"Who Pays The Piper Plays The Tune" - Putin On FARA, Internet, Justice & Propaganda

Even Maria Butina was smeared, but she is free to tell her tale of U.S. Justice System.

Who is the original source?

Follow the money.

"We see you, Trollie Trolls."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: Amazon Altas Data Center Map Released | Wikileaks #questofrandomclues

We have everything, too.

Ready?

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Super Duper Tribute to George Webb VII - Investigating The Investigator - The Death Of Task Force Jenny Moore

Verifying the process, just to make sure everything is documented.

Always document.

Always question.

This is dealing with child welfare, an area only I possess the subject matter mastery as the original source.

I watch everything because I celebrate Child Abuse Propaganda Month every April, since its inception into their construction of social thought.

Let the #cyberwars commence.

I am from Detroit.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: Double Feature New Jack City + Qanon me if you can - DEFNEWS 8/14/2018

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: Lift the Drama Doughts and News - DEFNEWS 8/13/2018

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

DEFANGO: Hatman Malware Cyber Threat to ICS Da Vinci

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Russian Trolls Campaign For Hillary & Her Child Welfare Magnitsky Fraud Scheme

These "Russian Trolls" were not working in coordination with the Trump Campaign, they were working on behalf of the Clinton Campaign, DNC, Clinton Foundation, Bush Foundation, and all the other actors who had financial interests in lifting the Magnitsky Act ban to keep their global child welfare money laundering operations going.

These are the actors who dumbed down the U.S. education and helth care system to manipulate the masses to vote for Hillary, based off meme magic and fun rally events.

Child trafficking exists and whether or not you chose to continue ignoring the fact that our children, land and votes are being stolen, the truth will come out.

What do you chose to believe?

I wonder if Perkins Coie was the law firm to pay the Internet Research Agency.

Justice Dept. indicts 13 Russians for election interference

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department’s special counsel announced the indictment Friday of a notorious Russian troll farm – charging 13 individuals who allegedly were involved in a scheme to criminally interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The Internet Research Agency, which is based in St. Petersburg, Russia, was named in the indictment.

“From in or around 2014 to the present, defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the grand jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016,” the indictment states.

The indictment charges that some of the Russian suspects traveled to the United States to gather information to help in the scheme, and that they also impersonated Americans online in order to try to sway voters’ opinions. None of those charged are in custody, according to Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office.

The grand jury charges that some of those suspects interacted with Americans associated with the Trump campaign, but those Trump associates did not realize they were being manipulated.

Some of the Russians posed as U.S. persons and, without revealing their Russian identities, “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities,” the indictment said.

By February 2016, the suspects had decided whom they were supporting in the 2016 race. According to the indictment, Internet Research Agency specialists were instructed to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them.)”

Prosecutors say some Russian employees of the troll farm were chastised in September 2016 when they had a “low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton” and were told it was “imperative to intensify criticizing” the Democratic nominee in future posts.

The charges include conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft.

One of those indicted is Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, who has long been identified in the Russian media as the financial backer of the Internet Research Agency. He is a caterer who has been nicknamed “Putin’s chef” because of his close ties to the Russian president. Concord Consulting and Concord Catering, two Russian businesses also charged by Mueller’s team Friday, have previously been identified as Prigozhin vehicles.

The Internet Research Agency was at the center of Silicon Valley’s investigation into Russian meddling during the 2016 presidential election. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Google all found evidence that the private firm used social media to divide American voters across a range of polarizing issues, including race, religion, gun rights and immigration.

Tweets and Facebook posts that have been made public as part of these investigations make clear that the Russian disinformation effort broadly sought to favor Republican Donald Trump and undermine the support for Democrat Hillary Clinton. This conclusion has been backed by the work of several independent researchers.

Typically called a “troll farm,” the Internet Research Agency is regarded as the most prominent part of the Russian disinformation campaign, though congressional investigators pushed for evidence of other operations, including from countries other than Russia, that shared the same purpose.

Overall, Facebook acknowledged to Congress that the Internet Research Agency had bought 3,000 ads on its platform that reached 11.4 million users. The agency’s employees also reportedly made many free posts that reached 126 million users. In addition to polarizing online political conversation, Facebook reported that the Internet Research Agency used Facebook pages to organize 129 real-world events that drew the attention of nearly 340,000 Facebook users.

One of these, organized by a group called Heart of Texas, took place on May 21, 2016, under the banner of “Stop Islamization of Texas.” On that same day, another Russian-controlled Facebook group, called United Muslims of America, publicized a competing rally to “Save Islamic Knowledge” at the same place and time.

Internet Research Agency Indictment by BayAreaNewsGroup on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, for the Markup of H.R. 906, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2017”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Mr. Chairman -- I have several serious concerns with H.R. 906, the “Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act,” or the so-called “FACT Act.”

To begin with, the bill’s reporting and disclosure requirements are an assault against the privacy of asbestos victims who seek payment for their injuries from bankruptcy trusts established for that purpose.

In particular, H.R. 906 would force these trusts to publicly disclose sensitive, personal information of these asbestos claimants, including their names and exposure histories. 

As a result, their private information will be irretrievably released into the public domain available via the Internet.

Just imagine what insurance companies, prospective employers, lenders, and data collectors could do with this private information.  Worse yet, these asbestos victims will be more vulnerable to predators.

By exposing their personal information to the public, H.R. 906 will allow asbestos victims to be re-victimized notwithstanding the fact that such disclosure has absolutely nothing to do with compensation for asbestos exposure.

While H.R. 906's supporters claim that it is intended to help victims of asbestos exposure,  asbestos victims vigorously oppose H.R. 526.  

           

In fact, I am not aware of a single asbestos victim who supports H.R. 526.

Because of this serious shortcoming of the bill,  I intend to offer an amendment that will protect the privacy of asbestos claimants.

Another problem with H.R. 906 is that it is fundamentally inequitable.  

Although the bill requires bankruptcy asbestos trusts to make certain disclosures, it makes no comparable demands on those whose products killed or injured millions of unsuspecting American workers, servicemembers, and consumers. 

In fact, some manufacturers intentionally concealed known risks of asbestos exposure and used every trick in the book to avoid liability.  They even fought the federal government’s efforts to ban its use.

           

As a result, asbestos continued to be widely used in constructing our homes, offices and public schools.  This very building in which we are sitting is in the midst of a nearly 20-year asbestos abatement effort. 

And now, these very same manufacturers ask  Congress to help them by passing H.R. 906, which effectively shifts some of the costs of discovery away from them to asbestos bankruptcy trusts.

Unfortunately, H.R. 906 is nothing more than an attempt by asbestos defendants to do an end-run around the discovery process available under non-bankruptcy law.

           

Finally, contrary to the claims of proponents of this legislation, there is no evidence of endemic fraud warranting such an invasive measure as H.R. 906.

The Government Accountability Office reported that there is no empirical evidence of such fraud with respect to the trusts’ claims processing system.

While not perfect, the trust system set up under Bankruptcy Code section 524(g) has generally proven to be beneficial to both asbestos victims and to corporations facing mass tort liability for causing asbestos injuries. 

           

In exchange for agreeing to fund these trusts, companies are able to shed their massive asbestos tort liabilities and re-enter the business community on a competitive basis for the benefit of their creditors and those who they injured.           

The trusts, in turn, owe a fiduciary duty to all beneficiaries to ensure that only proper claims are paid to the extent possible.

These are just a few of the serious concerns that I have with this legislation.  So, accordingly, I must urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this seriously flawed measure.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The Telecommunications Act v. Net Neutrality

Just another reason why I do what I do because I am on a mission...

Democracy in Peril: Twenty Years of Media Consolidation Under the Telecommunications Act

Wall Street's sinister influence on the political process has, rightly, been a major topic during this presidential campaign. But, history has taught us that the role that the media industry plays in Washington poses a comparable threat to our democracy. Yet, this is a topic rarely discussed by the dominant media, or on the campaign trail.

But now is a good time to discuss our growing media crises. Twenty years ago this week, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act, signed into law on February 8, 1996, was "essentially bought and paid for by corporate media lobbies," as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described it, and radically "opened the floodgates on mergers."

The negative impact of the law cannot be overstated. The law, which was the first major reform of telecommunications policy since 1934, according to media scholarRobert McChesney, "is widely considered to be one of the three or four most important federal laws of this generation." The act dramatically reduced important Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on cross ownership, and allowed giant corporations to buy up thousands of media outlets across the country,
increasing their monopoly on the flow of information in the United States and around the world.

"Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few," said Eduardo Galeano, the Latin American journalist, in response to the act.

Twenty years later the devastating impact of the legislation is undeniable: About 90 percent of the country's major media companies are owned by six corporations. Bill Clinton's legacy in empowering the consolidation of corporate media is right up there with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and welfare reform, as being among the most tragic and destructive policies of his administration.

Of all the presidential candidates running in 2016, the Big Media lobby has chosen to back Hillary Clinton.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not merely a regrettable part of history. It serves as a stern warning about what is at stake in the future. In a media world that is going through a massive transformation, media companies have dramaticallyincreased efforts to wield influence in Washington, with a massive lobbying presence and a steady dose of campaign donations to politicians in both parties - with the goal of allowing more consolidation, and privatizing and commodifying the internet.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34789-democracy-in-peril-twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-under-the-telecommunications-act

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell Delivers Remarks at New York University Center for Cybersecurity

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, Zach [Goldman], for that kind introduction.  It’s a pleasure to be here.  I was invited to speak today about the Justice Department’s approach to investigating and prosecuting organized cybercrime.  And what better place to do that than New York—once the stronghold of La Cosa Nostra and now a target of cyber criminals from across the world.

Today, I will focus on two challenges we face in this effort: first, how technology has enabled sophisticated and organized cyber criminals; and second, current limitations on the Justice Department’s ability to respond.

The department has had a long and successful track record in dismantling traditional organized crime, dating back to 1970, when Congress enacted the Organized Crime Control Act and its “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations” provisions, commonly referred to as RICO.  For decades, groups like La Cosa Nostra or the Lucchese crime family were the focus of the department’s organized crime efforts.  Starting in the 1980s, for instance, we used the RICO statute in the Eastern District of New York—just across the water—to strike a blow to the five organized crime families of La Cosa Nostra in New York City. 

Today, that kind of organized crime seems almost quaint, and not because organized crime has vanished.  Rather, the same global networks and communications technologies that have transformed the world’s economy have also enabled a troubling evolution in criminal activity.  Criminal organizations use increased computing power, the widespread availability of high-speed internet, the growth of virtual currencies and the cover provided by technologies such as encryption and anonymizing software to launder money, traffic in narcotics and exploit children.  They also turn those advances into means of invading privacy, stealing intellectual property and emptying bank accounts of individuals and businesses around the world.  This is not your grandfather’s mafia.

The threat is increased with organized cybercrime because of its international reach.  Worldwide networks have turned local crimes into global crimes.  Hackers sitting in one country can now rob a bank—or many banks—from halfway around the world.  Cyber criminals steal personal information located in one country, sell the data to fraudsters in another country and count their profits in a third.  And just as sophisticated cyber criminals take advantage of weaknesses in computer security, technology can allow them to take advantage of international borders and differences in legal systems, hoping that investigators from the victim’s country will not be able to obtain evidence from abroad, if it is even available.

I am proud to say that we’ve been successful in infiltrating and dismantling some of these organizations.  For example, we are currently prosecuting an internet-based, international criminal enterprise known as Carder.su.  The over 5,500 members of this enterprise trafficked in compromised credit card account data and counterfeit identifications, and committed money laundering, narcotics trafficking and various computer crimes.  They used web forums largely hosted in former Soviet Union countries and communicated through secure and encrypted forums, proxy computers and virtual private networks.  Gaining membership in the group required the recommendation of two current members in good standing.  Disloyal members were stripped of membership and barred from the websites.

In July 2015, federal law enforcement seized a dedicated cybercrime forum known as Darkode.  Darkode was an online, password-protected cybercrime marketplace in which hackers and other cyber criminals convened to buy, sell, trade and share information, ideas and tools to facilitate unlawful cyber intrusions.  As with Carder.su, prospective members were vetted before they could join to determine whether they had marketable skills or products to bring to the group. 

Like most criminal organizations, the members of these two sites had different and defined roles.  But instead of Dons and Capos, “Administrators” handled day-to-day management.  In the place of Consiglieres, “Moderators” would monitor and police the websites.  “Vendors” advertised and sold illegal products, services and contraband and “Members” used the websites to purchase contraband and share criminal schemes.

Of the hundreds of criminal internet forums around the world, Darkode and Carder.su were two of the most pernicious.  Yet despite their sophisticated technologies, these groups remained vulnerable to a tried and true mob-busting technique: infiltration by undercover agents or confidential informants.  In Carder.su, 56 individuals were charged in four separate indictments.  To date, 33 individuals have been convicted and the rest are either fugitives or pending trial.  In Darkode, charges have been filed against 12 individuals in U.S. federal court; convictions have been obtained in seven U.S. cases and one foreign prosecution.

As organized crime digitizes its operations, law enforcement faces two significant challenges: first, the use by criminals of new encryption technologies to victimize innocent people while avoiding identification; and second, territorial limits on our ability to gather digital evidence of crimes.  Addressing these challenges is among the Justice Department’s top priorities.

First, let me say the Criminal Division is on the front lines of the fight against cybercrime.  We recognize that the development and adoption of strong encryption is essential to counteracting cyber threats and to promoting our overall safety and privacy.  But certain implementations of strong encryption pose an undeniable and growing threat to our ability to protect the American people.

In an attempt to market products and services as protective of personal privacy and data security, companies increasingly are offering products with built-in encryption technologies that preclude access to data without the consent of the user.  For law enforcement, this has resulted in something we often describe as “warrant-proof encryption.”  Warrant-proof is not a technical term, and it can encompass different types of technology, but we use it to describe a situation where a service provider has implemented encryption in a way that prevents them from producing usable, unencrypted information even if they are served with a valid court order.

This is no small problem.  Service providers with over a billion user accounts, that transmit tens of billions of messages per day around the world, now advertise themselves as unable to comply with warrants.  And device manufacturers that have placed hundreds of millions of products in the market have embraced the same principle. 

Where investigators used to rely on physical evidence, we now look to electronic evidence and digital communications.  In nearly every criminal investigation we undertake at the federal level—from homicides and kidnappings to drug trafficking, financial fraud and child exploitation—critical evidence comes from smart phones, computers and online communications.  These materials are increasingly unavailable to law enforcement as a result of some encryption technologies, even when we have a warrant to examine them.

Our inability to access such data can stop our investigations and prosecutions in their tracks.  Securing and keeping private our electronically-stored information is critically important, but so too is the time-honored legal process that protects our values and our safety.  These are complementary, not competing priorities, and they are considered every time a warrant is issued.  If an independent judge has evaluated the facts of a case, and, after balancing the constitutional privacy interests and the needs of justice, issues a warrant or order, a company served with that order must comply.

To be sure, solutions to the challenge of widespread, warrant-proof encryption will not be easy.  But the decision about whether law enforcement can access data must be made in the policy arena, not by the private sector.  We should not allow changing technologies or the economic interests of the private sector to overwhelm larger policy issues relating to the needs of public safety and national security. 

The challenge we face with warrant-proof encryption is part of a broader trend requiring harmonization of law and technology.  In July, in the so-called “Microsoft Ireland” case, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a judge could not authorize the use of a Stored Communications Act (SCA) warrant to compel disclosure by Microsoft of email communications stored in Microsoft’s Ireland data center, or any server outside U.S. borders.  This holding means that, in the Second Circuit, the contents of communications held by any service provider outside the United States—even when they belong to a U.S. person, are maintained by a U.S.-based company and are controlled by a person sitting at a computer terminal in the United States—is off limits under an SCA warrant. 

Data stored by communications providers, such as emails, IP records or even subscriber information, can be crucial to the department’s work.  It is not unusual for this type of information to be stored in the United States, whether the information relates to an American, or to a foreign citizen who happens to use an American service. 

Increasingly, however, American providers and other providers subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts are storing information outside the United States, and not always at rest and in the same location.  For example, one major American provider has said that it has begun to store the contents of many accounts in data centers located abroad.  That provider indicated that it chooses whether to maintain data in the United States or abroad based solely on the user’s selection of her country of residence at the time the account is created.  Accordingly, even Americans who live in the United States can effectively choose to have their account data stored abroad by doing no more than choosing a desired country from the drop-down menu on the sign-up form.  In fact, many of the largest American providers now operate data storage centers abroad and it is unusual for a major provider to store all of its data within the United States.

In today’s world of global cloud computing, it makes little sense to determine the legality of search warrants based on where companies choose to store their data.  U.S. providers control billions of user accounts for customers across the globe, and nothing in U.S. law requires their data to be stored in this country.  Today’s technology means that data can be moved across jurisdictions or stored in multiple locations for any number of business reasons.  The location of the data could change day-by-day or hour-by-hour.  Meanwhile, U.S. providers increasingly face tax or other business incentives to operate data storage centers outside the United States. 

Already, U.S. providers have declared in response to multiple federal warrants, on the basis of the Microsoft Ireland ruling, that they will only produce responsive information known to be located in the United States.  That number will certainly grow. 

Alternative methods, such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty—or MLAT—process, are not sufficient.  The United States has MLATs with less than half the countries in the world, and many of those treaties exclude certain categories of evidence altogether.  Even when a request for evidence is covered, the MLAT process generally lacks the requisite efficiency for time-sensitive investigations and other emergencies.  Ireland, for example, reports that requests take 15 to 18 months in routine cases.  In less experienced or less cooperative countries, the process can take even longer.  Sometimes we never receive a response at all.  What all of this means is that an enormous amount of electronic evidence—information necessary for investigations ranging from national security cases to human and drug trafficking, to cyber intrusions and child exploitation—may now be out of reach entirely.

That is why the administration has made clear that it intends to promptly submit legislation to address the significant public safety implications of the Microsoft decision.  But in doing so, we must be mindful of the responsibility Congress and the American people have entrusted to us: to protect Americans from threats to their safety and security.  Legislative proposals that base law enforcement access to electronic evidence solely on MLAT requests to other countries will inevitably slow, and in some cases end, the investigation of serious offenses against Americans. 

That cannot be the path forward.  In a world where business decisions and cumbersome bureaucratic processes, rather than time-tested constitutional standards, determine when criminal investigations can advance, both privacy and the safety of Americans surely lose.  As with the encryption debate, we should not leave the commercial market to resolve what must be balanced policy decisions.

In each of these areas, we must proceed thoughtfully and balance multiple different legitimate interests.  Yet several basic principles should be obvious.  First, sitting back and doing nothing is not an acceptable option.  The world is changing around us, and those seeking to do harm are evolving with it.  If those responsible for ensuring public safety do not have the same ability to adapt, public safety will suffer. 

Second, these changes pose policy challenges and we need to develop policy responses.  Rather than let events or evolutions in technology dictate our responses, we must think ahead as a society and develop appropriate frameworks to address new and upcoming challenges before they become crises. 

And finally, when there are multiple interests at stake—public safety, cybersecurity, international comity and civil rights and civil liberties—we cannot allow the most consequential decisions to be made by a single stakeholder, or leave them to the whim of the commercial marketplace.  We would never countenance that approach in other areas of importance to society, and we should not do so here. 

Thank you.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

CONYERS & POE LEAD BIPARTISAN HOUSE COALITION TO STOP GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE AND HACKING

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) and Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) along with Congressman Blake Fahrenthold (R-TX) and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)introduced H.R. 5321 the Stop Mass Hacking Act. This is the companion bill to legislation introduced on the Senate side by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rand Paul (R-KY). The Department of Justice has recently moved to make an administrative rule change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that would give the government the ability to hack the computers of a massive amount of American citizens just by obtaining a single warrant.  If Congress does not act by December 1, 2016, this change will be in effect. The Stop Massive Hacking Act prevents these changes to Rule 41 from going into effect.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“I stand by the Stop Mass Hacking Act because I am not yet convinced that the proposed changes to Rule 41 are wise or necessary,” said Rep. Conyers. “This rule change is designed to streamline investigative techniques that allow law enforcement to gain unauthorized access and control to remote computer systems.  Until Congress has had an opportunity to examine this proposal in detail—and until we have adequately addressed the privacy concerns raised by my colleagues—this rule change should not take effect.”

“Government does not have the authority to unilaterally legalize widespread government hacking,” said Rep. Poe.  “Americans have rights. It is Congress’ responsibility to safeguard the constitutional rights of the people they represent from a power hungry Executive Branch. As such, we are moving to stop this change that condones hacking the property of the very people we are entrusted to protect.”

“This bill hits pause on a new rule which facilitates hacking of foreign entities and hijacking devices owned by the victims of malware attacks without their permission,” said Rep. Lofgren.  “These troubling activities, and the international, privacy, and security ramifications which may arise as a result, deserve serious deliberation and debate in Congress.”

“We’re in the midst right now of one of the biggest battles in the privacy world that we have faced,” said Rep Farenthold. “Because of the horrendous terrorist attacks we’ve witnessed, there’s a willingness to give up some of our freedoms and privacy in order to feel safe. That’s completely understandable, but if we keep down this path, we’re going to wake up in a few years in George Orwell’s ‘1984.’ This is why, as we fight for security, the intrusion on privacy

necessary to fight the war on terror needs to be narrowly tailored and aggressively overseen.”

“Representatives Poe, Conyers, Farenthold and Lofgren are leading the fight to protect Americans’ freedoms by introducing the Stopping Mass Hacking Act in the House of Representatives,” said Senator Wyden. “They’re proof that a growing, bipartisan coalition agrees that this expansion of the government’s hacking and surveillance authority simply goes too far.”

Stop Mass Hacking Act Summary by Beverly Tran

Read a one-page bill text of the Stopping Mass Hacking (SMH) Act.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary Trolls With Taxpayer Dollars

Well, well, well, look at what we have here.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee of the Majority has been victorious in its take over for absolute control of its social media.

There is not even a hyperlink to the Judiciary front page of the Democrats as it was ensconced deep beneath the drop down menu upon scrolling up the page.

How is that even fair and equal treatment to the functioning of the federal government?

The last time I checked, utilizing congressional resources for the political gain is a no, no.

Is Chaffetz manipulating the public record under the guise of an uncited authority?

Were there any co-mingling of campaign and congressional funds?

There must be accountability in using congressional resources to create an artificial authority to manipulate the public agenda and distort the historic record.

See, the historic record, now-a-days, is called a dataverse.  It is all about the data, baby.

People look at the number of "hits" or "likes" to determine if something is valid or not.

Mutational algorithms are designed to delivery information the investors want you to see through the search engines.

Search engines tell you what you want to see; the spiders follow paths to cast the web you will be stuck in, which, in this case, videos like the one, below.

Then there are the suppression portions of online statistics which would make stuff like this the authority.

What about the intellectual property issues with using congressional resources?  YouTube has copyright and policies.

Who is the keeper of the record?

I expect hearings in Judiciary on the issues of using social media for congressional purposes with congressional resources.

Social media should be included in governance so now is just as good as anytime to examine the issues.

This is quite a crafty troll move.  Well, played, Sir, well, played.

My turn.

GOPers Tout Slick IRS Conspiracy Film In Hearing Pushing Official's Impeachment

 

The ongoing House Republican effort to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen over his handling of the so-called “IRS targeting scandal” took a turn towards creative filmmaking last week during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

The testimony of witness Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chair of the House Oversight committee, revolved around an extended video created by his office and played for the committee. The video was a ten-and-a-half-minute, slickly-produced recounting of GOP allegations of Koskinen's supposed misconduct. It bore a closer resemblance to a campaign attack ad than to the sort of the evidence typically provided in a congressional hearing.
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the committee, called the move to play it during Chaffetz's testimony “a little bit unusual.”

The video has been posted for nearly a year on the Oversight Committee’s YouTube account, and has more than 9,000 views, which Chaffetz bragged about at Tuesday’s hearing.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

House Judiciary Committee Republicans Strike Down Amendment To Protect Survivors Of Domestic & Sexual Violence From Online Abuse

Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Republicans voted against Congresswoman Judy Chu’s (D-CA) amendment to H.R. 5203, the so called Visa Integrity and Security Act of 2016. Representative Chu’s amendment would have required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish safeguards to protect survivors of domestic abuse in the social media screening process. These safeguards are necessary to prevent abusers from manipulating their victims’ social media accounts or using social media to cause further harm that could deny victims the opportunity to obtain humanitarian immigration relief. The amendment failed on a party line vote of 14 to 8.

“The Visa Integrity and Security Act of 2016 leaves domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking survivors at risk for having their visas denied and being made more vulnerable to their abusers,” saidCongressman Conyers. “Rep. Chu’s amendment to the bill would have ensured they receive the protections they deserve against harassment during the immigration review process. I’m appalled that my Republican colleagues blatantly overlooked the needs of this vulnerable population.”

“This outrageous bill is just the latest example of how House Republicans are trying to turn hate speech into policy,” said Congresswoman Chu. “This legislation would effectively halt all legal immigration and specifically target applicants from Middle Eastern countries. Imagine fleeing violence for safety in the U.S. only to be turned away because you can’t afford a DNA test.  Not only does this bill fail to strengthen national security, it further victimizes survivors of domestic abuse. Under this bill, a visa can be denied solely on the basis of social media activity. However, it does nothing to deal with situations where an abuser may impersonate a victim with a new social media profile or hijack a victim’s existing social media profile to make salacious posts. That is why I introduced my amendment to require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish procedural safeguards to protect victims of domestic abuse prior to conducting social media screening in the immigration process. These safeguards are necessary to prevent abusers from manipulating their victim’s social media accounts or deny victims the opportunity to obtain the humanitarian immigration relief that they deserve. This threat is real and if not dealt with properly, deserving immigrants may be denied their visas, and worse, remain vulnerable to their abusers.”

Congresswoman Chu continued, “This was a reasonable measure that would protect those seeking safety in the United States, and I’m disappointed that my Republican colleagues are more interested in keeping any and all immigrants out of our country and not in creating an immigration system that works for us.”

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, more than one in four stalking victims reported suffering some form of cyberstalking.  The majority of these victims identified the online stalker as a former intimate partner. As it stands, the Visa Integrity and Security Act of 2016 does not prevent abusers from impersonating a victim with a new social media profile or hijacking a victim’s existing social media profile. This behavior can negatively impact an individual’s chances during the immigration review process.

The House Judiciary Committee passed the Visa Integrity and Security Act of 2016 on a party line vote of 14 to 10. This Republican legislation would create multiple new onerous requirements that could ultimately impair an already broken U.S. immigration system. 

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Markup of H.R. 5203, the ‘‘Visa Integrity and Security Act of 2016”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

Strengthening the security of the immigration and visa issuance process is a critical issue for all Americans. 

As one who believes our Nation should be a beacon of freedom and liberty, I very much appreciate the need to effectively combat terrorism, while maintaining our commitment to core values.

Unfortunately, H.R. 5203, the “Visa Integrity and Security Act,” fails to honor those core values.

This failing can largely be attributed to the fact that the bill reflects absolutely no input from Democratic Members of the Committee. Nor has this measure been the subject of any legislative hearing. 

Bereft of informed testimony and expert analysis, we have essentially no information about the bill's potential costs, both fiscal and social.  Yet, even a superficial review of H.R 5203 reveals its many flaws. 

To begin with, the bill – without any exception for age or any other factor -- singles out every national of Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen by requiring that the Department of State complete individualized security opinions for visa applicants from these countries. 

As a result, vast amounts of agency time and resources would be dedicated to completing security advisory reports on, for example, infants, toddlers, and others who clearly pose no security risk.

An even more troublesome aspect of this provision is that it singles out a handful of majority Muslim countries thereby dehumanizing entire populations by treating all of their nationals as potential terrorists. 

Clearly, the more we dehumanize entire populations based on religion, the less likely they will become our allies against the real threat, namely, terrorists who seek to do our Nation harm.

History has shown that arbitrary across the board judgments based on broad characteristics, such as nationality, do nothing to enhance our security and only cast a cloud of suspicion over entire communities here in our country. 

Another critical flaw of this bill is the serious privacy concerns it presents.  Although H.R. 5203 mandates DNA testing for biological family-based immigrant applications, the bill has no provisions safeguarding this massive new database of DNA, that would include the DNA of potentially millions of non-criminals and American citizens.

Finally, this bill would require significant costs to implement, yet offers no comprehensive fix to our broken immigration system.

Just one provision of this bill -- the Visa Security Program -- would come at the cost of $120 million without meaningfully targeting law enforcement and intelligence resources on actual threats.

An immigration reform bill – such as the measure that passed the Senate in 2013 or the bill that had 201 House cosponsors in the last Congress – would allow law-abiding immigrants to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. 

Measures such as those it would make us safer by enabling law enforcement and intelligence agencies to focus resources on the most pressing cases.

Rather than rushing to consider legislation absolutely devoid of deliberative process, we should devote our efforts to developing meaningful and informed solutions.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5203, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

To My Dearest Superfans...

STOP JACKING MY COMPUTER AND PHONE!!!

Now, that I have that off my chest and your undivided attention, listen to me very carefully...I will type extremely slow so you will not miss a single word of what I am about to state.

As a public figure and in the capacity of a really happy gal, I extend invitation to you.

Call me.

We shall set a date and time for you to come over and I shall walk you through my skill sets while I serve you home baked scones and high tea as I dazzle you with my passion.

Oh, what merriment we shall make.

Ciao bellos & bellas!

#DOJ

Conyers Considering Legislation to Curb Government Hacking

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Michigan Rep. John Conyers, is looking into joining Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-Ore.) movement to reverse Supreme Court-approved changes to federal criminal procedure that could expand government-run hacking operations. The change would allow judges to grant warrants for computer and data investigations in any jurisdiction.

“Many in the House, both Democrats and Republicans, remain concerned about the investigatory techniques at the heart of this discussion,” Conyers said late Thursday. “We will continue to study the issue and, when appropriate, we hope to join Senator Wyden in his call to block the change.”

Wyden introduced a bill on Thursday to reverse changes to federal criminal procedure “Rule 41,” approved by the Supreme Court in late April. Upon the introduction of the bill, Wyden’s office indicated a House companion bill is expected soon to reverse what Wyden called “dramatic expansion of the government’s hacking and surveillance authority.”

“These rule changes will allow the government to search millions of computers with the warrant of a single judge,” Wyden added in a Thursday post on Medium.

Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) cosponsor the Senate measure.

The Department of Justice requested the changes after three years of negotiations, and have disputed privacy advocates’ interpretation of the rule change.

“The amendment would not authorize the government to undertake any search or seizure or use any remote search technique not already permitted under current law, and the amendment does not change any of the traditional protections and procedures, such as the requirement that the government establish probable cause,” a DOJ spokesman said in an emailed statement Thursday.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. on H.R. 699, “The Email Privacy Act”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.

“As of this morning, the bill has earned 304 cosponsors—191 Republicans, 113 Democrats, and 27 members of the House Judiciary Committee.  What do all of these members have in common?

           

“First, we all agree that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act is outdated and provides unjustifiably inconsistent standards for government access to our stored communications.

           

“This statute continues to serve as one of the main guarantees of our digital privacy.

           

“But the law was designed in 1986, when few of us used email, and fewer imagined a world in which we could so freely share information online.

            “The consequences of applying a thirty-year-old understanding of technology to modern communications are inconsistent, at best. 

            “For example, the law seems to apply different standards for government access to the same email at different points in its lifecycle—when it is drafted, when it is transmitted, when it opened by its recipient, and when it is archived in the cloud.

            “We are not well-served by a law whose application is unpredictable, and that the courts have had great difficulty interpreting. 

            “Because of the rapid pace of technological change, this situation will only get worse if we do not act.

            “Second, the sponsors of this bill agree that the government should be obligated to show probable cause before it can force a provider to disclose the content its customer’s email—no matter how old the message is.

            “This standard is consistent with the holding of the Sixth Circuit in U.S. v. Warshak in 2010.  That case motivated the Department of Justice to voluntarily adopt a warrants-for-email standard. 

            “It also effectively ended the unconstitutional use of subpoenas to compel third parties to produce content in civil enforcement actions.

            “Current law requires the government to show probable cause and obtain a warrant only for email that has been in storage for 180 days or less.  But the government can use an subpoena for the same email if it is stored for one day longer.

           

“This is no longer acceptable to most Americans.  As the Sixth Circuit rightly observed, citizens have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their email before and after the 180-day mark.

            “And as the Department of Justice testified soon thereafter, “there is no principled basis to treat email less than 180 days old differently than email more than 180 days old.”

            “Third, the sponsors of H.R.699 all agree that current law is not adequate to protect new forms of digital communication.

            “Content is content.  Our expectation of privacy does not diminish merely because Congress didn’t think of the medium when it last visited the statute.  The law should protect electronic communications across the board:  email, text messages, private messaging of all sort, and other forms of digital information stored in the cloud.

           

“Finally, the sponsors of this bill agree that we must act without delay.

            “We have an obligation to provide clear standards to law enforcement with respect to emerging technologies.

            “We should also recognize that American businesses cannot sustain these new technologies if consumers cannot trust them.

            “As the Committee takes up this bill, we should ensure that it does not conflict with the basic notion that the government’s seizure of our email without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.

            “But we should note that this principle has already taken hold across the federal government.  The Department of Justice already uses warrants for email in criminal cases. 

            “The government stopped using lesser process in the civil context years ago."

            “In short, Mr. Chairman, this legislation accomplishes two vital tasks: it updates the statute for modern use, and it does so without any significant interruption to law enforcement."

            “We should come together on this bill as soon as possible."

            “I thank the witnesses for their testimony today and I urge my colleagues to give this measure their full support.”    

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member Full Committee Hearing on “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”

“Today, we welcome Director James Comey of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for his second appearance before the House Judiciary Committee since taking office on September 4, 2013.

“The FBI’s mission is a complex undertaking: to protect the United States from terrorism, to enforce our criminal laws, and to lead the nation’s law enforcement community.

“And yet, as vast as this mission seems, I think nearly all of the discussion we will have here today can be distilled into one word: trust.

“Trust in the executive branch to respect and secure our privacy and our civil liberties.  Trust in the FBI as an institution.  Trust in the state and local agencies that police our communities.

“In many respects, Director Comey, I think we agree on this point.

“For example: you have spoken powerfully about ‘the hard truths’ we must keep in mind when we discuss race and policing—and particularly when we discuss the use of force by police officers.

“I am told that you require all new agents to study the FBI’s interaction with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and to visit his memorial at the Tidal Basin.

“I am also told that you keep on your desk a copy of Robert Kennedy’s approval of J. Edgar Hoover’s request to place a wiretap on Dr. King. 

“These are powerful reminders of a troubling and not-too-distant history.  It is not difficult to draw a line from that era to recent events in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, and Cleveland.

“And that is why your work to build trust between police and our communities is so important. 

“Nowhere is that effort more apparent than in your call for better data on the use of force by police. 

“Although the FBI is the national custodian of crime statistics, that data is reported voluntarily and inconsistently. 

“You have been honest in your assessment that official statistics in this area are so incomplete as to be ‘embarrassing and ridiculous.’

“We need a better understanding of what drives police use of force, and we cannot study the problem without reliable data.  I urge you to continue to press your state and local partners for consistent and accurate reporting to the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

“Just as we must rebuild trust in certain state and local law enforcement units, we will look to your testimony today to reassure us about a number of programs and activities at the FBI.

“Earlier this year, the public noticed a small plane flying in a tight pattern directly over the site of unrest West Baltimore.  Other reports from other parts of the country—including my district in Detroit—raised questions about similar aircraft. 

“The FBI has since confirmed the existence of its aerial surveillance program.

“On June 3, fifteen members of this Committee wrote you to ask for more information about this program.  Your team provided our staff with a briefing soon thereafter.

“But the public still has many questions about aerial surveillance, and you have said that there is a great deal of misinformation about this program.  I would like you to use your testimony to explain, from your perspective, how this program works and why we should trust the Bureau to operate it.

“Similarly, I think we would benefit from a fuller discussion of encryption and what you have called the ‘Going Dark’ problem.

“Over the past year, you have called for a congressional mandate to give the FBI special access to otherwise encrypted data.

“I have a difficult time understanding this proposal.  Every technical expert who has spoken on this issue has concluded that it is technically impossible to provide this access without also compromising our security against bad actors.

“Even if it were technically feasible, it would cost our technology sector billions of dollars to implement the scheme—and perhaps billions more from loss of business overseas, where U.S. government surveillance programs have already taken a toll on the industry.

“And even if it were technically feasible and easy to implement, a new rule for U.S. companies would not succeed in keeping bad actors from using unbreakable encryption—which is open source, free, and widely available from companies based overseas.

“As Chairman Goodlatte argued when we had this debate in 1999: ‘Only by allowing the use of strong encryption, not only domestically but internationally as well, can we hope to make the Internet a safe and secure environment.’

“I agree with that sentiment, you have made similar public statements, and I hope that you can help us to reconcile that view with your call for special access.

“Finally, because rigorous oversight is necessary for public trust, I hope that you will commit today to full compliance with the Inspector General Act.

“For the past five years, the FBI has resisted the clear mandate of that law.  The Inspector General of the Department of Justice is to have timely access to every document he requires to carry out his duties. 

“Noncompliance has real consequences.  This Committee waited until February of this year to receive a report about the FBI’s use of Section 215 orders from 2007 to 2009.  The public waited until May for the unclassified version. 

“In the middle of a national debate on government surveillance, we waited six years for critical information.  This delay is unacceptable.

           

“I understand that there are other interpretations of the law.  Congress will soon clarify the matter, likely in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. 

           

“But in the meantime, Director Comey, I hope that the Bureau will step away from its litigating position and give the Office of the Inspector General the access it requires and deserves.

“Your job is a complex and demanding one, Director.  We appreciate your being here today.  I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©