Esse, Thor och nykomlingen (I sammanhanget) Hannes drar igång och pratar om hur det är att köpa iPhone X, drönare samt problemet med bristande nätnutralitet.
Följ oss också på:1851465 items (1851465 unread) in 479 feeds
Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity might get blown up from the inside. On Thursday, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, a Democratic member of the voter fraud commission, filed a bombshell lawsuit against the commission and its chairs, alleging that the group has been violating federal law. Dunlap alleges the committee is a cynical partisan effort to exaggerate the frequency of fraudulent voting, that it flouts legal regulations, and that its token Democratic participants have been systematically shunned. Multiple civil rights advocates have already sued the commission for similar chicanery, but Dunlap’s suit is different. He isn’t just demanding access to potentially damning documents and information: He appears to be atoning for his mistake of joining the commission by fighting to expose the rottenness at its core.
Trump established the commission after claiming that 3 million to 5 million illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election. He appointed Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican notorious for his nativist voter suppression schemes, as its vice chair. Kobach has a penchant for peddling easily debunked lies about voter fraud. He has claimed that 18,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in Kansas; although that’s a blatant fabrication, he’s used this claim to justify suspending the voting rights of about 35,314 Kansans. His pet project, Crosscheck, purports to identify voters who are registered in multiple states so election officials can purge them from the rolls. It has a 99.5 percent false positive rate.
By putting Kobach in charge, Trump made the commission’s true purpose—to vindicate his allegations of mass voter fraud—quite obvious. Kobach was happy to oblige but also had another goal in mind: Shortly after the election, he emailed Trump’s transition team proposing amendments to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. As Kansas’ secretary of state, Kobach tried to force residents to provide proof of citizenship before they could register to vote, which the NVRA prohibits. In his emails and meetings with Trump, Kobach urged the president to push for an amendment to that legislation that would allow states to force voters to provide a passport or birth certificate before casting a ballot.
There was just one problem with Kobach using the commission to launch an attack on the NVRA: To pull it off, he would likely have to break the law. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, governs the conduct of commissions like Kobach’s, and requires them to follow certain guidelines to ensure transparency and prevent bias. FACA stipulates that advisory committees have “fairly balanced membership” with different “points of view,” and that they not be “inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority” or “any special interest.” In addition, committees must provide timely public access to all “records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents” that its members consult or prepare. These provisions have been interpreted to grant committee members “an enforceable right to obtain” these documents, and “to fully participate in the deliberations of the Commission.”
FACA’s guidelines are not mere suggestions; they are legal obligations. And under Kobach’s leadership, the commission brazenly flouted them. Dunlap, one of four Democrats on the commission—the other seven members are Republicans—says in his lawsuit that he was railroaded from the start. He claims he was notified that Kobach would request a vast amount of sensitive voter data just hours before the commission sent letters to all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He also says he was denied access to dubious and controversial documents distributed at the commission’s notorious first public meeting. And he was allegedly excluded from preparations for the group’s next public meeting, at which he sharply criticized Kobach’s erroneous claim in Breitbart that he had “proof” of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Following that meeting, Dunlap says, he was actively excluded from the commission’s work and denied access to documents shared by other members.
“Despite diligent efforts to gain access,” Dunlap’s suit complains, “Secretary Dunlap has been, and continues to be, blocked from receiving Commission documents necessary to carry out his responsibilities.” By “freezing Secretary Dunlap out from all substantive Commission activities and information,” Kobach and his allies clearly violated the plain letter of FACA.
Dunlap’s suit has even more incriminating material. It notes that “many commissioners,” including Kobach, “have used and continue to use personal and nongovernmental email addresses for Commission business.” In addition to compromising data security, this practice jeopardizes the commission’s ability to collect and index all of its communications—which a federal judge has ordered it to do pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The lawsuit continues:
Secretary Dunlap has asked commissioners to use his official Maine governmental email address for Commission business to ensure records are properly maintained. Despite repeated requests, commissioners and Commission staff continue to use Secretary Dunlap’s personal email address. Secretary Dunlap forwards each Commission email to his Maine governmental email address but other commissioners may not be as diligent.
Here, Dunlap strongly implies that his colleagues are violating a federal court order compelling the storage of their commission-related emails.
The tone of Dunlap’s lawsuit is notable: He is not bitter, just exasperated. It appears that he joined the commission out of a genuine desire to investigate election practices and, if necessary, suggest improvements to the nation’s voting system. But it didn’t take long for him to learn, he says, that he’d been invited “to afford the Commission and its prospective findings a veneer of legitimacy.” Dunlap cites an email from commission member Hans von Spakovsky, in which the disenfranchisement crusader insisted that the group include no Democrats. (The email’s initial recipient is unclear, but it was ultimately forwarded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions.) This email, the lawsuit notes, suggests that “the Commission’s superficial bipartisanship has been a facade” from the start.
Dunlap could have responded to the commission’s fundamental fraudulence by simply quitting. Instead, he has done something far more admirable, asserting his right to determine what, exactly, his colleagues are up to—what secrets they are so anxious to hide from his eyes. Dunlap helped to legitimize this commission. Now he appears eager to blow the whistle on its duplicity.
Today’s revelations: GOP senators try to spin the Roy Moore news. Comedy fans reel at the big Louis C.K. story. And we all try to figure out why a man would want to do ... that.
Postmortems: How much did Donald Trump hurt Ed Gillespie in Virginia? Will Saletan argues that the president’s unpopularity took its toll. And Mark Joseph Stern reminds us that despite the Democratic victory this week, gerrymandering has very real effects.
Right-thinking: If it feels like conservatives are more susceptible to fake news, there’s a reason, psychologist John Ehrenreich writes. Their motivations and personalities are different from liberals’, and human factors always affect our reasoning.
Once a believer: Aymann Ismail once thought ex-Muslims who spoke against the religion in public were really, really bad for Islam. Then he interviewed a few of them.
For fun: Something is wrong at Newsweek.
Just bad,
Rebecca
A nine-point margin of victory on Tuesday night for Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate for Virginia governor, appears to have vanquished the doubts that clung to his campaign in the days before the election. That his victory speech was interrupted by three protesters with signs that read, “Sanctuary for all,” a reference to the governor-elect’s waffling on a state-wide pre-emption law for so-called sanctuary cities—jurisdictions in some way uncooperative with federal immigration police—will be an afterthought. To the extent anyone remembers the sanctuary city issue in the Virginia gubernatorial election, they’ll remember it for the fear-mongering advertisements of Northam’s opponent, Ed Gillespie, that drew condemnation from Republicans and Democrats as prominent as President Obama. But the Democrat’s handling of the sanctuary issue ought to be a warning, too, that the party has yet to find the language they will use to defend a policy that has simultaneously become both a liberal bona fide and a right-wing dog whistle.
Here’s the backstory. In February, as lieutenant governor, Northam cast a tie-breaking vote against a pre-emption measure to ban sanctuary cities in Virginia. Accused by his opponent of voting to enshrine sanctuary cities and, by extension, let MS-13 gang members run wild in the DC suburbs, Northam seemed incapable of defending his decision, except to say (correctly) that the whole thing had been a stunt, since Virginia has no sanctuary cities and the veto of Gov. Terry McAuliffe, also a Democrat, was certain. Then Northam said he had always been against sanctuary cities. Finally he said that, as governor, he would sign the very bill he had voted down.
That sanctuary cities became an issue at all in Virginia tells you something about the insidious conflation of national and local issues in American politics. This problem predates Trump, though it has been exacerbated by his monopoly on our attention. Local races that should be about land use and bond issues are now suffused with talk of, say, immigration or… Trump. Local candidates are elected according to voters’ national party preferences, in what the law professor David Schleicher calls “second-order elections.” Slate’s Jeremy Stahl has explained how sanctuary cities, in particular, grew from a niche dispute between localities and the Department of Homeland Security into a widening front of the culture war.
Politicians confronting the issue in 2018 should take a look at Texas, where Democrats across the state rallied this spring and summer against an anti-sanctuary bill called SB 4. True, SB 4 is a broader policing directive that, among other things, allows local police to turn run-of-the-mill detentions into immigration law inquiries. True too that the opposition in Texas ultimately failed; the bill passed and is being disputed in court. Still, the debate and passage of SB 4 was a moment of exuberant, unabashed protest for Democrats in Texas—a far cry from the retreat Ralph Northam made under fire.
Here’s what opponents of SB 4 did in Texas. First, they embraced the religious righteousness of humane immigration policy. “I have a strong belief that we should welcome strangers, that we are all God’s children,” State Sen. Sylvia Garcia, who represents Houston, said to begin her questioning. Religious groups filed court briefs against the bill, and spoke up to attack it. “SB 4 is contrary to the moral imperative that we love our neighbor, welcome the immigrant and care for the most vulnerable among us,” the episcopal bishop C. Andrew Doyle said in July. In a statement opposing the law, the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops wrote, “S.B. 4 neglects Christ’s call to welcome the stranger and undermines our nation’s heritage to offer the light of freedom to the oppressed.”
It’s part of a larger trend in which religious leaders—and in Texas, Catholics in particular—have become the most compelling defenders of immigrants’ rights. This summer, the Catholic bishop of El Paso, Mark J. Seitz, criticized Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for threatening to sue the federal government over DACA. “When I hear this legalistic insistence upon every letter of our broken immigration law being carried out to this cruel degree, I can hear Jesus’ indignant response: ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites,’” Seitz wrote. It’s more effective than invoking the economic benefits of migration, more specific than calling on America’s moral-historical obligation, and much more effective than, as Matt Yglesias sardonically labeled the Democratic strategy du jour, “shouting ‘yo that’s racist’ at racist fliers.”
Second, the anti-SB 4 coalition invoked the Constitution. One of the most fundamental issues with the immigration detainers that so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions decline to enforce is that they sometimes require local jails to hold suspected immigration law violators indefinitely without a warrant. That has left some municipalities exposed to Fourth Amendment lawsuits for holding American citizens without charges. Garcia, questioning the sponsor of SB4, asked: “Has it ever occurred to you that these law enforcement officials are upholding the rule of law according to the Constitution, which trumps all other laws?” One reason a U.S. district judge blocked parts of SB 4 in August? He thought the bill would “inevitably lead to Fourth Amendment violations.”
Third, the anti-SB 4 coalition included law enforcement officials defending the discretion of local policing practices. Police chiefs from Dallas, Houston, Austin, Arlington, Fort Worth, and San Antonio, joined by the director of the Texas Police Chiefs Association, wrote an op-ed saying the policy would make police officers’ jobs more difficult. This bill, they said, “will lead to distrust of police and less cooperation from members of the community. And it will foster the belief that people cannot seek assistance from police for fear of being subjected to an immigration status investigation.” Sheriffs representing Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso published their own letter. “We cannot drive crime victims and witnesses into the shadows without undermining local public safety,” they wrote.
There you have the three-part playbook for a political defense of sanctuary cities, brought to you by the state of Texas: God, the Constitution, and the police.
On the heels of a report earlier this week claiming Apple had surpassed Samsung in unit sales, TrendForce is out today with its latest data and predictions for the remainder of 2017. The research firm reports similar total smartphone production volume of 384 million units for Q3 2017, with that number expected grow to 424 million during Q4 during the peak of holiday shopping…
Five women accused Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct in a New York Times report published Thursday, and as has been the case with other exposés about alleged predatory behavior, the next question is: Who knew, and when did they know?
In 2016, Jon Stewart was the guest at a live taping of David Axelrod’s podcast, The Axe Files, at the University of Chicago, when a member of the audience asked him about C.K., the last person Stewart interviewed on The Daily Show—specifically, about the allegations of sexual harassment against C.K. Stewart seemed pretty surprised by the question and said he wasn’t aware of the accusations, noting that he’d worked with C.K. for 30 years and calling him “a wonderful man.” (The exchange, which resurfaced on Twitter via actor James Urbaniak, begins around the 1:13:50 mark in the video below.)
The audience member acknowledged that the rumors were, at the time of The Daily Show's taping, just rumors, rather than a legal case like the one against Bill Cosby, and tried to pivot to ask Stewart instead about what role he thinks comedians should play in cases like these. However, the discussion was abruptly cut short by a seemingly annoyed Axelrod.
Here’s how the entire exchange went down:
Audience member: I wanted to ask you about the last interview on your show, which I think was Louis C.K.
Stewart: Yeah.
Audience member: So from my memory, I think that was after some of the rumors about Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of female comedians—
Stewart: Whoa.
Audience member: —had sort of started to come out.
Stewart: Wait, what?
Audience member: It was after Jen Kirkman had talked about her knowledge of Louis C.K.’s alleged harassment of comedians—at least people interpreted it that way—and an article on Gawker, I believe, about it. I just wanted to know—if this is the first you’re hearing of it, maybe I already got my answer, but there wasn’t discussion about this on the show.
Stewart: [laughs] Wait, wait, wait. I’m a little lost. So the internet said Louis harassed women.
Audience member: So there was first a Gawker article and then a couple of tweets by people—
Stewart: [laughs] You know who you’re talking to, right?
Audience member: It’s a fair point that internet rumors are not court cases or anything. I just wanted to know if there was any sort of discussion about that on the show, if that was a thing on your radar.
Stewart: No. I didn’t see the tweets.
Audience member: Or Jen Kirkman’s podcast about—
Stewart: I apologize. I’m not that connected to that world. I don’t know what you’re talking about but—I can’t really answer. I don’t know what to say.
Audience member: I think a lot of people at the time didn’t know what that was. Again, the internet is not for sure, but there have been comedians who have taken strong stances on Bill Cosby without certain knowledge, from Bill Maher to Hannibal Buress. I just wondered if you could talk about the role of comedians—
Axelrod: But as you pointed out, the Bill Cosby case actually is a legal case.
Audience member: It is now but it wasn’t when Bill Maher and Hannibal Buress were talking about it. Maybe you can speak to the role of comedians—
Stewart: All I can tell you is I’ve worked with Louis for 30 years and he’s a wonderful man and person and I’ve never heard anything about this. We’ve all known Bill Cosby was a prick for a long time, so I don’t know what to tell you. But I didn’t know about the sexual assault—
Audience member: Not sexual assault, but—
Axelrod: Sir, appreciate your question. Thank you. And let’s say thanks to Jon Stewart.
Partiveteranerna är kritiska till efterträdarnas låsning och vill se blocköverskridande samarbeten.
Inlägget Rävarnas dom över Alliansen dök först upp på Fokus.
Qualcomm's much-anticipated ARM-based Centriq 2400 product line, which started shipping commercially this week, is a worthy contender to break Intel's virtual monopoly in the server processor arena, where data center operators are thirsting to see competition to help bring down costs.
An unsolicited acquisition bid for Qualcomm from Broadcom, emerging server-chip competitors and legal wrangles involving Apple and other vendors, however, cast a bit of a shadow on prospects for the new chip.
[ Check out this review: How rack servers from HPE, Dell and IBM stack up . ]
There is a story people will tell about Virginia in the wake of the Great Blue Wave of 2017. That story will go like this: The events of Aug. 12 in Charlottesville, when the quiet progressive town was invaded by white nationalists, informed everything that happened in this week’s state and local elections. In this telling, progressives, minorities, women, and organizers woke up and united after the alt-right marched on the small college town, with their Nazi salutes, guns, and declaration that “You will not replace us.” (Or, “Jews will not replace us,” as some of these marchers had declared.) This united and newly energized coalition realized that the enemy was at the gates and that the enemy was emboldened and fearless. After President Donald Trump weighed in with his view that there were “very fine people on both sides” of the protests, the statewide concern became that the Nazis had found succor in the White House and needn’t find it further in Virginia’s statehouse. This united progressive front won together. While that narrative is comforting, what happened on Election Day in Charlottesville belies it.
The statewide election was surely at least partially a referendum on what happened in Charlottesville this summer. Republican Ed Gillespie, after all, openly campaigned on his support for the Confederate monuments that had ignited tensions and accused his opponent of seeking to “tear down history” by opposing them. Gov.-elect Ralph Northam, for his part, ran campaign ads with images of Gillespie and Trump superimposed over the neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis who came to town. At some level, the strategy clearly worked, with big spikes in turnout among minorities and women and massive amounts of grassroots organizing and fundraising. In his victory speech, Northam implicitly argued that these victories signified that the healing had begun: “Virginia has told us to end the divisiveness, that we will not condone hatred and bigotry, and to end the politics that have torn this country apart.” Again, though, what happened in Charlottesville this week is much more complicated than that.
Whatever good feelings this election may have given opponents of hatred and bigotry, the city where it all happened is still roiled by the trauma of August. That fact clearly complicated the race for the two open seats on the City Council. In a city that is overwhelmingly Democratic and progressive, the story of Charlottesville’s 2017 election is fraught and destabilizing. Even before the alt-right march in August—the one that left one counterprotester dead, allegedly murdered by a man who had carried the literal shield of white nationalists—racial justice groups were pushing back on the myth that Thomas Jefferson’s city was a magical place of racial harmony. Over the course of a summer that featured three torch-lit marches and a Klan rally, many locals became increasingly frustrated and vocal about the sense that the City Council—composed of the same progressives who had voted to remove the statue—had betrayed them. That fight, and the anger that simmers beneath it, confounds any simple stories about the unified Democratic victories in Virginia. But to watch that narrative pulled apart is to see a clearer road map to what healing might actually look like.
Long before the Aug. 12 protest, people like Nikuyah Walker were searing in their criticism of Charlottesville’s City Council, which was accused of selling a rosy fiction about the town as a “world-class city” or the “capital of the Resistance.” Walker, who is a black woman, on Tuesday became the first independent to win a City Council seat since 1948. This upset would have been unthinkable a year earlier. Walker not only defeated a Democrat, Amy Laufer, but also explicitly ran on a platform of “unmasking the reality” of a town in which affordable housing is all but vanishing and services and education for poor and minority citizens are still lacking. Walker has a long background in advocacy and social service and had been challenging the City Council to reckon with its own failures, especially around race and class, for months. Walker was one of a small army of citizens who took over a council meeting after the Aug. 12 rally to excoriate the mayor, Mike Signer, for perceived failures to adequately prepare for and respond to the threats from neo-Nazi Richard Spencer and his followers.
In the weeks and months since, City Council meetings have been angry and chaotic. Racial justice activists have made demands for changes, investigations, and resignations. Whatever sense that this story was simply about “good guys versus Nazis” has long been put to rest. Many—if not most—of the people I know in the town I called home until this summer have found the process disorienting. Things reached a head last weekend when the Daily Progress ran an anonymously sourced piece attacking Walker on the eve of the election, casting her as a stereotype of a hackneyed “angry black woman” who disrupts and destabilizes political work. The piece quoted emails Walker had sent to City Council in which she compared the council to “white people who closed schools after Brown vs. The Board of Education” and said “You are all masters of pretense. You all have continuously participated in modern day lynchings.” The same paper had released an appalling attack on the only black City Council member, Wes Bellamy, on the eve of the Aug. 12 rally, blaming him for the monument controversy. The backlash to the piece on Walker was quick and furious. The council was again confronted by local activists demanding the resignation of the mayor. Voters were urged to cast a protest vote for Walker and nobody else, in an attempt to deny the Democrats victory in both open seats. Walker won, leading the vote tally and finishing just 209 votes ahead of the third-place finisher. (Democrat Heather Hill won the second seat.)
The same residents of Charlottesville who spent the summer debating whether the council, the police, and the courts had been complicit with white supremacists—either willingly or through negligence—is as angry and divided this week over the local election as ever. Walker deliberately ran as a candidate of one side in that conflict. She has also, though, come to represent the ways in which the anger and displacement of those seeking racial justice can be discomfiting and destabilizing, especially to progressives. The intractable issues of race, class, and privilege, which lurk barely beneath the surface in the “world-class city” of Charlottesville, are not going to fit nicely into the wishful template of good and evil, right and wrong.
To repurpose the president, though, there are good people on both sides on the Democrat-dominated council. This is true, as well, when it comes to the urgent problems of affordable housing, education, overincarceration, and racially biased policing. At the same time, that fact hasn’t yet been nearly enough for the city to make the necessary progress on these issues.
Democrats in the commonwealth of Virginia are feeling proud and self- satisfied this week. But Charlottesville—the epicenter of the storm—is still feeling bruised and raw. There’s something about the town that says something about the nation. It is the hole in the doughnut, where easy answers about one side being all right and all in agreement are replaced by genuine self-doubt and justifiable anger. Again, this mirrors the ongoing fights still facing the national progressive movement. It is almost painfully comforting to march with millions of women in pink crocheted hats while chanting, “This is what democracy looks like.” The city of Charlottesville, where tempers are high and the curtain of “progressivism” is shredded in parts and threadbare in others, is what Democracy really looks like.
The Last Jedi’s Rian Johnson is working on a new Star Wars trilogy, according to a press release from Lucasfilm.
Don’t expect to see more of Luke or even Rey, though. According to the release, the trilogy will be “brand-new” and will “introduce new characters from a corner of the galaxy that Star Wars lore has never before explored.”
The plan is for Johnson to write and direct the first movie and shepherd the other two, with his regular producer Ram Bergman along for the ride as well.
Johnson remains the only person in Star Wars history to both write and direct a movie except for George Lucas himself, and Lucasfilm’s Kathleen Kennedy has shown no compunction about removing directors, like Solo’s Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who were deemed too determined to put their own personal stamp on the material. But initial reports said Kennedy was so pleased with Johnson’s work on The Last Jedi that she asked him to write and/or direct Episode IX as well, and while that didn’t pan out, it’s clear Johnson has a unique place in the franchise history, and its future.
Have you ever learned anything from a pile of poop? You just might, if you’re working with Professor Poop, a cartoonish piece of poo that Japanese learners are bonkers for. Back in the […]
The post Yes, You Too Can Learn Kanji With This Candy Poo Inside of You appeared first on Geek.com.
When it comes to mobile devices, companies tend to like three things: solid security, ease-of-management and low cost.
With Apple's iPhone X, it looks like you can check off two of those three items. The phone's cutting-edge Face ID authentication system really does work. iOS 11 is easy to manage and inherently secure. But that last one – price – is a big one. The iPhone X starts at $999 for the 64GB model and goes to $1,149 for the 256GB version.
This piece was originally published on Just Security, an online forum for analysis of U.S. national security law and policy.
Last week, we learned that Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, is under indictment for laundering millions of dollars’ worth of income to hide it from the U.S. government, among other serious charges.
This made me wonder: Why did it take the scrutiny of a U.S. presidential election, and special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, to uncover and attempt to prosecute what appear to be fairly brazen financial crimes?
Was it that he’s politically connected? Is it because financial crimes are difficult to detect? Or could it be that well before his involvement with the Trump campaign, the U.S. government, suspicious of his dealings with Ukrainian and Russian officials, began collecting intelligence surveilling him and didn’t want to draw attention to their activities?
When it comes to white-collar crimes, it’s clear that being politically connected often helps lawbreakers avoid prosecution.
Both Manafort and his longtime business partner Rick Gates were charged last week with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires people working on behalf of a foreign government to register with the Justice Department. For Manafort and Gates to think they would get away with this wasn’t a bad bet: Compliance with the law is notoriously low, and the Justice Department rarely enforces it through a criminal prosecution.
“The reason the Justice Department doesn’t bring many FARA prosecutions is the same reason they haven’t brought many white-collar crime cases against Wall Street bankers,” said Michael German, a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program and a former special agent with the FBI. “These are people who run in the same social circles as those who write the laws, enforce the laws, and judge the cases. The laws are often written with unnecessary complexity, with many exceptions and caveats. Then, because there are so few cases brought that any single prosecution can appear inappropriately selective, making it more difficult to bring charges even when the violations are obvious.”
ProPublica’s Jesse Eisinger recently wrote a whole book about this phenomenon as it related to bank executives during the 2008 financial crisis, The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives. In a review of the book, James Kwak wrote in the New York Times:
Increasingly, the prosecutors and the defense attorneys on opposite sides of the table are the same people, just at different points in their careers. Conducting a criminal investigation of an executive isn’t just risky; in addition to jeopardizing a future partnership at a prestigious law firm, perhaps most important, it incurs “social discomfort,” especially for the well-mannered overachievers who now populate the Justice Department. No one wants to be a class traitor, especially when the members of one’s class are such nice people.
Eisinger was part of the reporting team that recently uncovered Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. escaped criminal prosecution in 2012 in all likelihood thanks to political connections. They were allegedly in serious legal jeopardy for knowingly misleading potential buyers in the Trump SoHo condo development. Marc Kasowitz, their father’s longtime attorney, made a $25,000 political contribution to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and then asked Vance to drop the case. Three months later, Vance ordered his prosecutors to abandon the case but still maintains that he made the right call.
Being able to afford high-powered lawyers can make a difference, German said. “These defendants have first-class legal representation to help them avoid charges, or when the few prosecutions are brought, to challenge them through trial and multiple appeals.”
Even without having to fight high-powered defense lawyers, these cases take lots of money to prosecute. “White-collar crime investigations are also time and resource consuming, so statistic-driven law enforcement agencies tend to shy away from them when there’s not significant public pressure to prosecute,” German said.
As for money laundering, it makes up an enormous shadow economy. On Slate’s Trumpcast, the New Yorker’s Adam Davidson said it’s estimated that money laundering is a $1 trillion to $7 trillion industry.
“This is an extremely lucrative business … so the vast, vast majority of people laundering money, even huge amounts of money, are never going to get caught, are never going to get in any trouble, and that’s where the brazenness comes in.”
The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) does collect information on suspicious financial transactions and stores that data. Financial institutions are required to file currency transaction reports, known as CTRs, when someone withdraws or deposits more than $10,000 in cash, and they also file suspicious activity reports, or SARs, when institutions identify unusual or potentially illegal activity.
Presumably, Manafort’s transactions should have generated these types of red flags. But as Davidson explained, the FinCEN database isn’t setup to alert officials to this activity while it’s happening:
“It’s kind of like Google, we have a lot of data in a computer, but it’s not screaming out … It’s more, if I’m looking at you for some other crime, I then go into this database and I can find this information. And once I know you’ve committed that crime, the money laundering is a nice added charge, and sometimes that becomes the primary charge that I take you down with. As I understand it, it’s fairly rare for money laundering itself to be the thing that gets you in trouble.”
Plus, this information on its own doesn’t tell you a whole lot, and it doesn’t always signal criminal activity. For example, if you win a lot of money in Las Vegas, a CTR could be filed, explained Courtney M. Oliva, the executive director of the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University.
She said money laundering can also be difficult to charge because you essentially have to prove two crimes: the money laundering itself, but also the underlying crime—the reason the money isn’t “clean” in the first place, this is known as the “specified unlawful activity.”
In Manafort’s case, it appears he was laundering his money to hide its origins (the work he was doing in Ukraine as an unregistered foreign agent) and also to avoid paying taxes on it.
This is not the first time that Manafort has been accused of money laundering. In 2011, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko filed a private lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York against Ukrainian billionaire Dmitri Firtash and named Manafort as one of the defendants. She accused them of skimming money off of natural gas contracts in Ukraine, then laundering the money through bogus New York real estate deals, and then using those funds to prosecute her back in Ukraine and eventually put her in prison. After four years of litigation, the case was dismissed in 2015.
What makes Manafort different than your ordinary suspected white collar criminal? Well before he joined the Trump campaign, Manafort was apparently on the radar of the U.S. intelligence community, which had him wiretapped under secret court order in 2014, according to reporting by CNN.
Asha Rangappa, who served as an FBI special agent specializing in counterintelligence investigations in New York City from 2002 until 2005, explained in an earlier piece for Just Security that to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Manafort, the FBI would have needed show show probable cause that Manafort was
“knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities” (rather than merely being “an agent of a foreign power”)—in other words, that he wasn’t just acting on behalf of a foreign power, but that he was doing so with full knowledge that what he was doing involved spying.
According to his indictment, Manafort’s alleged crimes stretch back to 2006. We don’t know when his activities in Ukraine and Russia first caught the attention of U.S. federal investigators, but according to Rangappa, to build up enough evidence to convince the court, it’s likely the investigation into him began at least a year or so before the wiretap warrant was obtained, so possibly in 2013.
At that time, federal investigators might have started to build a criminal case against him, but they wouldn’t have moved on it because they’d risk losing the intelligence that they were collecting from surveilling him, Rangappa said. “That’s the goose that lays the golden eggs. When you prosecute, you kill the goose.”
That initial surveillance was discontinued, reportedly due to a lack of evidence, but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved a new surveillance warrant for Manafort at some point in 2016, meaning the FBI once again showed probable cause that Manafort was knowingly engaging in clandestine intelligence activities that “extended at least into early this year,” CNN reported.
More from Just Security:
What Manafort’s Indictment May Tell Us About Russian Election Meddling
Modernizing ECPA: We Need Congressional Action Despite DOJ’s New Gag Order Guidelines
The FBI may be looking to face off again with Apple over encryption.
In 2016, the FBI and Apple fought a lengthy legal battle over breaking the encryption on an iPhone belonging to Syed Farook, one assailants in the 2015 San Bernardino office shooting. This time, the conflict comes the wake of Sunday’s mass shooting, in which Devin Kelley opened fire in a Texas church and killed 26 people.
In a press conference on Tuesday, FBI special agent Christopher Combs, who has been leading the investigation, said that the bureau was unable to access Kelley’s phone. Combs sniped at the tech industry by noting, “With the advance of the phones and the technology and the encryptions, law enforcement … is increasingly not able to get into these phones.”
Combs was likely referring in part to that tussle between the FBI and Apple after the San Bernardino shooting, in which the bureau tried to compel the company to create a software that would do away with the iPhone’s security protections. Apple CEO Tim Cook said of the request at the time, “The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.”
The bureau was finally able to break the encryption without Apple’s help.
Though Combs refused to disclose the model of the Kelley’s phone, The Washington Post reported that the device in question was in fact an iPhone. Apple also released a statement in response to the press conference, which was obtained by Buzzfeed:
This comment struck some as odd given Apple’s staunch refusal to comply with the FBI’s decryption requests in the past. Did this signal a shift in the company’s approach to assisting law enforcement?
Not really. Kevin Bankston, director of New America’s Open Technology Institute, wrote in an email to Slate, “There’s a lot that Apple can do to help an investigation short of what was asked of it in San Bernardino—for example, responding to legal process to provide data out of suspect's iCloud back up, or advising police on how they might get into the phone (without Apple undermining its own encryption) …” (New America is a partner with Slate and Arizona State University in Future Tense.)
Reuters reports that the FBI did not request Apple’s help with accessing the iPhone in the crucial period immediately after the massacre, during which time the company could have advised that investigators use Kelley’s fingerprint to unlock it. It’s unclear if Kelley used touch ID on his phone, but if he did, the bureau only had 48 hours before the device would no longer accept the fingerprint as a pass code. (The FBI declined commenting to Slate for this story, and Apple declined to comment on the record.)
So if there were potential ways for Apple to help the FBI access the shooter’s phone, then why did the bureau throw shade during the press conference? Nick Statt in The Verge writes, “The FBI appears to be using this situation as another opportunity to paint the iPhone as antagonist to law enforcement procedures, in an apparent effort to drum up support for weakening tech industry encryption.”
The debate over backdoors to encryption has been raging in Washington for a while now. Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein drafted a bill in 2016 that would require companies to retrieve encrypted data on demand, though it was overwhelmingly criticized.
Plus, as Bankston pointed out, the need to access Kelley’s phone does not appear to have been as urgent as in the San Bernardino case. The evidence released thus far indicates that Kelley likely acted alone, whereas officials indicated they had reason to believe San Bernardino shooters Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik had associates of interest. The FBI later arrested Enrique Marquez Jr., a close friend of Farook, on unrelated terrorism charges.
Though unlocking Farook’s phone didn’t lead to Marquez’s arrest or reveal any contacts with foreign terrorist groups, trying to determine whether there would ever be grounds for Apple to weaken its encryption is a conundrum that keeps some digital freedom advocates up at night. “There could be a case in the future when breaking an encryption could save lives,” said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist for the Center for Democracy & Technology. “We need to grapple with those questions now.”
Hall doesn’t think that creating backdoors to phone encryptions is the solution. He thinks looking for alternative ways to access critical information on a suspect’s phone that wouldn’t require such a drastic alteration to the technology and put everyone’s digital privacy at risk is the right step.
As phones become more integrated into how people live their lives, they will continue to serve as valuable windows into the psyches and social circles of dangerous individuals. But what are we willing to sacrifice to look through the glass?
Listen to this episode of Studio 360 by clicking the arrow on the audio player below:
Sitting down with some of the smarty-pants to whom the MacArthur Foundation just awarded its “genius” grants. Jesmyn Ward began writing about rural black American life after the horrors of Katrina and the loss of her brother. Playwright Annie Baker’s characters try desperately to connect with one another but get bogged down by small talk. And Taylor Mac goes where no drag performer—or any performer—has gone before: producing a 24-hour review of the entire history of American pop music and playing some delightful samples of it in our studio.
Studio 360 plugs: Please remember to like us on our Facebook page and Twitter. Send your emails to incoming@studio360.org.
The Impeach-O-Meter is a wildly subjective and speculative daily estimate of the likelihood that Donald Trump leaves office before his term ends, whether by being impeached (and convicted) or by resigning under threat of same.
The big question in Washington, D.C. Thursday is whether Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore will be able to survive the Washington Post's well-documented report that he molested a 14-year-old girl—who he'd introduced himself to outside a custody hearing while working as a prosecutor!—when he was 32. Part of the reason to assume he will survive it, of course, is that Donald Trump is president—the same man about whom this was written in 2016:
Four former contestants in the Donald Trump–owned Miss Teen USA pageant told BuzzFeed that Trump walked in on them while they were changing during the 1997 competition. The dressing room was full of contestants—51 in all—between the ages of 15 and 19.
A fifth woman—who made her accusation on the record using her name—later came forward as well.
Trump told Howard Stern in 2005 that he did, in fact, engage in such behavior, though the context involved adult pageants rather than teen events:
Well, I’ll tell you the funniest is that before a show: I’ll go backstage, and everyone’s getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it. You know, I’m inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good. You know, the dresses. “Is everyone OK?” You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. “Is everybody OK?” And you see these incredible-looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.
Ha ha! He sure does. Get away with it.
Today’s meter level is the same as yesterday's. What difference does any of it make?
Qualcomm's much-anticipated ARM-based Centriq 2400 product line, which started shipping commercially this week, is a worthy contender to break Intel's virtual monopoly in the server processor arena, where data center operators are thirsting to see competition to help bring down costs.
An unsolicited acquisition bid for Qualcomm from Broadcom, emerging server-chip competitors and legal wrangles involving Apple and other vendors, however, cast a bit of a shadow on prospects for the new chip.
Qualcomm revealed some impressive specs at an industry event in San Diego Wednesday, bringing out a a variety of big-time cloud, hardware and software providers to show support.
Vid en konferens i Strasbourg om ”den interkulturella dialogens religiösa dimension” bedömdes de konfessionella NGO:s [icke-statliga organisationers] roll starkt positivt. Med anledning av konferensen framlade Tomas Bocek, representant för generalsekreteraren i Europarådet för migration och flyktingar, ett dokument om ”migranter och flyktingar: utmaningar och möjligheter” berättade stiftelsen Pro Oriente i tisdags. Dokumentet analyserar den pågående debatten om religion och migration och betonar bland annat att de religiösa organisationernas insatser i den humanitära hjälpen är lika höga ”eller till och med överträffar” de humanitära organisationernas.
Ytterligare en aspekt är den motståndskraft som religionen och spiritualiteten ger åt människor på flykt. Det hjälper flyktingarna att bära ”smärtans börda” och kan underlätta också integrationen. Här gäller det att finna en medelväg mellan att alltför mycket betona migranternas religiösa identitet och att fullständigt negligera den.
Dokumentet understryker den viktiga roll som religiösa ledargestalter har med hänsyn till befolkningars inställning till flyktingar. Också interaktionen med regeringarnas migrationspolitik är viktig. Denna beror dock på ”de formella och informella relationerna mellan de olika staternas myndigheter och de religiösa gemenskaperna”. De religiösa organisationernas ”politiska” roll innebär också att främja gästfrihet, att fördöma rasism och främlingsfientlighet och att hjälpa migranterna vid ”integrationens komplexa processer” på alla nivåer.
Kathpress 2017-11-07
Update, Nov. 10: In a brief statement, The Orchard has announced it “will not be moving forward with the release of I Love You, Daddy.”
Earllier today, Louis C.K. canceled this evening’s premiere of his new movie I Love You, Daddy and withdrew from a scheduled appearance on Stephen Colbert’s Late Show, reportedly because of a forthcoming New York Times article detailing the long-rumored allegations that C.K. had repeatedly exposed himself to and masturbated in front of several women over a period of decades. And now that the Times article has dropped, the movie’s distributor, The Orchard, is declining to confirm that the movie will be released in theaters on Nov. 17 as planned.
"In light of the allegations considering Louis C.K. references in today's New York Times, we are cancelling tonight's premiere of ‘I Love You, Daddy,’” the Orchard said in a statement. “There is never a place for the behavior detailed in these allegations. As a result, we are giving careful consideration to the timing and release of the film and continuing to review the situation.”
Movie industry observers have been saying for weeks that the timing seemed particularly bad for I Love You, Daddy, in which C.K. plays a TV writer whose teenage daughter begans hanging around a legendary movie director with a history of questionable sexual behavior, including relationships with women decades younger than him and one persistent rumor of child rape. Shot in black and white like Woody Allen’s Manhattan, the movie is obviously informed by the allegations lodged against Allen by his stepdaughter Dylan Farrow, as well as the persistent rumors about C.K. himself.
As the Times article points out, C.K. has a long history of discussing and sometimes simulating masturbation in his comedy, and I Love You, Daddy does have a scene in which Charlie Day mimes aggressively jerking off while C.K. is talking to a woman on the phone, although there are no other people in the room. But there is plenty in the movie to provoke discomfort if not outright disgust, including a scene where C.K. argues that it’s not fair to judge public figures’ behavior based on what you read in the press, and a post-coital debate between C.K. and Rose Byrne about statutory rape. When it premiered at the Toronto Film Festival in September, C.K. congratulated the crowd on being “the only audience in the history of the world” to see it without prejudging its subject matter, and with its scheduled release looming only eight days away, the idea that anyone could watch the movie and not think of the New York Times article now seems like an utter fantasy.
Another Marvel Movie down, infinitely more to come. Now that we’ve all had a chance to see the delightful Thor: Ragnarok, we can direct all our attention to the next entry in the […]
The post MCU News: Black Panther Cast Photos, Deadpool’s Holiday Tips & More appeared first on Geek.com.
Apple’s Chief Design Officer, Jony Ive sat down with design magazine Wallpaper* for a wide-ranging interview following the release of the iPhone X. In the piece, Ive talks about the company’s new Apple Park headquarters, what he likes most about iPhone X, and much more.
Long gone are the days of frazzled customers calling into a contact center from a home phone. These days, agents must engage directly with their customers through Facebook Messenger, mobile text, tweets, and video chat, among others.
Customer expectations for these newer digital channels are significantly higher than traditional platforms. These days, customers expect answers to pressing questions in the same time it takes to order a car service via a mobile app or pay for a pizza online.
According to research by Bold360 and Ovum on omni-channel support, 45% of customers said they expect a response in less than 1 minute for live chat, compared to 35% for phone within the same time frame. As social media networks grow in popularity, customer expectations for this channel are also increasing, with 59% expecting a quick response within 30 minutes.
This article originally appeared in the Cut on Oct. 20, 2017.
Some of the most disturbing recent allegations of sexual assault involve men forcing women to watch them masturbate. Journalist Lauren Sivan says that after she rejected Harvey Weinstein’s attempt to kiss her at a restaurant, he told her to “stand there and shut up,” before jerking off into a potted plant. On a yacht in Cannes, the model Angie Everhart alleges that she woke up from a nap to find Weinstein standing over her while masturbating, his body blocking the cabin door. At least four other actresses and models have told similar stories, which parallel industry rumors about Louis C.K. jerking off in front of female comics (he dismissed these accusations as “rumors” earlier this year). Of course this sexual perversion isn’t confined to showbiz, either; allegations of this kind appeared several times on the notorious “shitty men in media” list, and men expose themselves to women on subways and city streets every day.
In an attempt to understand why men do this, we spoke with Alexandra Katehakis, a sex therapist and clinical director of the Center for Healthy Sex in L.A.
Masturbating is a different form of violence, one that isn’t physical or verbal. Why does this particular act appeal to predators?
Exhibitionists purposefully look to shock their victims because they are angry. They are not looking to make friends or go on a date — these are acts of revenge against women. These men are imposing the body part that is most threatening to a female and in doing so, they are acting out what is called “sexualized hostility” or “eroticized rage” against their prey. That look of fear or humiliation on women is arousing to them. We see clinically that these men feel wildly inadequate.
What exactly is “sexualized hostility”?
Guys who engage in this type of behavior are incredibly rageful towards females. It often harkens back to childhood abuse. For example, maybe they had mothers who were emotionally abusive or who didn’t protect them from abusive fathers. As some men get older they act out that anger towards women in the language of sex. They sexualize their emotions because they don’t know any other way of comporting themselves.
Why would a man choose to masturbate in front of a woman instead of physically assaulting her?
Well, a more violent act would make him a rapist. He might not want to think of himself that way, or be seen that way. If he just masturbates, he can tell himself that he’s not strong-arming anybody.
What are the psychological motivations behind it?
I don’t know what it’s like to hold a penis and do that. But from what I know about men, it does make them feel powerful. He’s got his prey in the corner, which provides a kind of a gratification. There’s also something inherently really primitive and childish about forcing a woman to watch you masturbate. It’s almost like “Look at me.” And there’s the possibility that he feels wanted, as disordered as that might sound. He might feel like she’s here and she’s seeing me and she wants me. But the fact that she’s also scared and humiliated makes him feel powerful and aroused. There is a sense of power, plus a hostile revenge. That combination is what creates the high for this particular act.
Why do predators find it arousing to terrorize women?
A man who does this kind of thing likes to see a woman feel terror and beg him to stop. There’s a sadism and a cruelty to it — the more she weakens the more sadistic he gets. If she were to stand up to him or come after him, he [would likely] back down very quickly. Actually, he would lose all of this power. These are predatory dynamics.
Jerking off into a potted plant seems so desperate. Is this act driven in part by a predator’s self-hatred and low self-esteem?
There’s a concept in psychology called “projective identification,” where one person projects their unwanted emotions onto the other. So all of these men’s feelings of inadequacy get played out in the sexual act. This example involving the pot is very illustrative. Weinstein has essentially reduced this woman to dirt, which is a reflection of how he feels about himself. In a way he’s looking at her and saying: “You’re no better than a potted plant and you’re just a piece of shit.” His own insufficient feeling is the unconscious mechanism that’s driving this behavior.
Do perpetrators experience shame afterward?
Yeah. I mean a lot of men who are stuck in these cycles of addictive behavior will say “I was as addicted to the shame as I was to the sex.” It’s about this cycle of “I’m a piece of shit, I do things that make me feel like a piece of shit, and therefore I have corroboration and evidence that I am indeed a piece of shit.” Weinstein may have tried to stop masturbating in front of women and couldn’t, which he may have hated himself for. The behavior becomes this weird kind of tumbleweed where … somebody does stupid things and then it reaches monstrous proportions, which it seems to have done in Weinstein’s case.
Is a man who forces women to watch him masturbate likely to commit more serious sex crimes?
This behavior is part of a spectrum. I don’t know that every guy who does this would go on to be a rapist, though those allegations exist against Weinstein. This specific act is a good example of what we see in sex addiction where there’s tolerance, and over time people start to cross lines they would have never crossed before. They start violating their own values because they need more intensity and excitement.
Why would an offender choose to masturbate in front of a woman in one scenario and escalate that behavior to rape with another victim?
I think it has to do with opportunity. If you have a young female who is more verbal and more actualized, it’s less likely a predator will pick them as someone to sexually assault. He’s going to pick somebody who is shy, quiet, and who has some insecurities.
Are there other examples of sexual perversions that don’t involve contact?
Guys have told me they’ll take a shower and then stand in front of their living-room window with a towel on, watching women walk by. A man doing that knows they see him. Sometimes he drops the towel. That’s a similar kind of offense but it’s more removed because his victims are not literally in the house.
Men expose themselves or jerk off in front of women on subways and streets every day. But how does the dynamic between two people differ when the predator is an industry mogul?
These guys think they’re above the law and that people will cover up for them. They also think of their victims: “She’s not going to say anything because nobody is going to believe her. I can squash her and I can always pay her off.” I think Weinstein was really banking on his power. He probably thought the women wouldn’t say anything because if they did, “they would never work in this town again,” as the saying goes. These women were disposable like Dixie cups. There were a million in line waiting to meet with him.
This interview has been edited and condensed.
See also: Louis C.K. Sure Had a Thing For Masturbation Jokes
Blockchain, also referred to as distributed ledger, is the concept behind the success of Bitcoin and provides a dynamic digital register of transactions. Think of it as a database that’s distributed throughout a network. Information is continually shared and reconciled throughout multiple nodes and each one has an identical copy of the database. Transactions within this database are audited and agreed upon by consensus. This decentralized method of keeping track of changes ensures the ledger can’t be practically controlled by any one entity, eliminates the possibility of single-points of failure, and allows for the verification of transactions without the need for third-party intervention. Since each interaction is public, blockchain technology offers a reliable, incorruptible transaction-based infrastructure and the value it provides isn’t just limited to cryptocurrency.
Five women have accused comedian Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct in a New York Times report published on Thursday. The allegations against C.K. include masturbating in front of women, asking women to watch him masturbate, and masturbating while on the phone with one woman. C.K.’s publicist, Lewis Kay, told the Times that the comedian would not respond to the on-the-record allegations.
Two of C.K.’s accusers are the comedy duo Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov, who say that at the 2002 Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, C.K. invited them to his hotel room, took off his clothes, and masturbated in front of them. Goodman and Wolov also alleged that C.K.’s manager, Dave Becky, seemed unhappy when they spoke openly about the alleged incident afterward and that the pair have avoided working on projects that Becky is involved in as a result.
Abby Schachner told the Times that in 2003, she called Louis C.K. to invite him to a show and that he began describing his sexual fantasies instead. Schachner alleges that she could hear him masturbating while they spoke over the phone.
Rebecca Corry accused C.K. of inviting her back to his dressing room so that he could masturbate in front of her while working on a television pilot in 2005. Courteney Cox and David Arquette, the show’s executive producers, confirmed to the Times that they were aware of the incident. “What happened to Rebecca on that set was awful,” Cox reportedly wrote in an email.
Another woman, speaking on the condition of anonymity, alleged that C.K. also “repeatedly” asked her to watch him masturbate while working at The Chris Rock Show in the late 1990s:
“It was something that I knew was wrong,” said the woman, who described sitting in Louis C.K.’s office while he masturbated in his desk chair during a workday, other colleagues just outside the door. “I think the big piece of why I said yes was because of the culture,” she continued. “He abused his power.” A co-worker at The Chris Rock Show, who also wished to remain anonymous, confirmed that the woman told him about the experience soon after it happened.
According to the Times, C.K. sent Schachner a Facebook message six years after the alleged incident, in 2009, apologizing for how their conversation had “ended in a sordid fashion.” In 2015, Corry alleges she also received an apology “for shoving her in a bathroom.” When she corrected him, Corry says, he acknowledged that he had asked to masturbate in front of her.
Rumors of C.K.’s alleged misconduct have been around for years; Gawker ran a blind item on the alleged Aspen incident in 2012. The Times’ report follows a sudden cancellation of the premiere of C.K.’s new movie, I Love You, Daddy, which was supposed to take place on Thursday night. C.K.’s scheduled appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert was also canceled.
Less than a day after Twitter came under fire for bestowing a coveted blue checkmark on white nationalist Jason Kessler, it has decided to appease angry users by suspending its verification program all together. Kessler considers himself a “white civil rights” leader, has claimed that government is pursuing “displacement-level policies which are removing the indigenous people from the country”—by which he means white people—and most famously, organized the alt-right rally in Charlottesville this summer that turned deadly. (After the rally, he tweeted that Heather Heyer, who died in Charlottesville, was “a fat, disgusting Communist.”)
Like the kindergarten teacher who punishes the whole class because one bully said something mean, Twitter is putting everyone else waiting to get verified in timeout, too. It’s good that the company is taking a breath to reassess what the verification status means, and whether boosting the profile of a person who organized a deadly rally, which the Daily Stormer billed as an effort “to end Jewish influence in America” should receive it. At the time of publication, Kessler, whose profile is adorned with a massive Confederate battle flag, is still verified.
He celebrated the initial news with a tweet:
Of course, Kessler isn’t the only questionable figure Twitter has graced with the status symbol. Richard Spencer, who argued in an interview with a British journalist this week that the trans-Atlantic slave trade was good for Africans, is verified. So is Ann Coulter, as well as Mike Cernovich, the alt-right media personality who helped promote the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory and used his verified Twitter platform last year to proclaim in a since-deleted tweet:
Today we have a moment of silence for Trayvon Martin's rape victims.
Kidding!
He got got before he was able to rape anyone.
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) Feb. 5, 2016
But the checkmark isn’t just a symbol. Being verified is a sort of like being in an elite club that guarantees your words are more likely to be read and that your videos are more likely to be seen. (I’m not verified, but I recently applied to be.) When accounts are verified, they float to the top of the platform’s search results for “top tweets.” They also appear more likely to show up in Google search’s Twitter bar, which populates at the top of search results for important news events. When verified Twitter users engage with other users on the platform, their engagement is more likely to send a notification, and verified users have the option to only get notifications from other verified users.
Twitter’s decision to verify people who coordinate racist campaigns, like Kessler, is a political one. It is, in effect, saying that his presence is important to boost and protect, even if he uses his Twitter account to promote counterfactual, dangerous narratives. Kessler’s YouTube channel is loaded with videos where Kessler refers to the strength of patriarchal societies and rejects what he describes as an “anti-White movement.” He also says that when alt-right people call one another Nazis it’s like when “black people were called the n-word for so long they just started calling each other that as a term of endearment.”
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted on Thursday that the company “realized some time ago the system is broken and needs to be reconsidered. And we failed by not doing anything about it. Working now to fix faster.” And Twitter’s own support team pointed out that his verification has been misunderstood. “Verification was meant to authenticate identity & voice but it is interpreted as an endorsement or an indicator of importance,” the company tweeted.
But the truth is that giving someone a blue checkmark is by definition an indicator of importance. In order to get one, users are asked to describe “their impact in their field” and to provide URLs “that help express the account holder’s newsworthiness or relevancy in their field.” In other words, if you’re not newsworthy by Twitter’s standards, you may be denied verification.
Twitter’s verification of Kessler comes as the company works to strengthen its protections against hate speech. In October, Twitter went into detail about how it is working to weed out violent groups, hate speech, and nonconsensual explicit photos of women that are shared on the platform. Many of those changes are going into effect this month. If the company is serious about its new policies to demote hate speech, verifying a popular white nationalist and anti-Semite is probably a step in the wrong direction.
In the meantime, those who are actually trying to get verified—journalists like me who need to assure sources that they are not being duped—will have to wait even longer while Twitter cleans up yet another mess.
Here’s our recap of what happened in online marketing today, as reported on Marketing Land and other places across the web.
From Marketing Land:Republican senators went into their Thursday lunch saying they needed more information to comment on a report that their Alabama Senate nominee, Roy Moore, made sexual advances toward a 14-year-old when he was 32.
They left the room with a talking point.
“If there’s a shred of truth to it, he needs to step aside,” Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said.
“If they’re accurate, he should step aside,” South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott said.
“If they’re proven to be true, then he should step aside,” was North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis’ variation.
Richard Shelby, the senior senator from Alabama, mixed it up on the “step aside” part. “If that’s true, then he wouldn’t belong in the Senate."
Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who doesn’t ever speak to reporters outside of his brief Tuesday press conference, gave the ol’ if true, step aside outside the lunch room.
It is not like there’s much love lost between Moore and Senate Republicans, who worked aggressively on behalf of their current colleague, Sen. Luther Strange, in the special election primary. Though several senators have explicitly endorsed Moore since then, and others have grudgingly accepted him, it’s not like they have much of a desire to protect him. Yes, most of them are applying “if true” in the immediate aftermath of the news. But senators like Ohio’s Rob Portman and Arizona’s John McCain are already dispensing with that.
There is no indication that Moore, who denied the allegations as “garbage” and the “the very definition of fake news and intentional defamation,” intends to drop out of the race against Democrat Doug Jones. Under Alabama law, if he did drop out before the election is held on Dec. 12, his name would still remain on the ballot. He just wouldn’t be certified, even if had the most votes. There’s already some talk that Sen. Luther Strange, who lost to Moore in a primary, could mount a write-in campaign; the state’s “sore loser” law would not prohibit him from doing so. But with Strange having been so soundly rejected in the primary, it’s hard to see a huge surge of Republicans writing in his name, outside of the suburbs of Birmingham. Republicans could also try a write-in campaign for a candidate whom all Alabama Republicans love. (Perhaps a certain sitting U.S. Attorney General would fit the bill?)
Be sure that McConnell is working all of this out, right now.
This story was originally published on the Conversation and was republished here with permission.
A liquid is traditionally defined as a material that adapts its shape to fit a container. Yet under certain conditions, cats seem to fit this definition.
This somewhat paradoxical observation emerged on the web a few years ago and joined the long list of internet memes involving our feline friends. When I first saw this question it made me laugh and then think. I decided to reformulate it to illustrate some problems at the heart of rheology, the study of the deformations and flows of matter. My study on the rheology of cats won the 2017 Ig Nobel prize in physics.
The prizes are awarded every year by Improbable Research, an organization devoted to science and humor. The goal is to highlight scientific studies that first make people laugh, then think. A ceremony is held every year at Harvard University.
At the center of the definition of a liquid is an action: A material must be able to modify its form to fit within a container. The action must also have a characteristic duration. In rheology, this is called the relaxation time. Determining if something is liquid depends on whether it’s observed over a time period that’s shorter or longer than the relaxation time.
If we take cats as our example, the fact is that they can adapt their shape to their containers if we give them enough time. Cats are thus liquid if we give them the time to become liquid. In rheology, the state of a material is not really a fixed property—what must be measured is the relaxation time. What is its value, and on what does it depend? For example, does the relaxation time of a cat vary with its age? (In rheology, we speak of thixotropy.)
Could the type of container be a factor? (In rheology, this is studied in “wetting” problems.) Or does it vary with the cat’s degree of stress? (One speaks of “shear thickening” if the relaxation time increases with stress or “shear thinning” if the opposite is true.) Of course, we mean stress in the mechanical sense rather than emotional, but the two meanings may overlap in some cases.
What cats show clearly is that determining the state of a material requires comparing two time periods: the relaxation time and the experimental time, which is the time elapsed since the onset of deformation initiated by the container. For instance, it may be the time elapsed since the cat stepped into a sink. Conventionally, one divides the relaxation time by the experimental time, and if the result is more than 1, the material is relatively solid; if the result is lower than 1, the material is relatively liquid.
This is referred to as the Deborah number, after the biblical priestess who remarked that on geological time scales (“before God”) even mountains flowed. On shorter time scales, one can see glaciers progressively flowing down valleys.
Even if the relaxation time is very large (days, years), the behavior can be that of a liquid if the Deborah number is small (compared to 1). Conversely, even if the relaxation time is very small (milliseconds), the behavior can be that of a solid if the Deborah number is large (compared to 1). This is the case if one observes a water balloon at the instant when it’s popped.
The Deborah number is an example of a dimensionless number: Since we divide one time period by another, the ratio does not have any unit. In rheology, and in science more generally, there are many dimensionless numbers that can be used to determine the state or regime of a material or system.
For liquids, there is another dimensionless number that can be used to estimate whether the flow will be turbulent, with vortices, or whether it will calmly follow the outline of the container (we say that the flow is laminar).
If the flow speed is V and the container has a typical size h perpendicular to the flow, then we can define the velocity gradient V/h. The inverse of this velocity gradient scales as a time.
Comparing this duration and the relaxation time produces the Reynolds number in the case of fluids dominated by inertia (like water) or the Weissenberg number for those dominated by elasticity (like cake batter). If these dimensionless numbers are large in comparison to 1, then the flow is likely to be turbulent. If they’re small in comparison to 1, the flow is likely to be laminar.
Asking the question of whether cats were a liquid allowed me to illustrate the use of these dimensionless numbers in rheology. I hope that it will make people laugh and then think.
Just about everyone in the logistics business is rolling out electrified vans. EV Maker Workhorse wants to help companies make the switch, and the model they’re offering up has a pretty cool trick […]
The post This Electric Van Is Also a Rolling Airport for Delivery Drones appeared first on Geek.com.
While the iPhone X has only been in the hands of customers for about a week, a new concept is already looking ahead to what next year’s iPhones might bring. Designer Martin Hajek has mocked up a rumored larger ‘iPhone X Plus’ with a massive 6.7-inch display in gorgeous new renders.
Apple has released its annual diversity report which is the first since former HR head Denise Young Smith moved to her newly created role as VP of Inclusion and Diversity. Apple highlights key data points and comparisons in the latest report compared to the last three years in an update to its Diversity microsite.
Today developer Croteam has released Serious Sam 3 VR: BFE on Steam, the VR version of the 2011 title. This follows the developer releasing VR version of other titles, including The Talos Principle VR and the VR versions for the previous two Serious Sam games by Croteam. Like the other games, Serious Sam 3 VR: BFE supports both the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive, but thanks to integration with Serious Sam Fusion 2017, VR and 'flat' players are able to enjoy cross-play multiplayer.
For its release, Serious Sam 3 VR: BFE is an enjoying a 10% off sale, but if you already own the original Serious Sam 3 you will get an additional 10% off.
Source: Croteam
Avslöjandena om hur en del som har det väl förspänt helst vill behålla det för sig själva fortsätter. Svenskt Näringslivs Leif Östling lyckades ju reta upp en hel del med sin klassiker: - "Vad fan får jag för pengarna"! Nu läser jag att Svenska Dagbladet räknat fram att medan den gode Leif finns med på listorna över de med högst inkomster så finns han inte med på listorna över de största skattebetalarna. Medan vi vanligt folk tycker att det pekar mot något omoraliskt så tycker antagligen gubbarna och gummorna i dom här kretsarna att dom har lyckats bra.
En annan som faktiskt lyckats ännu bättre är Knugafamiljens goda kompis Bertil Hult som bland annat grundat språkresejätten EF Education First. Enligt Forbes är Bertil Hult Sveriges 7:e rikaste person och han ligger på plats 316 i hela världen. Fast Paradisläckan avslöjar att han äger ett 25-tal brevlådebolag som är placerade på främst Bermuda. Här finns bland annat privatjet som han bland annat använder för att flyga den svenska kungafamiljen runt om i hela världen. Det är ju en trevlig kombination att den allra mest bidragsberoende familjen i hela Sverige får den här servicen av en som inte vill betala in skatter för att finansiera kungafamiljen. Antagligen resonerar han på så sätt att han ju betalar direkt till dom, så kan han bättre styra över hur pengarna används och får bättre utdelning på slantarna!
Så var t.ex. Victorias och Daniels lyxiga bröllopsresa till Franska Polynesien betalda genom Bertil Hults privatjet och lyxyacht - registrerat på Bermuda. Det avslöjas nu också att när Knugaparet nyligen, mot UD:s rekommendationer, flög till Moskva för Bertil Hults party där så var det Bertil Hults privatjet (registrerat på Bermuda) som flög familjen. Detta trots att man officiellt hävdat att man flög reguljärt när man inte fick använda regeringsplanet. Miss i kommunikationen kallas det.
Det ska påpekas att det INTE rör sig om mutor och korruption. Det kan inte röra sig om mutor och korruption nämligen. Vickans och Daniels bröllopsresa anmäldes förstår ni som korruption men utredningen lades ner eftersom Knugafamiljen har straffrihet. Så hur mycket man än mutar dom så är det inget olagligt i det. Precis som det inte är olagligt att hyra en massa postboxar på Bermuda för att slippa betala skatt där man tjänar pengarna. DEN principen gäller nämligen inte dom här gubbarna som kan hyra postboxar på olika öar runt om i världen för en billigare penning än vad skatten skulle blivit om man skattat den där man tjänat den eller där man bor.
Gå med i Republikanska Föreningen. Detta kostar bara 200 kronor till plusgiro 114 96 91-6.
Statschefer bör tillsättas genom lag,
inte samlag
» Sweden loves USA?
I går var det exakt ett år sedan Hillary Clinton vann det amerikanska presidentvalet och Donald Trump utsågs till USA:s president. Sedan höll han ett tal som innehöll meningen: - "Det är dags för oss att enas som ett folk. Jag kommer att vara president för alla amerikaner." Hur det har gått? Donald Trump har satt nytt amerikanskt rekord. Aldrig någonsin har en president efter ett år haft så låga förtroendesiffror. 35% av amerikanerna tycker att Donald Trump gör ett bra jobb. Mer än 55% tycker att han gör ett uselt jobb!
Fast, det är riktigt bra siffror om man jämför med förhållandet i Sverige. Enligt den undersökning som Aftonbladet låtit Inizio göra så finns det dock faktiskt svenskar som tycker att Donald Trump gör ett bra jobb. Hela 2% av svenskarna tycker att Donald Trump gör ett mycket bra jobb medan 5% tycker att han gör ett ganska bra jobb. Hur dessa siffror står sig jämfört med felmarginalen i undersökningen vet jag inte. Uppenbart är att inte ens större delen av de sverigedumokratiska väljarna har någon acceptans för dåren i Vita Huset. Det partiet är ju trots allt de enda som framfört någon som helst form av förståelse för Donald Trump. Hur som helst tycker 68% av svenskarna att Donald Trump gör ett mycket dåligt jobb och 12% att han gör ett ganska dåligt jobb. 80% är alltså missnöjda medan 7% är nöjda.
Antagligen är det därför som Sverige nu ska ytterligare öka det militära samarbetet med Pentagon och göra oss ännu mer beroende av den amerikanska militären och militärindustrin. För det kan väl inte vara lockelsen att förbinda oss att militärt stödja diktaturen Turkiet (som det i dag har avslöjats hur den turkiska regimen spionerar på turkar i Sverige). Eller den allt mer antisemitiska regimen i Ungern. Eller det allt mer antidemokratiska styret i Polen (som jag såg nu har uppmanat polackerna att göra som kaninerna - föröka sig!) Visst är det lockande att förbinda oss att militärt stödja dessa regimer? För det är ju just detta som ett svenskt medlemskap i Nato innebär. Att vi förbinder oss att militärt stödja de andra medlemmarna. Stefan Hultqvist har en hel del att förklara!
För övrigt vill jag inte skriva mer om det här ämnet, det gör mig bara ännu mer deprimerad inför framtiden. Fast vi kan notera att Donald Trump haft en positiv effekt. Numera kan inläggen på Twitter göras dubbelt så långa. Allt för att Donald Trumps ska kunna kläcka ur sig ännu längre förolämpningar, lögner, dumheter och annan dynga.
Americans who feel like their country is uniquely beset by scandals involving sleaze, incompetence, sexual harassment, and shady contacts with foreign governments might want to look at what’s going on in Britain. Here’s a brief round-up:
Last week, Defense Minister Michael Fallon, a senior member of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party, resigned over sexual harassment allegations. Fallon had apologized for repeatedly touching a radio presenter’s knee in 2002, and there have been a number of other allegations against him which he hasn’t yet addressed. Fallon may not be the only senior politician forced out amid growing post-Weinstein attention to the culture of sexual harassment in the British Parliament. A number of MPs have been suspended or are under investigation. May’s most senior minister, First Secretary of State Damian Green, has been accused of sending a suggestive text message to a colleague and keeping pornography on an office computer.
Then on Wednesday, May lost her second Cabinet minister in a week when International Development Secretary Priti Patel, considered a rising star in the party, stepped down after it was reported that she had held 12 undisclosed meetings with senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during what was supposedly a family holiday over the summer. Patel had met with May on Monday, but the final straw came the next day when it was revealed that she had failed to inform the prime minister that she had discussed a controversial proposal to provide U.K. aid funding to the Israeli army. Patel has apologized for the meetings as well as for giving the impression in public statements that Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson knew about the meetings in advance.
As for Johnson, he has other things to worry about. The voluble foreign secretary is accused of putting a British citizen imprisoned in Iran at even greater risk by saying in Parliament last month that she had been “simply teaching people journalism.” Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who is of Iranian descent, is an employee of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of the Thomson Reuters news agency, but is not a journalist, and her employers say she was not involved in teaching journalism. The foundation does not operate in Iran. She was arrested in April while visiting her grandparents in Iran with her 2-year-old daughter and accused of sedition by the country’s Revolutionary Guards. She was sentenced to five years in prison in September. After Johnson’s statement, she was reportedly taken to a new court hearing where his words were used as evidence that she was involved in “propaganda against the regime.”
And last but not least, the Queen herself is under scrutiny after the leaked Paradise Papers showed that her estate had invested $13.1 million in offshore tax havens in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. This isn’t actually illegal, and the queen herself probably didn’t know about it, experts say, but it’s pretty embarrassing for the 91-year-old monarch.
Any one of these would have been a major scandal. Combined, they form an overwhelming stench of decay and dysfunction around a government that was not on the firmest footing to begin with. A poor showing in a snap election in June left May’s Tories short of a majority and dependent on a small Northern Irish party to stay in power. A much-touted speech by the prime minister to a party congress last month, which was supposed to right the ship, turned into a comically embarrassing fiasco.
And all this may eventually look minor compared with the government’s struggle to handle its largest looming crisis: the impending withdrawal of Britain from the European Union. Parliamentary debate over the government’s EU Withdrawal Bill has been delayed due to demands for more than 300 amendments from MPs. The massive bill is a crucial piece of the Brexit plan—it signs existing EU regulations into domestic British law to avoid a scenario where thousands of existing regulations are eliminated overnight, throwing the economy into chaos. The government is controversially using what are called “Henry VIII powers” to push through amendments to the bill. Despite the name, the Financial Times assures readers that these are “used all the time in sensible, non-despotic ways.” Not everyone is convinced. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes the bill, calling it a power grab by ministers, but his party is divided on whether to try to block it.
Meanwhile, talks between Britain and the EU over the post-Brexit relationship are likely to be delayed over disagreements on the rights of EU citizens in Britain and the so-called “divorce bill”—France and Germany insist Britain is obligated to pay tens of millions of euros to Brussels. Some pro-Brexit lawmakers have acknowledged that this is true, but others insist Britain shouldn’t pay a cent. May is now hinting that Britain could miss the March 2019 deadline for leaving the EU, which European leaders are insisting is not an option. Things will get even more complicated if, as many EU leaders now reportedly expect, May’s government collapses amid the mounting scandals.
Meanwhile, the whole Brexit exercise is looking shadier with lawmakers raising questions about Russian influence and suspicious funding in the run-up to the 2016 referendum. Whatever the truth of that, British leaders have certainly done a perfectly fine job sabotaging themselves since then.