence community might have chosen to disclose its information at this point in time.
Scenario one would be "to counter the narrative coming from the White House that it's 'mission accomplished' and that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat," explains Mr Narang.
It may therefore "constrain Trump a bit so he can't claim successes that have not yet be reached", agrees Mr Abrahamian. "It gets the foreign policy community riled up and increases pressure on Trump not to be soft on the [North] Koreans."
The other scenario would be that it's in fact co-ordinated by the Trump administration to generate leverage. By revealing the extent of US intel, Washington can put pressure on North Korea to admit to its secret sites and operations.
The leaked intel could be a way to say 'Mr Kim, we're watching you'
"The assumption was always that we would let the North Koreans disclose their own sites and check that against the list the US intelligence community maintains," explains Mr Panda. "Immediately you would have a sense of whether or not the North Koreans are negotiating in good faith.
"Now that we have put out what we know about the covert enrichment sites, we can see if the North Koreans will choose to disclose those or not."
Will the pressure work?
What remains is the bigger question of whether post-Singapore summit, this kind of pressure will really be able to steer Pyongyang into line.
The flurry of recent reports of North Korea's continued nuclear and military efforts suggest the country is intent on maintaining its nuclear and ballistic capabilities and even to continuing to produce them.
"It could be that Pyongyang is calculating that no matter what, China is already off the maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against North Korea. And the US really can't sustain it without China," warns Mr Narang.
"Kim Jong-un might simply say 'I've done what I have to in order to break the maximum pressure campaign' - and I think he might be right."
North Korea working on new missiles, US officials say, despite thaw - BBC News
July 31, 2018
North Korea working on new missiles, US officials say, despite thaw
North Korea appears to be building new ballistic missiles despite recent warming ties with the Trump administration and pledges to denuclearise, reports say.
Unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that spy satellites had spotted continuing activity at a site that has produced ballistic missiles.
Reuters quotes an official as saying it is unclear how far the work has gone.
Donald Trump met North Korea's Kim Jong-un in Singapore in June.
After the first meeting between sitting leaders from the two countries, the two men pledged to work towards denuclearisation. Mr Trump later said North Korea was "no longer a nuclear threat".
But Mr Trump was criticised at home for making concessions without securing any firm commitment from Mr Kim to end the nuclear and missile programmes.
Trump-Kim summit: Why did they meet?
Is North Korea sticking with its nukes?
These are not the first reports that North Korea may be continuing its weapons programme, casting doubt on the real impact of the summit in Singapore.
Nukes, Trump Towers and human rights - what might peace look like between the US and North Korea?
What do the latest reports say?
On Monday, the Washington Post newspaper quoted officials as saying North Korea appeared to be building one or two new liquid-fuelled intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) at the Sanumdong facility near the capital, Pyongyang.
Why North Korea is in no hurry to please the US
Deciphering what happened in Singapore
The factory is known to have produced the Hwasong-15, the first North Korean ICBM capable of reaching the US.
However, a US official told news agency Reuters that a liquid-fuelled ICBM didn't "pose nearly the threat that a solid-fuelled one would because they take so long to fuel".
Reuters also added that satellite imaging showed vehicles moving in and out of the facility, but not the extent of any missile construction.
What are experts saying about this?
Satellite imagery of the Sanumdong facility shows that the site is "active", Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies (MIIS) told the Washington Post.
"[The facility] is not dead, by any stretch of the imagination," said Mr Lewis. "We see shipping containers and vehicles coming and going. This is a facility where they build ICBMs and space-launch vehicles."
Another North Korean expert from MIIS, Melissa Hanham, told the BBC that the facility had "regular traffic in and out of the building", adding that this "traffic pattern" on the site stayed "about the same through the Panmunjom and Singapore meetings".
This indicated that there had not been a complete stop in activity during the summit talks.
She also noted that large "brightly coloured containers" also showed up in satellite imagery, saying that "containers similar to these have appeared during previous ICBM inspections by Mr Kim."
Ms Hanham added that while that experts at MIIS could not "find a way to confirm the [intelligence] leak", the information has matched evidence from satellite imagery.
What was agreed on in the Singapore summit?
North Korea has carried out a total of six nuclear tests, the most recent of which took place in September last year. It has in the past two years quickly advanced its nuclear programme.
But at their landmark meeting in Singapore, Mr Trump and Mr Kim agreed to work towards the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula".
The pair signed a document pledging they would work towards new relations
It's been unclear what both sides mean by "complete denuclearisation", and no further details have been released about when or how Pyongyang would renounce its nuclear weapons nor how the process would be verified.
Experts have also cast doubt on whether Pyongyang has been genuine in its apparent commitment to "denuclearise".
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
Did the summit rhetoric match reality?
Last week, it appeared North Korea had begun dismantling part of a key rocket launch site, but according to recent reports based on US intelligence leaks, Pyongyang might still secretly be continuing its nuclear weapons programme.
Reports had indicated that North Korea was upgrading its only official nuclear enrichment site, and was stepping up enrichment at other secret sites.
Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was forced to admit that North Korea was continuing to produce nuclear fissile material, though he insisted that "progress is happening".
North Korea working on new missiles, US officials say, despite thaw
North Korea appears to be building new ballistic missiles despite recent warming ties with the Trump administration and pledges to denuclearise, reports say.
Unnamed US officials told the Washington Post that spy satellites had spotted continuing activity at a site that has produced ballistic missiles.
Reuters quotes an official as saying it is unclear how far the work has gone.
Donald Trump met North Korea's Kim Jong-un in Singapore in June.
After the first meeting between sitting leaders from the two countries, the two men pledged to work towards denuclearisation. Mr Trump later said North Korea was "no longer a nuclear threat".
But Mr Trump was criticised at home for making concessions without securing any firm commitment from Mr Kim to end the nuclear and missile programmes.
Trump-Kim summit: Why did they meet?
Is North Korea sticking with its nukes?
These are not the first reports that North Korea may be continuing its weapons programme, casting doubt on the real impact of the summit in Singapore.
Nukes, Trump Towers and human rights - what might peace look like between the US and North Korea?
What do the latest reports say?
On Monday, the Washington Post newspaper quoted officials as saying North Korea appeared to be building one or two new liquid-fuelled intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) at the Sanumdong facility near the capital, Pyongyang.
Why North Korea is in no hurry to please the US
Deciphering what happened in Singapore
The factory is known to have produced the Hwasong-15, the first North Korean ICBM capable of reaching the US.
However, a US official told news agency Reuters that a liquid-fuelled ICBM didn't "pose nearly the threat that a solid-fuelled one would because they take so long to fuel".
Reuters also added that satellite imaging showed vehicles moving in and out of the facility, but not the extent of any missile construction.
What are experts saying about this?
Satellite imagery of the Sanumdong facility shows that the site is "active", Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies (MIIS) told the Washington Post.
"[The facility] is not dead, by any stretch of the imagination," said Mr Lewis. "We see shipping containers and vehicles coming and going. This is a facility where they build ICBMs and space-launch vehicles."
Another North Korean expert from MIIS, Melissa Hanham, told the BBC that the facility had "regular traffic in and out of the building", adding that this "traffic pattern" on the site stayed "about the same through the Panmunjom and Singapore meetings".
This indicated that there had not been a complete stop in activity during the summit talks.
She also noted that large "brightly coloured containers" also showed up in satellite imagery, saying that "containers similar to these have appeared during previous ICBM inspections by Mr Kim."
Ms Hanham added that while that experts at MIIS could not "find a way to confirm the [intelligence] leak", the information has matched evidence from satellite imagery.
What was agreed on in the Singapore summit?
North Korea has carried out a total of six nuclear tests, the most recent of which took place in September last year. It has in the past two years quickly advanced its nuclear programme.
But at their landmark meeting in Singapore, Mr Trump and Mr Kim agreed to work towards the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula".
The pair signed a document pledging they would work towards new relations
It's been unclear what both sides mean by "complete denuclearisation", and no further details have been released about when or how Pyongyang would renounce its nuclear weapons nor how the process would be verified.
Experts have also cast doubt on whether Pyongyang has been genuine in its apparent commitment to "denuclearise".
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
Did the summit rhetoric match reality?
Last week, it appeared North Korea had begun dismantling part of a key rocket launch site, but according to recent reports based on US intelligence leaks, Pyongyang might still secretly be continuing its nuclear weapons programme.
Reports had indicated that North Korea was upgrading its only official nuclear enrichment site, and was stepping up enrichment at other secret sites.
Last week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was forced to admit that North Korea was continuing to produce nuclear fissile material, though he insisted that "progress is happening".
Monday, July 30, 2018
Trump lawyer Giuliani 'confused' in claiming attorney-client privilege, Michael Cohen’s attorney says - ABC News
Trump lawyer Giuliani 'confused' in claiming attorney-client privilege, Michael Cohen’s attorney says
By MITCHELL ALVA Jul 29, 2018, 1:49 PM ET
President Donald Trump's legal team is on the attack against former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, saying he violated attorney-client privilege by releasing a taped conversation of him and Trump about payments to a former Playboy model.
But Cohen attorney Lanny Davis called the attack baseless, and ABC News' chief legal analyst also said Trump's lawyers may have difficulty backing up their claim.
The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told ABC News on Saturday that Cohen violated attorney-client privilege by releasing a tape of him discussing with Trump, his client at the time, payments for former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story alleging an affair with Trump.
"We have complained to them that he's violated the attorney-client privilege, publicly and privately," Giuliani said.
Rudy Giuliani visits the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, June 7, 2018.
But Davis said the president's team "forfeited all confidentiality" when Giuliani talked publicly last week about the tape.
“Mr. Giuliani seems to be confused," Davis said. "He expressly waived attorney-client privilege last week and repeatedly and inaccurately - as proven by the tape - talked and talked about the recording, forfeiting all confidentiality."
On "This Week" Sunday, ABC Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams told Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz that Giuliani has "waived attorney-client privilege" in regard to the tape.
"On the question of the attorney-client privilege that Giuliani is talking about, I don't know exactly what he's talking about, meaning, when it comes to the tape that we've heard about, apparently Giuliani has waived attorney-client privilege," Abrams said.
The comments about whether Cohen’s release of the tape violated attorney-client privilege comes as sources tell ABC News that Cohen claims Trump knew in advance about a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign members and Russians who were expected to provide dirt on rival candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump has denied knowing in advance about the meeting.
(MORE: Joint defense with Cohen over; experts hired to analyze Trump-Cohen tape: Giuliani)
Raddatz asked Abrams and Chris Christie, a former US prosecutor and New Jersey governor who is an ABC News contributor, for their thoughts on the Trump team’s legal strategy in regard to Cohen.
She noted that Giuliani called Cohen an “honest, honorable lawyer” on “This Week” in May. “Now he's saying [Cohen] has been lying for years, and President Trump is bringing up that Cohen said that Don Jr. was an honest broker just last year. What are they trying to do here?”
“Look, they’re obviously trying to undermine Cohen’s credibility,” Abrams said. “And there is a real concern about Michael Cohen’s credibility. I mean, he is under serious investigation for a wide variety of crimes … The FBI raided his office not to get information on Donald Trump but because there was evidence of a possible crime and crimes by Michael Cohen.”
Christie said that if Cohen wants to make a deal with prosecutors, he may be hurting himself by making claims publicly about Trump.
“It is not in Michael Cohen's best interests when he does not have a deal yet,” Christie said. As a prosecutor, Christie said that before he would make a deal with Cohen “there would be a long come-to-Jesus meeting with [him] and with his attorneys about from this moment forward, if you have a deal, keep your mouth shut, because it doesn't help the prosecution to have all this information out there.”
(MORE: President denies knowing about Trump Tower meeting with Russians, despite Michael Cohen's claim)
ABC News' Tara Palmieri contributed to this report.
By MITCHELL ALVA Jul 29, 2018, 1:49 PM ET
President Donald Trump's legal team is on the attack against former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, saying he violated attorney-client privilege by releasing a taped conversation of him and Trump about payments to a former Playboy model.
But Cohen attorney Lanny Davis called the attack baseless, and ABC News' chief legal analyst also said Trump's lawyers may have difficulty backing up their claim.
The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, told ABC News on Saturday that Cohen violated attorney-client privilege by releasing a tape of him discussing with Trump, his client at the time, payments for former Playboy model Karen McDougal’s story alleging an affair with Trump.
"We have complained to them that he's violated the attorney-client privilege, publicly and privately," Giuliani said.
Rudy Giuliani visits the Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, June 7, 2018.
But Davis said the president's team "forfeited all confidentiality" when Giuliani talked publicly last week about the tape.
“Mr. Giuliani seems to be confused," Davis said. "He expressly waived attorney-client privilege last week and repeatedly and inaccurately - as proven by the tape - talked and talked about the recording, forfeiting all confidentiality."
On "This Week" Sunday, ABC Chief Legal Analyst Dan Abrams told Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz that Giuliani has "waived attorney-client privilege" in regard to the tape.
"On the question of the attorney-client privilege that Giuliani is talking about, I don't know exactly what he's talking about, meaning, when it comes to the tape that we've heard about, apparently Giuliani has waived attorney-client privilege," Abrams said.
The comments about whether Cohen’s release of the tape violated attorney-client privilege comes as sources tell ABC News that Cohen claims Trump knew in advance about a 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign members and Russians who were expected to provide dirt on rival candidate Hillary Clinton. Trump has denied knowing in advance about the meeting.
(MORE: Joint defense with Cohen over; experts hired to analyze Trump-Cohen tape: Giuliani)
Raddatz asked Abrams and Chris Christie, a former US prosecutor and New Jersey governor who is an ABC News contributor, for their thoughts on the Trump team’s legal strategy in regard to Cohen.
She noted that Giuliani called Cohen an “honest, honorable lawyer” on “This Week” in May. “Now he's saying [Cohen] has been lying for years, and President Trump is bringing up that Cohen said that Don Jr. was an honest broker just last year. What are they trying to do here?”
“Look, they’re obviously trying to undermine Cohen’s credibility,” Abrams said. “And there is a real concern about Michael Cohen’s credibility. I mean, he is under serious investigation for a wide variety of crimes … The FBI raided his office not to get information on Donald Trump but because there was evidence of a possible crime and crimes by Michael Cohen.”
Christie said that if Cohen wants to make a deal with prosecutors, he may be hurting himself by making claims publicly about Trump.
“It is not in Michael Cohen's best interests when he does not have a deal yet,” Christie said. As a prosecutor, Christie said that before he would make a deal with Cohen “there would be a long come-to-Jesus meeting with [him] and with his attorneys about from this moment forward, if you have a deal, keep your mouth shut, because it doesn't help the prosecution to have all this information out there.”
(MORE: President denies knowing about Trump Tower meeting with Russians, despite Michael Cohen's claim)
ABC News' Tara Palmieri contributed to this report.
EU warns US over enforcement of Obama-era privacy deal - Financial Times
July 30, 2018
EU warns US over enforcement of Obama-era privacy deal
Europe’s commissioner for justice demands Trump administration comply with pact
Trump administration's criticisms of European privacy laws have thrown the viability of the Privacy Shield agreement into doubt © Reuters
Mehreen Khan in Brussels 7 HOURS AGO Print this page6
Brussels has warned the Trump administration it has three months to comply with demands made under a landmark EU-US data sharing agreement or risk throwing the deal into jeopardy.
Vera Jourova, the EU’s commissioner for justice, has written to Wilbur Ross, US commerce secretary, complaining that the White House has failed to appoint senior personnel to oversee the “ Privacy Shield” deal agreed during the Obama administration.
The pact allows more than 3,350 US and EU companies to freely transfer information, such as pictures and emails, from European and American citizens across the Atlantic. It was hastily agreed in 2016 after a previous agreement was struck down by the European Court of Justice.
But the viability of the Privacy Shield has been thrown into doubt by the Trump administration’s criticisms of European privacy laws and Washington’s failure to appoint a senior ombudsman to deal with complaints from EU citizens.
In a letter dated July 26 to Mr Ross and seen by the Financial Times, Ms Jourova demanded progress in appointing an ombudsman by October, ahead of a visit to Brussels by Mr Ross in the same month.
“Now that the new state secretary is in office and we are almost two years into the term of this administration, the European stakeholders find little reason for the delay in the nomination of a political appointee for this position,” wrote the commissioner.
Recommended
The Big Read
Smartphone addiction: big tech’s balancing act on responsibility over revenue
Europe’s concerns over the Privacy Shield come at a sensitive point for transatlantic tensions, particularly in the area of technology. Brussels earlier this month fined Google a record €4.3bn for abusing its market dominance with its Android mobile phone operating system. Donald Trump said the decision was another example of the EU “ taking advantage of the US”.
Brussels is increasing pressure on US authorities to enforce the Privacy Shield in the wake of the Facebook data scandal where the personal information from up to 87m US voters was harvested and passed to Cambridge Analytica, a company employed by Mr Trump’s presidential campaign team.
The EU estimates that the data of 2.7m European citizens was improperly shared by Cambridge Analytica.
The European Parliament has called for the Privacy Shield to be suspended on September 1 if the US does not better monitor the companies signed up to the pact and remove those that have engaged in the misuse of the personal data of EU citizens.
The agreement is also being challenged in the ECJ by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems.
Ms Jourova told the FT she was not yet ready to suspend the pact but would press Mr Ross to make the full enforcement of the Privacy Shield a priority for the Trump administration in light of the Facebook scandal.
“If we suspend the system [the US] will see how quickly it will be on the top of their agenda. So let’s be smart and act,” said Ms Jourova.
Can Big Tech’s threat to democracy be tamed?
She added that the EU needed “certainty” that the illegal data sharing in the Facebook case — which happened before the agreement of the Privacy Shield in 2016 — was not taking place when the pact was in force.
“Facebook is a typical case for the enhanced due diligence provided by the Privacy Shield and it is big enough to attract the attention of US authorities,” said Ms Jourova, referring to the US administrations lack of urgency on addressing privacy issues.
The Privacy Shield is due for its second review from the European Commission in October. Brussels has the power to unilaterally revoke the agreement if Washington is not meeting its commitment to ensure the rights of EU citizens are adequately protected in the US.
Senior US officials have complained about the rigour of Europe’s personal privacy protections. In May, Mr Ross warned of the disruptive impact that Europe’s tough new personal privacy laws — known as the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR) — would have on American businesses.
“Complying with GDPR will exact a significant cost, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers who rely on digital services and may lose access and choice as a result of the guidelines,” Mr Ross wrote in the FT.
Any companies that use the personal information of EU citizens must comply with the requirements of the GDPR.
EU warns US over enforcement of Obama-era privacy deal
Europe’s commissioner for justice demands Trump administration comply with pact
Trump administration's criticisms of European privacy laws have thrown the viability of the Privacy Shield agreement into doubt © Reuters
Mehreen Khan in Brussels 7 HOURS AGO Print this page6
Brussels has warned the Trump administration it has three months to comply with demands made under a landmark EU-US data sharing agreement or risk throwing the deal into jeopardy.
Vera Jourova, the EU’s commissioner for justice, has written to Wilbur Ross, US commerce secretary, complaining that the White House has failed to appoint senior personnel to oversee the “ Privacy Shield” deal agreed during the Obama administration.
The pact allows more than 3,350 US and EU companies to freely transfer information, such as pictures and emails, from European and American citizens across the Atlantic. It was hastily agreed in 2016 after a previous agreement was struck down by the European Court of Justice.
But the viability of the Privacy Shield has been thrown into doubt by the Trump administration’s criticisms of European privacy laws and Washington’s failure to appoint a senior ombudsman to deal with complaints from EU citizens.
In a letter dated July 26 to Mr Ross and seen by the Financial Times, Ms Jourova demanded progress in appointing an ombudsman by October, ahead of a visit to Brussels by Mr Ross in the same month.
“Now that the new state secretary is in office and we are almost two years into the term of this administration, the European stakeholders find little reason for the delay in the nomination of a political appointee for this position,” wrote the commissioner.
Recommended
The Big Read
Smartphone addiction: big tech’s balancing act on responsibility over revenue
Europe’s concerns over the Privacy Shield come at a sensitive point for transatlantic tensions, particularly in the area of technology. Brussels earlier this month fined Google a record €4.3bn for abusing its market dominance with its Android mobile phone operating system. Donald Trump said the decision was another example of the EU “ taking advantage of the US”.
Brussels is increasing pressure on US authorities to enforce the Privacy Shield in the wake of the Facebook data scandal where the personal information from up to 87m US voters was harvested and passed to Cambridge Analytica, a company employed by Mr Trump’s presidential campaign team.
The EU estimates that the data of 2.7m European citizens was improperly shared by Cambridge Analytica.
The European Parliament has called for the Privacy Shield to be suspended on September 1 if the US does not better monitor the companies signed up to the pact and remove those that have engaged in the misuse of the personal data of EU citizens.
The agreement is also being challenged in the ECJ by Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems.
Ms Jourova told the FT she was not yet ready to suspend the pact but would press Mr Ross to make the full enforcement of the Privacy Shield a priority for the Trump administration in light of the Facebook scandal.
“If we suspend the system [the US] will see how quickly it will be on the top of their agenda. So let’s be smart and act,” said Ms Jourova.
Can Big Tech’s threat to democracy be tamed?
She added that the EU needed “certainty” that the illegal data sharing in the Facebook case — which happened before the agreement of the Privacy Shield in 2016 — was not taking place when the pact was in force.
“Facebook is a typical case for the enhanced due diligence provided by the Privacy Shield and it is big enough to attract the attention of US authorities,” said Ms Jourova, referring to the US administrations lack of urgency on addressing privacy issues.
The Privacy Shield is due for its second review from the European Commission in October. Brussels has the power to unilaterally revoke the agreement if Washington is not meeting its commitment to ensure the rights of EU citizens are adequately protected in the US.
Senior US officials have complained about the rigour of Europe’s personal privacy protections. In May, Mr Ross warned of the disruptive impact that Europe’s tough new personal privacy laws — known as the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR) — would have on American businesses.
“Complying with GDPR will exact a significant cost, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises and consumers who rely on digital services and may lose access and choice as a result of the guidelines,” Mr Ross wrote in the FT.
Any companies that use the personal information of EU citizens must comply with the requirements of the GDPR.
Facial recognition gives police a powerful new tracking tool. It's also raising alarms. - NBC News
Facial recognition gives police a powerful new tracking tool. It's also raising alarms.
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said the CEO of a facial recognition company.
by Jon Schuppe / Jul.30.2018 / 6:08 PM ET
RESTON, Va. — Picture a crowded street. Police are searching for a man believed to have committed a violent crime. To find him, they feed a photograph into a video surveillance network powered by artificial intelligence.
A camera, one of thousands, scans the street, instantly analyzing the faces of everyone it sees. Then, an alert: The algorithms found a match with someone in the crowd. Officers rush to the scene and take him into custody.
But it turns out the guy isn’t the one they’re looking for ─ he just looked a lot like him. The machines were wrong.
This is what some makers of this technology fear might happen if police adopt advanced forms of facial recognition that make it easier to track wanted criminals, missing people and suspected terrorists ─ while expanding the government’s ability to secretly monitor the public.
Facial recognition and law enforcement: Are we ready?
JUL.28.201804:50
Despite “real-time” facial recognition’s dazzling potential for crime-prevention, it is also raising alarms of the risks of mistakes and abuse. Those concerns are not only coming from privacy and civil rights advocates, but increasingly from tech firms themselves.
In recent months, one tech executive has vowed never to sell his facial recognition products to police departments, and another has called on Congress to intervene. One company has formed an ethics board for guidance, and another says it might do the same. Employees and shareholders from some of the world’s biggest tech firms have pressed their leaders to get out of business with law enforcement.
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening."
“Time is winding down but it’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said Brian Brackeen, the CEO of the facial recognition firm Kairos, who wants tech firms to join him in keeping the technology out of law enforcement’s hands.
Brackeen, who is black, said he has long been troubled by facial recognition algorithms’ struggle to distinguish faces of people with dark skin, and the implications of its use by the government and police. If they do get it, he recently wrote, “there’s simply no way that face recognition software will be not used to harm citizens.”
With few scientific standards or government regulations, there is little preventing police departments from using facial recognition to target immigrants or identify participants in a political protest, critics say.
“There needs to be greater transparency around the use of these technologies,” said Rashida Richardson, director of policy research at the AI Now Institute at New York University. “And a more open, public conversation about what types of use cases we are comfortable with — and what types of use cases should just not be available.”
TECHNOLOGY’S SPREAD
Facial recognition — using algorithms to match someone’s facial characteristics across photos and video — is already commonplace in many aspects of contemporary life. It is used to tag people on Facebook, to unlock iPhones and PlayStations and to focus cellphone photographs, and soon will be used to admit fans to Major League Baseball games. Most adult Americans are already in a facial recognition database of some kind, the result of governments formatting driver’s license and passport photos for such use, according to the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University Law Center.
Many law enforcement agencies — including the FBI, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and several departments in San Diego — have been using those databases for years, typically in static situations — comparing a photo or video still to a database of mugshots or licenses. Maryland’s system was used to identify the suspect who allegedly massacred journalists at the Capital Gazette newspaper last month in Annapolis and to monitor protesters following the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
As the technology advances, “real-time” facial recognition — which involves the constant scanning of live video feeds to match moving faces with a database of still images — is starting to spread. Police in China are reportedly using it to pick suspects out of crowds, and retailers there are using it to identify customers and their buying preferences. U.S. security agencies are testing the technology in some airports and border crossings. And now systems are being designed for use by local police.
Visitors check their phones behind the screen advertising facial recognition software during Global Mobile Internet Conference (GMIC) at the National Convention in BeijingA screen advertises facial recognition software at a conference in Beijing in April.Damir Sagolj / REUTERS
“This is a technology that is progressing so rapidly and is coming down in cost so rapidly that in the future we should expect it to be efficient, cheap and common,” said Gregory C. Allen, an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “People have gotten used to Facebook using facial recognition on them and have come up with an understanding of why and when that is acceptable.”
TOO MANY MISTAKES?
But this new type of facial recognition technology has deepened concerns about mass surveillance, mistaken identifications and the unfair targeting of minorities.
That is because facial recognition has never been perfect, and probably never will be. It cannot say with 100 percent certainty that the faces in two images are the same; most current systems provide a score indicating how likely the match is. Police agencies can set thresholds, depending on how close of a match they're looking for, and then decide how to act on the results.
A system’s accuracy depends on several factors, starting with data used to “train” the algorithms. The broader the database of faces and conditions — people with varied skin tones, captured at various angles and distances and under different lighting conditions — the more accurate the algorithm will be.
Technological advances have improved the accuracy of facial recognition systems, which have evolved from old-style machine learning, based on comparisons of certain facial characteristics, to “neural networks” that take a more holistic view of faces. But the systems still are susceptible to misidentifying people of certain races. A recent MIT study found that facial recognition algorithms developed by Microsoft, IBM and China-based Face++ failed to identify black women far more frequently than white men. One of the MIT researchers, Joy Buolamwini, has also showed that facial recognition systems are unable to determine the gender of famous black women, including Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams and Michelle Obama.
Microsoft and IBM have since announced efforts to lessen bias in their algorithms.
That reflects a shift in thinking over the last two years, as it has become clear that facial recognition algorithms are not “race neutral,” said Clare Garvie, a researcher at the Center on Privacy & Technology. “There’s an increased awareness on the part of companies that, hey, this technology isn’t magic,” she said.
A system’s accuracy can also vary based on the quality of cameras capturing video footage, the lighting conditions and how far away a camera is from someone’s face.
When police in Cardiff, Wales, ran its first test of a facial recognition system at a June 2017 soccer game, it wrongly identified thousands of people, a 92 percent “false positive” rate that authorities blamed on poor lighting, algorithm shortcomings and unfamiliarity with the system. The FBI’s facial recognition system has been found to misidentify people 14 percent of the time.
“We are at a moment where facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven as public safety tools,” said Matt Cagle, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which uncovered efforts by Amazon to market its facial recognition technology to police departments,and then tested it, finding that it mistakenly matched faces of 28 members of Congress with police mugshots.“We think it’s harmful because it’s unproven and it’s been deployed in some places without any rules.”
"Facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven."
In a recent demonstration for NBC News, the U.K.-based surveillance-software company Digital Barriers ─ which is marketing to U.S. police a facial recognition system that can run off footage from body cameras, surveillance cameras and cellphones ─ successfully identified a reporter as he crossed a street in suburban Virginia and at an office park that houses the firm’s U.S. headquarters. Technicians described having to set the equipment up in a way that made sure people’s faces were not obscured by shadows, and noted that the system’s accuracy depended on the type of camera used.
TECH’S SOUL-SEARCHING
Nobody knows for sure which law enforcement agencies are pursuing real-time facial recognition systems. There are few laws regarding the technology’s use. And many people don’t realize how easy it is to be put in a database that can be used by police for facial recognition.
That lack of scrutiny breeds distrust — not just from the public, but from within the tech industry.
“I would like to see a more public conversation,” Brackeen said. His Miami-based company develops facial recognition to safeguard consumers’ digital profiles, secure online financial transactions and allow cruise lines and theme parks to sell photographs to visitors. He announced last month that he would never sell his product to law enforcement.
“If a city council or state representatives decided it made sense, that’s a completely different thing. We are not against facial recognition’s existence,” Brackeen said. “But we are at a place where it’s being used when people don’t know it’s there, and when people have their driver’s license photo taken they have no idea they’re doing it for facial recognition.”
Miami Int'l Airport To Use Facial Recognition Technology At Passport ControlA U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer uses facial recognition technology to screen people entering the U.S. at Miami International Airport.Joe Raedle / Getty Images
Microsoft President Brad Smith echoed some of Brackeen’s concerns earlier this month, calling for Congress to create “a bipartisan expert commission” to explore how to regulate facial recognition’s use.
But tech companies should not be left to regulate themselves, Smith wrote in a blog post.
“After all, even if one or several tech companies alter their practices, problems will remain if others do not,” Smith wrote. “The competitive dynamics between American tech companies — let alone between companies from different countries — will likely enable governments to keep purchasing and using new technology in ways the public may find unacceptable in the absence of a common regulatory framework.”
China has gone further than any society to expand facial recognition, using it to create a national surveillance state in which the technology is used to shame jaywalkers and find criminal suspects in the crowds of sporting events.
The potential for something similar exists in places with expansive networks of surveillance cameras ─ such as New York, Chicago or London, researchers say.
Related
TECH
New systems are expected to transform shopping, banking, travel, and more.
Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said false identification is among her biggest concerns. She likened it to the use of license plate readers that aim to catch people breaking traffic laws but also identify the wrong cars ─ and make it difficult for the innocent to appeal.
Polls show a return of Democrats' 'Big Blue Wall'
If cities connect surveillance networks with live facial recognition, and then link them to municipal infrastructure, the technology could be used to accuse people of crimes or other transgressions and shut them out of public services, she said.
“My concern is that a city buys into this so deeply, and buys into a process that … forces people to defend themselves against things they haven’t done,” King said.
‘GREAT PROMISE ─ AND GREAT PERIL’
Axon, the country’s largest supplier of police body cameras — which could one day be outfitted with facial recognition tools to scan faces from an officer’s lapel — has also acknowledged the concerns of real-time facial recognition. In April, Axon set up an ethics board of outside experts to guide the company as it explores the use of artificial intelligence, which included filing a patent application ─ discovered recently by a technology watchdog ─ for a real-time facial recognition system. Nearly four-dozen civil rights groups sent an open letter to the board earlier this year urging the company to reject as “categorically unethical” any products that allow body cameras to use real-time facial recognition. Axon has repeatedly said it is not currently working on developing facial recognition for its devices.
“We see facial recognition as a technology which holds great promise ─ and great peril,” Steve Tuttle, an Axon spokesman, said in an email in response to news of the patent. “We do see a day when facial recognition, with the right controls and sufficient accuracy, could reduce bias and increase fairness in policing. However, we have elected to hold off on investing in developing this technology until we better understand the necessary controls and accuracy thresholds to ensure its benefits significantly outweigh its costs and risks.”
NEC Corporation of America, a major developer of facial recognition systems, is also considering whether to create an ethics board, said Benji Hutchinson, vice president of federal operations. The company isn’t marketing a real-time facial recognition product to American police, but has sold such technology to law enforcement elsewhere, he said.
“We hear the privacy discussion and we’re sensitive to it,” Hutchinson said. “NEC wants to be and we are a corporation that is interested in balancing the rights of citizens to privacy and law enforcement’s ability to protect public safety.”
Another big player, Amazon, came under fire after the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California revealed the company’s efforts to sell its facial recognition software to American police forces. The findings included a deal with Orlando, Florida, where seven officers have volunteered to be subjects in a test of a system that can scan live feeds from surveillance cameras and determine whether anyone in the images matches photos in a database of wanted or missing people.
Amazon did not back down. Neither did Orlando, which chose to continue the pilot program.
Orlando Police Chief John Mina said he wants to see if the system even works. He cited the 2017 killing of a city officer allegedly by a man who’d been wanted in the murder of his pregnant ex-girlfriend. Before his fatal confrontation with the officer, the suspect moved around the city for weeks while police searched for him.
“What if that technology had been in place and recognized his image and in turn immediately notified law enforcement ─ and then we could have responded there, or anywhere, to arrest him,” Mina said.
“Ultimately, it’s about enhancing public safety.”
ONE COMPANY’S PLANS
Orlando is the only confirmed example of a local law enforcement agency in the United States using facial recognition in real-time video, even as a test. But as a handful of companies race to create products that will give police agencies similar capabilities, real-time facial recognition has taken on an air of inevitability.
“I think we’re very close to getting the technology into our law enforcement here,” said Nicola Dickinson, a Digital Barriers vice president who runs its operations in North and South America.
The firm first introduced its real-time facial recognition system last summer, and since then it has been adopted by law enforcement agencies in Europe and Asia, and within the U.S. government, the company says — although it won’t disclose the names of those clients.
Digital Barriers says it is trying to weigh the public-safety benefits of facial recognition and concerns that the technology will mushroom into a mass-surveillance apparatus.
Iphone X's Facial Scanning: What Are The Unintended Risks?
NOV.03.201701:58
The company says its products are equipped with tools that allow authorities to retain information about people on watch lists and ignore the rest.
While the company says facial recognition shouldn’t be used everywhere, or to look for anyone, it does not tell customers how its products can or cannot be used.
“We trust that our government has rules and regulations within their organizations to use it effectively and safely,” Dickinson said.
But, for the most part, the government does not.
LAWLESS FRONTIER
There are few regulations at the federal, state or local level regarding law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. The exceptions include Oregon and New Hampshire, which ban facial recognition on police body cameras, and Maine and Vermont, which prohibit the technology’s use with police drones. Six states — Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii — restrict law enforcement’s ability to use driver’s license databases for facial recognition systems, according to Garvie, of Georgetown’s Center on Privacy & Technology.
A few local governments have also stepped up. Among them are Oakland, California, which requires public input on any proposal to acquire government surveillance systems, and Seattle, Washington, which restricts police use of facial recognition to compare suspects’ images to jail mugshots — and prohibits the real-time scanning of video footage to find matches in that database.
In the rest of the country, policymaking resembles a frontier-like landscape where standards and rules are made on the fly.
"We don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy."
In Ohio, for example, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation began using facial recognition in 2013 to identify suspects from photographs or video stills. A backlash forced the agency to limit which officers can access the system, and to prohibit it from being used to monitor groups of people or their activities, Superintendent Thomas Stickrath said. The agency also formed an advisory group to help guide it through legal and ethical issues.
“This technology is helpful to law enforcement,” Stickrath said. “But like all evolving technologies, whether it’s GPS or license plate readers or body readers, there’s a proper balance. We’re trying to find the right balance.”
Oakland, too, faced resistance after planning a citywide network five years ago that would collect feeds from surveillance cameras, gunshot detectors, license plate readers and other communication systems into a centralized hub monitored by authorities. The public outcry forced the city to abandon much of the project, and led to the creation of a privacy advisory commission that must review any effort by the local government to obtain technology that could impact privacy.
So if Oakland ever sought out a facial recognition system, it would be debated publicly.
That’s a big “if.”
“I don’t know if we have any interest in using that technology, and if we did I don’t know how comfortable I’d feel going into the commission saying it’s something we need, not today,” said Timothy Birch, police services manager for the Oakland Police Department.
The department, he said, considers surveillance technologies by weighing their cost and benefits — not just money, but in public trust. “And we don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy,” Birch said. “Until we identify an incredible benefit for facial recognition, the cost is just too high.”
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said the CEO of a facial recognition company.
by Jon Schuppe / Jul.30.2018 / 6:08 PM ET
RESTON, Va. — Picture a crowded street. Police are searching for a man believed to have committed a violent crime. To find him, they feed a photograph into a video surveillance network powered by artificial intelligence.
A camera, one of thousands, scans the street, instantly analyzing the faces of everyone it sees. Then, an alert: The algorithms found a match with someone in the crowd. Officers rush to the scene and take him into custody.
But it turns out the guy isn’t the one they’re looking for ─ he just looked a lot like him. The machines were wrong.
This is what some makers of this technology fear might happen if police adopt advanced forms of facial recognition that make it easier to track wanted criminals, missing people and suspected terrorists ─ while expanding the government’s ability to secretly monitor the public.
Facial recognition and law enforcement: Are we ready?
JUL.28.201804:50
Despite “real-time” facial recognition’s dazzling potential for crime-prevention, it is also raising alarms of the risks of mistakes and abuse. Those concerns are not only coming from privacy and civil rights advocates, but increasingly from tech firms themselves.
In recent months, one tech executive has vowed never to sell his facial recognition products to police departments, and another has called on Congress to intervene. One company has formed an ethics board for guidance, and another says it might do the same. Employees and shareholders from some of the world’s biggest tech firms have pressed their leaders to get out of business with law enforcement.
"It’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening."
“Time is winding down but it’s not too late for someone to take a stand and keep this from happening,” said Brian Brackeen, the CEO of the facial recognition firm Kairos, who wants tech firms to join him in keeping the technology out of law enforcement’s hands.
Brackeen, who is black, said he has long been troubled by facial recognition algorithms’ struggle to distinguish faces of people with dark skin, and the implications of its use by the government and police. If they do get it, he recently wrote, “there’s simply no way that face recognition software will be not used to harm citizens.”
With few scientific standards or government regulations, there is little preventing police departments from using facial recognition to target immigrants or identify participants in a political protest, critics say.
“There needs to be greater transparency around the use of these technologies,” said Rashida Richardson, director of policy research at the AI Now Institute at New York University. “And a more open, public conversation about what types of use cases we are comfortable with — and what types of use cases should just not be available.”
TECHNOLOGY’S SPREAD
Facial recognition — using algorithms to match someone’s facial characteristics across photos and video — is already commonplace in many aspects of contemporary life. It is used to tag people on Facebook, to unlock iPhones and PlayStations and to focus cellphone photographs, and soon will be used to admit fans to Major League Baseball games. Most adult Americans are already in a facial recognition database of some kind, the result of governments formatting driver’s license and passport photos for such use, according to the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown University Law Center.
Many law enforcement agencies — including the FBI, the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation and several departments in San Diego — have been using those databases for years, typically in static situations — comparing a photo or video still to a database of mugshots or licenses. Maryland’s system was used to identify the suspect who allegedly massacred journalists at the Capital Gazette newspaper last month in Annapolis and to monitor protesters following the 2015 death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
As the technology advances, “real-time” facial recognition — which involves the constant scanning of live video feeds to match moving faces with a database of still images — is starting to spread. Police in China are reportedly using it to pick suspects out of crowds, and retailers there are using it to identify customers and their buying preferences. U.S. security agencies are testing the technology in some airports and border crossings. And now systems are being designed for use by local police.
Visitors check their phones behind the screen advertising facial recognition software during Global Mobile Internet Conference (GMIC) at the National Convention in BeijingA screen advertises facial recognition software at a conference in Beijing in April.Damir Sagolj / REUTERS
“This is a technology that is progressing so rapidly and is coming down in cost so rapidly that in the future we should expect it to be efficient, cheap and common,” said Gregory C. Allen, an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “People have gotten used to Facebook using facial recognition on them and have come up with an understanding of why and when that is acceptable.”
TOO MANY MISTAKES?
But this new type of facial recognition technology has deepened concerns about mass surveillance, mistaken identifications and the unfair targeting of minorities.
That is because facial recognition has never been perfect, and probably never will be. It cannot say with 100 percent certainty that the faces in two images are the same; most current systems provide a score indicating how likely the match is. Police agencies can set thresholds, depending on how close of a match they're looking for, and then decide how to act on the results.
A system’s accuracy depends on several factors, starting with data used to “train” the algorithms. The broader the database of faces and conditions — people with varied skin tones, captured at various angles and distances and under different lighting conditions — the more accurate the algorithm will be.
Technological advances have improved the accuracy of facial recognition systems, which have evolved from old-style machine learning, based on comparisons of certain facial characteristics, to “neural networks” that take a more holistic view of faces. But the systems still are susceptible to misidentifying people of certain races. A recent MIT study found that facial recognition algorithms developed by Microsoft, IBM and China-based Face++ failed to identify black women far more frequently than white men. One of the MIT researchers, Joy Buolamwini, has also showed that facial recognition systems are unable to determine the gender of famous black women, including Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams and Michelle Obama.
Microsoft and IBM have since announced efforts to lessen bias in their algorithms.
That reflects a shift in thinking over the last two years, as it has become clear that facial recognition algorithms are not “race neutral,” said Clare Garvie, a researcher at the Center on Privacy & Technology. “There’s an increased awareness on the part of companies that, hey, this technology isn’t magic,” she said.
A system’s accuracy can also vary based on the quality of cameras capturing video footage, the lighting conditions and how far away a camera is from someone’s face.
When police in Cardiff, Wales, ran its first test of a facial recognition system at a June 2017 soccer game, it wrongly identified thousands of people, a 92 percent “false positive” rate that authorities blamed on poor lighting, algorithm shortcomings and unfamiliarity with the system. The FBI’s facial recognition system has been found to misidentify people 14 percent of the time.
“We are at a moment where facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven as public safety tools,” said Matt Cagle, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which uncovered efforts by Amazon to market its facial recognition technology to police departments,and then tested it, finding that it mistakenly matched faces of 28 members of Congress with police mugshots.“We think it’s harmful because it’s unproven and it’s been deployed in some places without any rules.”
"Facial recognition is being marketed to communities while not being proven."
In a recent demonstration for NBC News, the U.K.-based surveillance-software company Digital Barriers ─ which is marketing to U.S. police a facial recognition system that can run off footage from body cameras, surveillance cameras and cellphones ─ successfully identified a reporter as he crossed a street in suburban Virginia and at an office park that houses the firm’s U.S. headquarters. Technicians described having to set the equipment up in a way that made sure people’s faces were not obscured by shadows, and noted that the system’s accuracy depended on the type of camera used.
TECH’S SOUL-SEARCHING
Nobody knows for sure which law enforcement agencies are pursuing real-time facial recognition systems. There are few laws regarding the technology’s use. And many people don’t realize how easy it is to be put in a database that can be used by police for facial recognition.
That lack of scrutiny breeds distrust — not just from the public, but from within the tech industry.
“I would like to see a more public conversation,” Brackeen said. His Miami-based company develops facial recognition to safeguard consumers’ digital profiles, secure online financial transactions and allow cruise lines and theme parks to sell photographs to visitors. He announced last month that he would never sell his product to law enforcement.
“If a city council or state representatives decided it made sense, that’s a completely different thing. We are not against facial recognition’s existence,” Brackeen said. “But we are at a place where it’s being used when people don’t know it’s there, and when people have their driver’s license photo taken they have no idea they’re doing it for facial recognition.”
Miami Int'l Airport To Use Facial Recognition Technology At Passport ControlA U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer uses facial recognition technology to screen people entering the U.S. at Miami International Airport.Joe Raedle / Getty Images
Microsoft President Brad Smith echoed some of Brackeen’s concerns earlier this month, calling for Congress to create “a bipartisan expert commission” to explore how to regulate facial recognition’s use.
But tech companies should not be left to regulate themselves, Smith wrote in a blog post.
“After all, even if one or several tech companies alter their practices, problems will remain if others do not,” Smith wrote. “The competitive dynamics between American tech companies — let alone between companies from different countries — will likely enable governments to keep purchasing and using new technology in ways the public may find unacceptable in the absence of a common regulatory framework.”
China has gone further than any society to expand facial recognition, using it to create a national surveillance state in which the technology is used to shame jaywalkers and find criminal suspects in the crowds of sporting events.
The potential for something similar exists in places with expansive networks of surveillance cameras ─ such as New York, Chicago or London, researchers say.
Related
TECH
New systems are expected to transform shopping, banking, travel, and more.
Jennifer King, director of consumer privacy at Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, said false identification is among her biggest concerns. She likened it to the use of license plate readers that aim to catch people breaking traffic laws but also identify the wrong cars ─ and make it difficult for the innocent to appeal.
Polls show a return of Democrats' 'Big Blue Wall'
If cities connect surveillance networks with live facial recognition, and then link them to municipal infrastructure, the technology could be used to accuse people of crimes or other transgressions and shut them out of public services, she said.
“My concern is that a city buys into this so deeply, and buys into a process that … forces people to defend themselves against things they haven’t done,” King said.
‘GREAT PROMISE ─ AND GREAT PERIL’
Axon, the country’s largest supplier of police body cameras — which could one day be outfitted with facial recognition tools to scan faces from an officer’s lapel — has also acknowledged the concerns of real-time facial recognition. In April, Axon set up an ethics board of outside experts to guide the company as it explores the use of artificial intelligence, which included filing a patent application ─ discovered recently by a technology watchdog ─ for a real-time facial recognition system. Nearly four-dozen civil rights groups sent an open letter to the board earlier this year urging the company to reject as “categorically unethical” any products that allow body cameras to use real-time facial recognition. Axon has repeatedly said it is not currently working on developing facial recognition for its devices.
“We see facial recognition as a technology which holds great promise ─ and great peril,” Steve Tuttle, an Axon spokesman, said in an email in response to news of the patent. “We do see a day when facial recognition, with the right controls and sufficient accuracy, could reduce bias and increase fairness in policing. However, we have elected to hold off on investing in developing this technology until we better understand the necessary controls and accuracy thresholds to ensure its benefits significantly outweigh its costs and risks.”
NEC Corporation of America, a major developer of facial recognition systems, is also considering whether to create an ethics board, said Benji Hutchinson, vice president of federal operations. The company isn’t marketing a real-time facial recognition product to American police, but has sold such technology to law enforcement elsewhere, he said.
“We hear the privacy discussion and we’re sensitive to it,” Hutchinson said. “NEC wants to be and we are a corporation that is interested in balancing the rights of citizens to privacy and law enforcement’s ability to protect public safety.”
Another big player, Amazon, came under fire after the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California revealed the company’s efforts to sell its facial recognition software to American police forces. The findings included a deal with Orlando, Florida, where seven officers have volunteered to be subjects in a test of a system that can scan live feeds from surveillance cameras and determine whether anyone in the images matches photos in a database of wanted or missing people.
Amazon did not back down. Neither did Orlando, which chose to continue the pilot program.
Orlando Police Chief John Mina said he wants to see if the system even works. He cited the 2017 killing of a city officer allegedly by a man who’d been wanted in the murder of his pregnant ex-girlfriend. Before his fatal confrontation with the officer, the suspect moved around the city for weeks while police searched for him.
“What if that technology had been in place and recognized his image and in turn immediately notified law enforcement ─ and then we could have responded there, or anywhere, to arrest him,” Mina said.
“Ultimately, it’s about enhancing public safety.”
ONE COMPANY’S PLANS
Orlando is the only confirmed example of a local law enforcement agency in the United States using facial recognition in real-time video, even as a test. But as a handful of companies race to create products that will give police agencies similar capabilities, real-time facial recognition has taken on an air of inevitability.
“I think we’re very close to getting the technology into our law enforcement here,” said Nicola Dickinson, a Digital Barriers vice president who runs its operations in North and South America.
The firm first introduced its real-time facial recognition system last summer, and since then it has been adopted by law enforcement agencies in Europe and Asia, and within the U.S. government, the company says — although it won’t disclose the names of those clients.
Digital Barriers says it is trying to weigh the public-safety benefits of facial recognition and concerns that the technology will mushroom into a mass-surveillance apparatus.
Iphone X's Facial Scanning: What Are The Unintended Risks?
NOV.03.201701:58
The company says its products are equipped with tools that allow authorities to retain information about people on watch lists and ignore the rest.
While the company says facial recognition shouldn’t be used everywhere, or to look for anyone, it does not tell customers how its products can or cannot be used.
“We trust that our government has rules and regulations within their organizations to use it effectively and safely,” Dickinson said.
But, for the most part, the government does not.
LAWLESS FRONTIER
There are few regulations at the federal, state or local level regarding law enforcement’s use of facial recognition. The exceptions include Oregon and New Hampshire, which ban facial recognition on police body cameras, and Maine and Vermont, which prohibit the technology’s use with police drones. Six states — Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii — restrict law enforcement’s ability to use driver’s license databases for facial recognition systems, according to Garvie, of Georgetown’s Center on Privacy & Technology.
A few local governments have also stepped up. Among them are Oakland, California, which requires public input on any proposal to acquire government surveillance systems, and Seattle, Washington, which restricts police use of facial recognition to compare suspects’ images to jail mugshots — and prohibits the real-time scanning of video footage to find matches in that database.
In the rest of the country, policymaking resembles a frontier-like landscape where standards and rules are made on the fly.
"We don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy."
In Ohio, for example, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation began using facial recognition in 2013 to identify suspects from photographs or video stills. A backlash forced the agency to limit which officers can access the system, and to prohibit it from being used to monitor groups of people or their activities, Superintendent Thomas Stickrath said. The agency also formed an advisory group to help guide it through legal and ethical issues.
“This technology is helpful to law enforcement,” Stickrath said. “But like all evolving technologies, whether it’s GPS or license plate readers or body readers, there’s a proper balance. We’re trying to find the right balance.”
Oakland, too, faced resistance after planning a citywide network five years ago that would collect feeds from surveillance cameras, gunshot detectors, license plate readers and other communication systems into a centralized hub monitored by authorities. The public outcry forced the city to abandon much of the project, and led to the creation of a privacy advisory commission that must review any effort by the local government to obtain technology that could impact privacy.
So if Oakland ever sought out a facial recognition system, it would be debated publicly.
That’s a big “if.”
“I don’t know if we have any interest in using that technology, and if we did I don’t know how comfortable I’d feel going into the commission saying it’s something we need, not today,” said Timothy Birch, police services manager for the Oakland Police Department.
The department, he said, considers surveillance technologies by weighing their cost and benefits — not just money, but in public trust. “And we don’t see the benefit of facial recognition software in terms of the cost, the impact to community privacy,” Birch said. “Until we identify an incredible benefit for facial recognition, the cost is just too high.”
Why Donald Trump attacks the media
Why Donald Trump attacks the media
By Anthony Zurcher
North America reporter
29 July 2018
Fox v MSNBC: How the news divides America
When President Donald Trump first called the media "enemy of the people" last year, it elicited outrage. Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake said it was an example of an "unprecedented" and "unwarranted" White House assault on the free press.
The second, third and fourth times Mr Trump used the phrase, it barely merited a shrug. Such is the unique talent of this president - an ability to take an action or opinion that once seemed outrageous and turn it into a new kind of normal.
Even if the line doesn't generate headlines anymore, however, journalists still take note. And when a newsroom in Maryland was sprayed with bullets just a few weeks ago, the perils of the profession - even in an established Western democracy, and with or without the president's instigation - were put in stark relief.
New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger clearly wanted to drive this point home in his previously secret meeting with Mr Trump nine days ago.
NYT urges Trump to end 'enemy' rhetoric
How Trump 'enemies' remark echoes tyrants
Reality Check: Are journalists increasingly under attack?
The message, however, may not have been received. In his Sunday morning tweet, the president appears to assert that it's the media's fault that he has decided to label them "enemies of the American people".
For Mr Trump, then, this kind of language - if it is a problem - is a problem for the media, not him, to fix.
'Enemy of the people' - Trump compared to Stalin for attacks on media
The irony, of course, is that Mr Trump cites New York Times reports about details of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation that are based on anonymous sources.
On Friday, he referred to the special counsel looking at his tweets - a bit of information drawn directly from a Times article.
Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....,the only Collusion with Russia was with the Democrats, so now they are looking at my Tweets (along with 53 million other people) - the rigged Witch Hunt continues! How stupid and unfair to our Country....And so the Fake News doesn’t waste my time with dumb questions, NO,....
9:38 PM - Jul 27, 2018
Whenever the Times runs a story about his administration with similar sourcing, however, it's "fake news".
And this gets to the heart of the matter.
The president wants positive news coverage for himself and critical coverage of his adversaries. "Fake news", "enemy of the people" and all the other media-bashing is simply a means to achieving that goal.
In sport, the strategy is called "working the referee". It's the same idea in politics - but the stakes are much higher.
NYTimes Communications
✔
@NYTimesPR
Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times, in response to President Trump’s tweet about their meeting https://bit.ly/2LHSFoB
1:01 AM - Jul 30, 2018
There's more to it than that, however. Mr Trump doesn't just want the referee's "calls" to go his way. His goal is to question the reliability the referee entirely. And it's working - at least among the president's most loyal supporters.
In a recent CBS News poll, 91% of "strong supporters" of the president's said they trust Mr Trump to provide them with accurate information. Only 11% said the same thing about the "mainstream media", while 63% said they trusted their own "friends and family".
Mr Sulzberger warned that Mr Trump's rhetoric could lead to violence
The president's war of words with the media has contributed to a base of support that is, effectively, invulnerable to negative news.
The question now is whether that base is enough to prevail in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections and, eventually, carry him to re-election victory in 2020.
It is, at the very least, a good place to start - and a reason why the president may stick to his current course, in spite of Mr Sulzberger's words of caution.
By Anthony Zurcher
North America reporter
29 July 2018
Fox v MSNBC: How the news divides America
When President Donald Trump first called the media "enemy of the people" last year, it elicited outrage. Arizona Republican Senator Jeff Flake said it was an example of an "unprecedented" and "unwarranted" White House assault on the free press.
The second, third and fourth times Mr Trump used the phrase, it barely merited a shrug. Such is the unique talent of this president - an ability to take an action or opinion that once seemed outrageous and turn it into a new kind of normal.
Even if the line doesn't generate headlines anymore, however, journalists still take note. And when a newsroom in Maryland was sprayed with bullets just a few weeks ago, the perils of the profession - even in an established Western democracy, and with or without the president's instigation - were put in stark relief.
New York Times publisher AG Sulzberger clearly wanted to drive this point home in his previously secret meeting with Mr Trump nine days ago.
NYT urges Trump to end 'enemy' rhetoric
How Trump 'enemies' remark echoes tyrants
Reality Check: Are journalists increasingly under attack?
The message, however, may not have been received. In his Sunday morning tweet, the president appears to assert that it's the media's fault that he has decided to label them "enemies of the American people".
For Mr Trump, then, this kind of language - if it is a problem - is a problem for the media, not him, to fix.
'Enemy of the people' - Trump compared to Stalin for attacks on media
The irony, of course, is that Mr Trump cites New York Times reports about details of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation that are based on anonymous sources.
On Friday, he referred to the special counsel looking at his tweets - a bit of information drawn directly from a Times article.
Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....,the only Collusion with Russia was with the Democrats, so now they are looking at my Tweets (along with 53 million other people) - the rigged Witch Hunt continues! How stupid and unfair to our Country....And so the Fake News doesn’t waste my time with dumb questions, NO,....
9:38 PM - Jul 27, 2018
Whenever the Times runs a story about his administration with similar sourcing, however, it's "fake news".
And this gets to the heart of the matter.
The president wants positive news coverage for himself and critical coverage of his adversaries. "Fake news", "enemy of the people" and all the other media-bashing is simply a means to achieving that goal.
In sport, the strategy is called "working the referee". It's the same idea in politics - but the stakes are much higher.
NYTimes Communications
✔
@NYTimesPR
Statement of A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher, The New York Times, in response to President Trump’s tweet about their meeting https://bit.ly/2LHSFoB
1:01 AM - Jul 30, 2018
There's more to it than that, however. Mr Trump doesn't just want the referee's "calls" to go his way. His goal is to question the reliability the referee entirely. And it's working - at least among the president's most loyal supporters.
In a recent CBS News poll, 91% of "strong supporters" of the president's said they trust Mr Trump to provide them with accurate information. Only 11% said the same thing about the "mainstream media", while 63% said they trusted their own "friends and family".
Mr Sulzberger warned that Mr Trump's rhetoric could lead to violence
The president's war of words with the media has contributed to a base of support that is, effectively, invulnerable to negative news.
The question now is whether that base is enough to prevail in the upcoming mid-term congressional elections and, eventually, carry him to re-election victory in 2020.
It is, at the very least, a good place to start - and a reason why the president may stick to his current course, in spite of Mr Sulzberger's words of caution.
Zimbabwe election: First vote without Mugabe - BBC News
July 30, 2018.
Zimbabwe election: First vote without Mugabe
TopicsZimbabwe election 2018
Why Zimbabwe's election is historic
Voters in Zimbabwe are going to the polls in the country's first election without the involvement of long-time leader Robert Mugabe.
The country's founding president, Mr Mugabe, was ousted last year after almost four decades in power.
The main contenders in the presidential vote are incumbent Emmerson Mnangagwa, of the ruling Zanu-PF party, and opposition leader Nelson Chamisa.
Parliamentary and local elections are also taking place on Monday.
Polls give Mr Mnangagwa, thought to be 75, a narrow lead over his 40-year-old rival, who leads the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) Alliance.
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe - who first came to power after independence in 1980 - said he would not vote for his successor.
The country is expecting a high turnout of first-time voters. Younger voters are expected to be key - almost half of those registered are under the age of 35.
Hundreds of international observers have been deployed to ensure the vote goes smoothly, but the opposition has repeatedly alleged irregularities in the voter roll.
They have also expressed concern over the security of ballot papers and voter intimidation in mainly rural areas.
Mr Mnangagwa helped direct Zimbabwe's war of independence in the 1960s and 1970s
Known as "the crocodile" because of his political shrewdness - his party faction is known as "Lacoste"
Accused of masterminding attacks on opposition supporters after the 2008 election
Thought to be 75 years old, he promises to deliver jobs, and is seen as open to economic reforms
Survived several alleged assassination attempts, blamed on supporters of ex-President Mugabe
The 'crocodile' who snapped back
Nelson Chamisa, MDC Alliance
Mr Chamisa could become Zimbabwe's youngest ever president if elected
His skull was fractured when beaten up by state security agents in 2007
Became an MP at 25, a cabinet minister at 31 and could become the youngest president at 40
A recently qualified pastor, he has been using the hashtag #GodIsInIt for his campaign
Has promised to rebuild the country's devastated economy, but has been criticised for making extravagant promises - such as the introduction of a high-speed bullet train and bringing the Olympics to Zimbabwe
The crusader taking on Zimbabwe's 'crocodile'
The election follows decades of repressive rule which have brought severe economic challenges to Zimbabwe.
These include issues of investment, education, healthcare and jobs - some estimates suggest that the unemployment rate is as high as 90%.
Pumza Fihlani
@Pumza_Fihlani
Leaving the polling station, 68-year-old Sam Nkomo told me “This is the first time I’m seeing people from foreign media here, things really must be changing. It’s good to see you here, the election will be good, maybe there won’t be violence”. I got choked up. #ZimbabweVotes
5:38 PM - Jul 30, 2018
As Mr Chamisa cast his vote on Monday, he told the BBC's Africa editor Fergal Keane: "We will win this election to the extent it's free and fair... it's a done deal."
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe gave a surprise news conference where he refused to support his former ally Mr Mnangagwa.
Robert Mugabe refused to back Emmerson Mnangagwa
Mr Mugabe, who resigned in November after the military took control of the country, said: "I cannot vote for those who tormented me... I hope the choice of voting tomorrow will thrust away the military government and bring us back to constitutionality,"
The 94-year-old indicated that Mr Chamisa was the only viable candidate.
In response to the comments, Mr Mnangagwa accused his former boss of making a deal with the opposition.
Have Zimbabwe's generals turned into democrats?
"It is clear to all that Chamisa has forged a deal with Mugabe, we can no longer believe that his intentions are to transform Zimbabwe and rebuild our nation," he said.
Mr Mugabe also denied that, as president, he had planned to hand the leadership to his wife, Grace, saying it was "utter nonsense".
Zimbabwe election: First vote without Mugabe
TopicsZimbabwe election 2018
Why Zimbabwe's election is historic
Voters in Zimbabwe are going to the polls in the country's first election without the involvement of long-time leader Robert Mugabe.
The country's founding president, Mr Mugabe, was ousted last year after almost four decades in power.
The main contenders in the presidential vote are incumbent Emmerson Mnangagwa, of the ruling Zanu-PF party, and opposition leader Nelson Chamisa.
Parliamentary and local elections are also taking place on Monday.
Polls give Mr Mnangagwa, thought to be 75, a narrow lead over his 40-year-old rival, who leads the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) Alliance.
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe - who first came to power after independence in 1980 - said he would not vote for his successor.
The country is expecting a high turnout of first-time voters. Younger voters are expected to be key - almost half of those registered are under the age of 35.
Hundreds of international observers have been deployed to ensure the vote goes smoothly, but the opposition has repeatedly alleged irregularities in the voter roll.
They have also expressed concern over the security of ballot papers and voter intimidation in mainly rural areas.
Mr Mnangagwa helped direct Zimbabwe's war of independence in the 1960s and 1970s
Known as "the crocodile" because of his political shrewdness - his party faction is known as "Lacoste"
Accused of masterminding attacks on opposition supporters after the 2008 election
Thought to be 75 years old, he promises to deliver jobs, and is seen as open to economic reforms
Survived several alleged assassination attempts, blamed on supporters of ex-President Mugabe
The 'crocodile' who snapped back
Nelson Chamisa, MDC Alliance
Mr Chamisa could become Zimbabwe's youngest ever president if elected
His skull was fractured when beaten up by state security agents in 2007
Became an MP at 25, a cabinet minister at 31 and could become the youngest president at 40
A recently qualified pastor, he has been using the hashtag #GodIsInIt for his campaign
Has promised to rebuild the country's devastated economy, but has been criticised for making extravagant promises - such as the introduction of a high-speed bullet train and bringing the Olympics to Zimbabwe
The crusader taking on Zimbabwe's 'crocodile'
The election follows decades of repressive rule which have brought severe economic challenges to Zimbabwe.
These include issues of investment, education, healthcare and jobs - some estimates suggest that the unemployment rate is as high as 90%.
Pumza Fihlani
@Pumza_Fihlani
Leaving the polling station, 68-year-old Sam Nkomo told me “This is the first time I’m seeing people from foreign media here, things really must be changing. It’s good to see you here, the election will be good, maybe there won’t be violence”. I got choked up. #ZimbabweVotes
5:38 PM - Jul 30, 2018
As Mr Chamisa cast his vote on Monday, he told the BBC's Africa editor Fergal Keane: "We will win this election to the extent it's free and fair... it's a done deal."
On Sunday, Mr Mugabe gave a surprise news conference where he refused to support his former ally Mr Mnangagwa.
Robert Mugabe refused to back Emmerson Mnangagwa
Mr Mugabe, who resigned in November after the military took control of the country, said: "I cannot vote for those who tormented me... I hope the choice of voting tomorrow will thrust away the military government and bring us back to constitutionality,"
The 94-year-old indicated that Mr Chamisa was the only viable candidate.
In response to the comments, Mr Mnangagwa accused his former boss of making a deal with the opposition.
Have Zimbabwe's generals turned into democrats?
"It is clear to all that Chamisa has forged a deal with Mugabe, we can no longer believe that his intentions are to transform Zimbabwe and rebuild our nation," he said.
Mr Mugabe also denied that, as president, he had planned to hand the leadership to his wife, Grace, saying it was "utter nonsense".
Sunday, July 29, 2018
Cambodia election: Polls close in vote with no main opposition - BBC News
July 29, 2018
Cambodia election: Polls close in vote with no main opposition
Hun Sen has said he wants to rule Cambodia for at least a decade longer
Polling has now ended in Cambodia in a general election that lacked any serious challengers to Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has been in power since 1985.
Critics had called the vote a sham as the Cambodia National Rescue Party, which narrowly lost the last election, has been dissolved.
The US and EU were among those who had questioned the credibility of the vote.
But the ruling Cambodian People's Party said 19 other parties had stood.
The National Election Commission has reported an updated turnout of 82.71%, according to Reuters news agency.
Analysts had said the turnout figure would be a key test for Hun Sen's legitimacy. During the campaign, opposition activists calling for a voter boycott had been accused of incitement.
On Friday, the government ordered internet service providers in the country to block a number of independent news websites, including Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and Voice of Democracy.
It also singled out a post on the German version of the image-sharing site Pinterest, which had specifically referenced the Cambodia National Rescue Party.
English newspaper outlets were among other sites blocked.
Hun Sen: Cambodia's strongman prime minister
When the UN ran a country
US cuts Cambodia aid over democracy concerns
As part of a large UN peacekeeping mission, Cambodia held its first multi-party elections in decades in 1993 after years of bloodshed and war. Some two million people are estimated to have died between 1975 and 1979 when the country was ruled by the radical communists of the Khmer Rouge.
Hun Sen, a former soldier in the Khmer Rouge who later opposed them, has presided over a sustained period of rapid economic growth.
He has long been accused of using the courts and security forces to crush dissent and intimidate critics, but has for years allowed some measure of political opposition to his CPP party.
This election however marks the "death" of democracy in Cambodia, senior opposition figure Mu Sochua told the BBC.
The election has been criticised by the UN as fundamentally flawed
Voters dipped their finger in indelible ink at polling stations, making it easy for local authorities to see who has voted, and who has not.
A voter in the southern province of Kampot told BBC Thai that he would vote "just to have ink" on his finger.
"I'm afraid there could be problems and I will be arrested," the 39-year-old man, who did not want be named due to fear of retribution, said.
In 2013, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) led a mass protest movement after rejecting the election results, posing the biggest threat to Hun Sen's rule in more than a decade.
It was allowed to contest local elections last year, and won around 44% of the popular vote.
CNRP leader Kem Sokha was charged with treason and has been jailed in a remote prison
Since then, its leader has been jailed for alleged treason, and much of its senior leadership has fled abroad, trying to drum up support for international sanctions. Independent media outlets have closed or left the country and journalists have been arrested.
The party itself was dissolved in November by the Supreme Court, based on a complaint from the government that it was conspiring with the US to overthrow it. All its elected politicians lost their positions, including 55 seats in the 123-seat National Assembly.
On Friday, during the last day of campaigning, Hun Sen told thousands of supporters that his party had eliminated "traitors who attempted to topple the government" .
"If we didn't eliminate them with an iron fist, maybe by now Cambodia would be in a situation of war," he said.
The US and the EU, which both lavished aid on Cambodia after its first UN-administered election in 1993, have cut off electoral assistance for this poll.
But China, which recently gave more than $130m in military aid to Cambodia, is sending observers for the first time.
Cambodia election: Polls close in vote with no main opposition
Hun Sen has said he wants to rule Cambodia for at least a decade longer
Polling has now ended in Cambodia in a general election that lacked any serious challengers to Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has been in power since 1985.
Critics had called the vote a sham as the Cambodia National Rescue Party, which narrowly lost the last election, has been dissolved.
The US and EU were among those who had questioned the credibility of the vote.
But the ruling Cambodian People's Party said 19 other parties had stood.
The National Election Commission has reported an updated turnout of 82.71%, according to Reuters news agency.
Analysts had said the turnout figure would be a key test for Hun Sen's legitimacy. During the campaign, opposition activists calling for a voter boycott had been accused of incitement.
On Friday, the government ordered internet service providers in the country to block a number of independent news websites, including Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and Voice of Democracy.
It also singled out a post on the German version of the image-sharing site Pinterest, which had specifically referenced the Cambodia National Rescue Party.
English newspaper outlets were among other sites blocked.
Hun Sen: Cambodia's strongman prime minister
When the UN ran a country
US cuts Cambodia aid over democracy concerns
As part of a large UN peacekeeping mission, Cambodia held its first multi-party elections in decades in 1993 after years of bloodshed and war. Some two million people are estimated to have died between 1975 and 1979 when the country was ruled by the radical communists of the Khmer Rouge.
Hun Sen, a former soldier in the Khmer Rouge who later opposed them, has presided over a sustained period of rapid economic growth.
He has long been accused of using the courts and security forces to crush dissent and intimidate critics, but has for years allowed some measure of political opposition to his CPP party.
This election however marks the "death" of democracy in Cambodia, senior opposition figure Mu Sochua told the BBC.
The election has been criticised by the UN as fundamentally flawed
Voters dipped their finger in indelible ink at polling stations, making it easy for local authorities to see who has voted, and who has not.
A voter in the southern province of Kampot told BBC Thai that he would vote "just to have ink" on his finger.
"I'm afraid there could be problems and I will be arrested," the 39-year-old man, who did not want be named due to fear of retribution, said.
In 2013, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) led a mass protest movement after rejecting the election results, posing the biggest threat to Hun Sen's rule in more than a decade.
It was allowed to contest local elections last year, and won around 44% of the popular vote.
CNRP leader Kem Sokha was charged with treason and has been jailed in a remote prison
Since then, its leader has been jailed for alleged treason, and much of its senior leadership has fled abroad, trying to drum up support for international sanctions. Independent media outlets have closed or left the country and journalists have been arrested.
The party itself was dissolved in November by the Supreme Court, based on a complaint from the government that it was conspiring with the US to overthrow it. All its elected politicians lost their positions, including 55 seats in the 123-seat National Assembly.
On Friday, during the last day of campaigning, Hun Sen told thousands of supporters that his party had eliminated "traitors who attempted to topple the government" .
"If we didn't eliminate them with an iron fist, maybe by now Cambodia would be in a situation of war," he said.
The US and the EU, which both lavished aid on Cambodia after its first UN-administered election in 1993, have cut off electoral assistance for this poll.
But China, which recently gave more than $130m in military aid to Cambodia, is sending observers for the first time.
Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it - NBC News
Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it.
Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement.
by Alex Seitz-Wald / Jul.22.2018
Ocasio-Cortez joins Sanders to rally for Kansas Democrat, progressive values
JUL.21.201801:19
COLUMBUS, Ohio — If Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading a leftist political revolt, then a summit here of moderate Democrats might be the start of a counterrevolution.
While the energy and momentum is with progressives these days — the victory of rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, buzz about Democratic Socialism and the spread of the "Abolish ICE!" movement are a few recent examples — moderates are warning that ignoring them will lead the party to disaster in the midterm elections and the 2020 presidential contest.
That anxiety has largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop Sanders, I-Vt., if he runs for the White House again.
But the first-ever "Opportunity 2020" convention, organized here last week by Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank, gave middle-of-the-road party members a safe space to come together and voice their concerns.
"The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told NBC News.
"I think we need a debate within the party," he added. "Frankly, it would have been better to start the conversation earlier."
Pragmatism may be a tougher sell in the Donald Trump era, but with the 2020 presidential race just around the corner, moderate Democrats know they are running out of time to reassert themselves.
The gathering here was just that — an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-cohosted the event and addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to laughs.
Image: Tim RyanRep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, arrives for a House Democratic Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2016.Susan Walsh / AP file
The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the left's message about inequality.
"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," said Third Way President Jon Cowan.
For the left, Third Way represents the Wall Street-wing of the party and everything wrong with the donor-driven wet blanketism they've been trying exorcise since 2016. Thom Hartmann, a liberal talk radio host and Sanders friend, once called the group's warning about Sanders "probably the most stupid thing I've ever heard," before ticking through all the investment bankers on Third Way's board.
But some elected officials in relatively conservative areas say progressives are clueless about what their agenda would mean for Democrats outside major cities and the coasts.
"We will be a permanent minority party in this country," said Iowa state Sen. Jeff Danielson, a firefighter who represents an area that saw one of the biggest swings from Barack Obama to Trump during the 2016 election.
Single-payer, government-run health care may be a popular party plank in New York City, where Ocascio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist, recently won a high-profile primary, Danielson said, but added, "it does not work in the rest of America ... and I’m tired of losing."
Moderates said they feel they're being drowned out by louder voices on the left.
Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership who represents a district Trump won, invoked Richard Nixon's "silent majority."
"If you look throughout the heartland, there's a silent majority who just wants normalcy. Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done," she told reporters.
"There's a lot of people that just don't really like protests and don't like yelling and screaming," she added.
And they worry the angry left will cost Democrats a rare chance to win over those kind of voters, including Republicans who no longer want to be part of Trump's GOP.
"Republicans have chosen the far right, which means that they have ceded a good portion of the middle of the road," said former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is considering a presidential run. "The Democrats, in my opinion, would make a big mistake if they decide to run a base election and just say, ‘Our base is bigger than your base.'"
Image: Mitch LandrieuNew Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu speaks in Washington on race in America and his decision to take down Confederate monuments in his city on June 16, 2017.Jacquelyn Martin / AP file
With much of the recent policy innovation on the Democratic side happening on the left, the "Opportunity Agenda" unveiled here tries to equip moderates with their own big ideas.
Some of the key initiatives are a massive apprenticeship program to train workers, a privatized employer-funded universal pension that would supplement Social Security and an overhaul of unemployment insurance to include skills training. Other proposals included a "small business bill of rights" and the creation of a "BoomerCorps" — like the volunteer AmericaCorps for seniors.
Meanwhile, they say the progressive agenda is out of date. They dismiss, for instance, a federal jobs guarantee as a rehash of the New Deal.
"Our ideas must be bold, but they must also fit the age we are in," Cowan said. "Big isn't enough. If it's bold and old — it’s simply old."
Matt Bennett, Third Way's senior vice president for public affairs, acknowledges that Sanders "had a big head start."
Many of the party's biggest stars, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Cory Booker of New Jersey, have already signed on to Sanders-backed policies like single-payer health care. But Bennett said he thinks they'll reconsider when they examine the details. "I think they were a little hasty," he said.
Notably, the proposed moderate agenda does not take issue with the party's broad consensus in favor of abortion rights, LGBT equality, stricter gun control and support for immigrants and a path to citizenship for the undocumented.
In a twist, the agenda is based largely on geography, rather than class or race, which are more popular on the left. It focuses on trying to address the fact that cities are thriving as rural areas fall behind.
Clinton was pilloried earlier this year for bragging that she "won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward," but Democratic losses in the rest of America have been politically disastrous for the party.
The difficulty will be selling this approach in the Democratic presidential primary to a base that has seemed to move in the opposite direction.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the chair of the New Democrat Coalition, said members of his side are not "naturally arbiters of emotion and anger."
"How we tell our story and put forward our polices in a way that makes people want to mount the barricades is one of the biggest challenges we have," said Himes, a former Goldman Sachs banker who represents Fairfield, Connecticut.
He pointed to calls to "Abolish ICE," for instance, which he characterized as emotionally understandable but politically illogical.
"It hurts us in areas where we need to win," Himes warned of "Abolish ICE" in the midterms. "You have now made life harder for the 60 or 70 Democrats fighting in districts where we need to win if we ever want to be in the majority."
"We're going to figure it out, though," he added, looking down at his tie printed with little blue waves. "We're going to figure it out."
Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement.
by Alex Seitz-Wald / Jul.22.2018
Ocasio-Cortez joins Sanders to rally for Kansas Democrat, progressive values
JUL.21.201801:19
COLUMBUS, Ohio — If Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading a leftist political revolt, then a summit here of moderate Democrats might be the start of a counterrevolution.
While the energy and momentum is with progressives these days — the victory of rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, buzz about Democratic Socialism and the spread of the "Abolish ICE!" movement are a few recent examples — moderates are warning that ignoring them will lead the party to disaster in the midterm elections and the 2020 presidential contest.
That anxiety has largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop Sanders, I-Vt., if he runs for the White House again.
But the first-ever "Opportunity 2020" convention, organized here last week by Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank, gave middle-of-the-road party members a safe space to come together and voice their concerns.
"The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told NBC News.
"I think we need a debate within the party," he added. "Frankly, it would have been better to start the conversation earlier."
Pragmatism may be a tougher sell in the Donald Trump era, but with the 2020 presidential race just around the corner, moderate Democrats know they are running out of time to reassert themselves.
The gathering here was just that — an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-cohosted the event and addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to laughs.
Image: Tim RyanRep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, arrives for a House Democratic Caucus meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2016.Susan Walsh / AP file
The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the left's message about inequality.
"Once again, the time has come to mend, but not end, capitalism for a new era," said Third Way President Jon Cowan.
For the left, Third Way represents the Wall Street-wing of the party and everything wrong with the donor-driven wet blanketism they've been trying exorcise since 2016. Thom Hartmann, a liberal talk radio host and Sanders friend, once called the group's warning about Sanders "probably the most stupid thing I've ever heard," before ticking through all the investment bankers on Third Way's board.
But some elected officials in relatively conservative areas say progressives are clueless about what their agenda would mean for Democrats outside major cities and the coasts.
"We will be a permanent minority party in this country," said Iowa state Sen. Jeff Danielson, a firefighter who represents an area that saw one of the biggest swings from Barack Obama to Trump during the 2016 election.
Single-payer, government-run health care may be a popular party plank in New York City, where Ocascio-Cortez, a Democratic Socialist, recently won a high-profile primary, Danielson said, but added, "it does not work in the rest of America ... and I’m tired of losing."
Moderates said they feel they're being drowned out by louder voices on the left.
Rep. Cheri Bustos, D-Ill., a member of the House Democratic leadership who represents a district Trump won, invoked Richard Nixon's "silent majority."
"If you look throughout the heartland, there's a silent majority who just wants normalcy. Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done," she told reporters.
"There's a lot of people that just don't really like protests and don't like yelling and screaming," she added.
And they worry the angry left will cost Democrats a rare chance to win over those kind of voters, including Republicans who no longer want to be part of Trump's GOP.
"Republicans have chosen the far right, which means that they have ceded a good portion of the middle of the road," said former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who is considering a presidential run. "The Democrats, in my opinion, would make a big mistake if they decide to run a base election and just say, ‘Our base is bigger than your base.'"
Image: Mitch LandrieuNew Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu speaks in Washington on race in America and his decision to take down Confederate monuments in his city on June 16, 2017.Jacquelyn Martin / AP file
With much of the recent policy innovation on the Democratic side happening on the left, the "Opportunity Agenda" unveiled here tries to equip moderates with their own big ideas.
Some of the key initiatives are a massive apprenticeship program to train workers, a privatized employer-funded universal pension that would supplement Social Security and an overhaul of unemployment insurance to include skills training. Other proposals included a "small business bill of rights" and the creation of a "BoomerCorps" — like the volunteer AmericaCorps for seniors.
Meanwhile, they say the progressive agenda is out of date. They dismiss, for instance, a federal jobs guarantee as a rehash of the New Deal.
"Our ideas must be bold, but they must also fit the age we are in," Cowan said. "Big isn't enough. If it's bold and old — it’s simply old."
Matt Bennett, Third Way's senior vice president for public affairs, acknowledges that Sanders "had a big head start."
Many of the party's biggest stars, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Cory Booker of New Jersey, have already signed on to Sanders-backed policies like single-payer health care. But Bennett said he thinks they'll reconsider when they examine the details. "I think they were a little hasty," he said.
Notably, the proposed moderate agenda does not take issue with the party's broad consensus in favor of abortion rights, LGBT equality, stricter gun control and support for immigrants and a path to citizenship for the undocumented.
In a twist, the agenda is based largely on geography, rather than class or race, which are more popular on the left. It focuses on trying to address the fact that cities are thriving as rural areas fall behind.
Clinton was pilloried earlier this year for bragging that she "won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward," but Democratic losses in the rest of America have been politically disastrous for the party.
The difficulty will be selling this approach in the Democratic presidential primary to a base that has seemed to move in the opposite direction.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the chair of the New Democrat Coalition, said members of his side are not "naturally arbiters of emotion and anger."
"How we tell our story and put forward our polices in a way that makes people want to mount the barricades is one of the biggest challenges we have," said Himes, a former Goldman Sachs banker who represents Fairfield, Connecticut.
He pointed to calls to "Abolish ICE," for instance, which he characterized as emotionally understandable but politically illogical.
"It hurts us in areas where we need to win," Himes warned of "Abolish ICE" in the midterms. "You have now made life harder for the 60 or 70 Democrats fighting in districts where we need to win if we ever want to be in the majority."
"We're going to figure it out, though," he added, looking down at his tie printed with little blue waves. "We're going to figure it out."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
