If we are supposedly on the cusp of war with Russia, and Russia is hacking our stuff, then riddle me this -
"Why are we in a joint Russian partnership with the International Space Station and space R&D?"
SpaceX will launch the second demonstration mission of its Crew Dragon vehicle as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Program (CCtCap), carrying two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. This mission will be the first crewed flight to launch from the United States since the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011. DM-2 demonstrates the Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon's ability to safely transport crew to the space station and back to Earth and it is the last major milestone for certification of Crew Dragon. NASA has extend the mission duration to allow the astronauts to participate as Expedition 63 crew members. The exact duration of the mission will be determined in orbit based on the readiness of the first operational crew mission.
The mission was scrubbed due to weather.
Next launch opportunity - May 30, 2020, 3:22 p.m. EST.
Our latest Geointeresting #podcast features NGA’s Director of Research & an NGA scientist discovering the latest in hyperspectral signatures – two women at different stages of their career, but both strong advocates for women in the #STEM field. Listen up! https://t.co/vK7Plnlr7wpic.twitter.com/JyOhUWZaUg
The Detroit Board of Police Commissioners tabled a controversial vote Thursday around the use of facial recognition technology in city neighborhoods.
“It’s still under review, so we cannot move forward at this particular time," Commissioner Willie Bell said, explaining that discussions around that particular surveillance directive were still being hammered out with Police Chief James Craig and Mayor Mike Duggan.
While the facial recognition vote was put off, the board did move forward and approved (6-3, with one abstention) a related directive dealing with rules around cameras mounted onto traffic lights throughout the city's neighborhoods.
"Yes, the traffic light was dealing with face recognition, but we separated it out, they were combined together but they're two separate entities," said Bell.
Community members, who spoke during the public comment period, expressed a different point of view, indicating that they saw the two issues as inextricably tied.
“I understand that you said facial recognition is not on the agenda today, but you moved forward and voted on traffic cameras that will have the capabilities of that technology," said Detroiter Tawana Petty.
“This facial recognition technology has been utilized for a couple of years without transparency and then the minute we get an opportunity to vocalize our concerns on it, it’s rushed through with little accountability," she continued. The city purchased facial recognition software in July 2017 for just over $1 million.
Willie Burton, one of the three commissioners who voted against the traffic directive, agreed with Petty stating that it was impossible to isolate the two directives.
"It was all presented together and now all of a sudden they want to separate it because they knew the community was coming out to speak against it," said Burton.
“This tech has been removed from body cameras in other police depts, it’s banned in SF. The very technologists who created it said it’s harmful and biased. It doesn’t recognize darker skins” - Tawana Petty speaking against facial recognition tech today at police commissioner mtg pic.twitter.com/OKRDYa4jfM
In a rundown of what occurred around the facial recognition directive and why it got pushed back, Gregory Hicks, the board's secretary, explained that the commissioners responded to the original facial recognition directive with 17 recommendations and Assistant Police Chief James White responded with the approval of all but two. The changes were then incorporated in the directive but "at last minute the department requested to pull back" the facial recognition vote.
Hicks said he does not know why the department pulled the directive and that as of now there is no new date for a vote.
“This tech has proven to be inaccurate/misidentifies particularly ppl of color, ppl who look like me, ppl who live/work in my community. I have every right to move thru this city w/o my movements being tracked/watched under the guise that this will make me safer” - Janice Gates pic.twitter.com/Pkg4AwWRCw
Both directives involve the "Neighborhood Real-Time Intelligence Program," a new $9 million initiative that Duggan announced in March at his State of the City address. Using local and federal traffic modernization funds, the city will put high-definition cameras at various intersections in the neighborhoods. They will be monitored by Detroit Public Works staff at the Real Time Crime Center within the Detroit Police Department's Public Safety headquarters downtown.
By the end of 2019, cameras are set to be installed at 11 intersections on the Greenfield and East Seven Mile corridors. Additionally, the Department of Public Works will add cameras to 29 intersections across the city. In 2020, an additional 400 cameras will be added.
“These are the traffic cameras we’re putting up. We will get shots of the perpetrators as they go past and we’ll be able to chase them down,” Duggan said at his State of the City.
Under the traffic-light directive that passed Thursday, Detroit police are prohibited from using the footage or images from the traffic light cameras to enforce traffic misdemeanors or pedestrian laws or to issue civil infractions of any kind. The cameras cannot be used to assess immigration status or engage in immigration enforcement. And DPD cannot use audio from the cameras unless there is a verified court order.
Footage and images obtained from the traffic light-mounted cameras can be used for "legitimate law enforcement purposes," defined as investigations into criminal activity, the pursuit of a criminal suspect, the monitoring of an ongoing situation "in which criminal activity is, or is reasonably expected to occur."
DPD is not prohibited from focusing cameras on handbills, flyers or other materials carried pursuant to the First Amendment, but they will "avoid" doing this.
While some checks are in place, critics remain concerned, especially when considering the yet to be voted on directive that deals with facial recognition.
Worries hit on privacy and the silencing of free speech to the actual efficacy of the technology.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of California tested images of members of Congress on "Rekognition" — Amazon's facial recognition tool. The organization found that of the 535 faces inputted, the software falsely matched 28 with people who had been arrested on criminal charges. Additionally, the software gave false matches for 39% of the minority members, who comprise only 20% of Congress.
Such issues were raised in a May inter-office memo sent to the commissioners. The document cited a January report that found that facial recognition technology showed a lower accuracy rate for African Americans and another that found that artificial intelligence assigned more criminal intent to black men based on difficulties interpreting emotions of black faces.
"That is enough to justify voting against it," said Eric Williams, an attorney working with the ACLU on a committee opposing the city's surveillance tactics. "If it said this for white men and women, this wouldn't even be considered."
Last month, San Francisco — seen by many as the center of the tech-universe — became the first major city to ban police use of the technology, citing several of the concerns Williams and other critics of the software have raised.
"We have an outsize responsibility to regulate the excesses of technology precisely because they are headquartered here," Aaron Peskin, the city supervisor who sponsored the bill, told the New York Times at the time.
This point was raised by Petty during her public comment Thursday.
"I have to push you all to at least understand the technology you’re implementing," she continued. "This will be the largest experiment on black people in the United States — 700,000 black people being submitted to an experiment that has already failed all over the world."
While the directives in question have been discussed in relation to the Neighborhood Real-Time Intelligence Program — the use of such technology and surveillance is not new in Detroit. This is just the latest surveillance project in an ever-expanding network.
The public-facing push to ramp up surveillance began in January 2016 when DPD launched Project Green Light. Starting with eight gas stations, the program has participating businesses pay for and install surveillance cameras on their property that feed directly to DPD's Real Time Crime Center. Additionally, as part of the program, businesses commit to ensuring they have robust lighting and a green light outside of their vicinity to let customers know they are a part of the program.
Today, more than 500 businesses — including churches, schools, and pharmacies — are a part of the program. There are also two "Green Light Corridors" and one public housing property signed on to be part of the program.
Prior to the launch of Project Green Light, however, city officials were thinking about surveillance and specifically facial recognition software.
"FACE Watch Plus tracks face images from live video surveillance, processes the images, then searches your database and alerts you when a match/hit has been made," the proposal explained. "It detects faces within surveillance footage in real-time, then uses cutting-edge facial searching algorithms to rapidly search through your agency's mugshot or watchlist database for positive matches."
The 2017 contract, which expired on Wednesday, explained that the purchase of facial recognition licensing, software and equipment was for "Project Green Light Locations."
Despite this stated use, a May report from Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology noted that nowhere on the Green Light website was the use of face recognition, real-time face surveillance, or any kind of automated face analysis technology mentioned.
This, according to Clare Garvie, a senior associate at the center and co-author of the report, is a problem.
"It should be up to communities to decide whether the benefits of face recognition outweigh the risks and whether these benefits to public safety mean that this technology can and should be used on them," said Garvie.
"What we found in Detroit is the decision to purchase not just face recognition — the ability to do investigations using face recognition — but the ability to do face surveillance was not something that was ever presented to the public," she continued. "It never appears to be presented to the Project Green Light partners, and yes that is absolutely a discussion that should have taken place before the city spends over a million dollars on a system."
For some of the Detroiters in attendance at the vote Thursday, the delay seemed to exacerbate questions of accountability.
"If you can’t even conduct a vote with integrity," asked Janice Gates, "how do you expect us to believe that you will use facial recognition with integrity?"
Detroiter Eric Blount echoed her sentiments.
"It feels like this meeting agenda switch is a sleight of hand switch, so many people came out here thinking they were going to understand and better express themselves on facial recognition and a last-minute switch," Blount said. "I just ask you to stick to the agenda, if there is any possibility that it will be changed, do it far in advance, because these meetings are very inconvenient for most people who have to work."
They are doing live color commentary like a sporting event and I absolutely love it.
They are even doing live commercials for the corporations involved in the launch, claimed as the largest Arab satellite network in the world.
The tech companies are now the new NFL in technology promoting corporate team spirit in open sourced advancement.
I can see the armoralities in colorful heraldry where individuals rally, through their votes, not limited to a thumbs up or down marginalized decision-making process.
No more war because stock market is nothing but a rigged gambling theifdom that is to be dismantled and rebuilt and we can do it blockchain and stop the stealin'.
There are lots and lots more complex financial fraud schemes, but this one was straight, out cold.
SAN DIEGO – Jonny Ngo, the former president and chief executive officer of NL Technology, LLC, was arraigned today on a 21-count indictment charging him with wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering in connection with operating a $65 million investment fraud. The hearing took place in federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin after the indictment was unsealed.
According to the indictment, Ngo induced his victims to invest funds in various short-term investment contracts by making false representations, including that: (a) investor money would be used to fund wholesale purchase orders of smartphone screens and other electronic goods; (b) NL Technology was a regular supplier of smartphone screens to a number of buyers, including two buyers who each ordered approximately $2 million of product from NL Technology; (c) all wholesale orders funded by investor money was pre-purchased by NL Technology clients; and (d) the quality of the products and safety of investor funds used to purchase the products was guaranteed by a third-party escrow company.
The indictment further alleges that Ngo created counterfeit invoices falsely indicating that NL Technology had substantial purchase orders from alleged wholesale companies. The indictment alleges that Ngo also provided false financial statements purportedly certified by an accountant showing NL Technology earned income from its wholesale business totaling $12.5 million in 2015 and $15.4 million in 2016. Moreover, as alleged, Ngo fabricated bank statements or screenshots from bank statements held in the name of NL Technology with individual line items altered to appear as legitimate wholesale business transactions. Lastly, Ngo created false checks from wholesale companies allegedly doing business with NL Technology.
To further his investment fraud, Ngo and others allegedly told investors that they could roll over their investments into future investment contracts with NL Technology, when in fact no such future investments were possible. Also, Ngo allegedly lulled investors about the continued viability of NL Technology through materially false representations, including that NL Technology had an outstanding purchase order from a smartphone repair company for approximately $300,000, when in fact, no such order existed.
Instead of investing the funds in the business, the indictment alleges that Ngo converted investor funds to his own personal use and benefit by spending the money on a home, luxury cars and gambling. As a result of his investment fraud, it is alleged that Ngo induced investors to part with more than $60 million, and ultimately caused millions of dollars in losses.
“Investment fraud has a long-lasting and devastating effect on victims in our community,” said U.S. Attorney Robert S. Brewer, Jr. “When these schemes are brought to our attention, we will work collaboratively with our law enforcement partners to unravel the fraud and hold those responsible for profiting from it.”
FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Suzanne Turner said: “Mr. Ngo's alleged technology business scheme was, in fact, a plan to deceive investors, luring them into a false sense of security about their investments, falsifying documents to cover the lies and stealing the funds for personal use. The FBI will continue to identify and investigate those who defraud investors. We ask anyone who has information related to investor fraud submit a tip at https://tips.fbi.gov/.”
U.S. Postal Inspection Srevice Inspector in Charge Nichole Cooper stated: “Mr. Ngo is accused of a scheme that separated millions of dollars from consumers who believed they were making legitimate investments. However, those who commit crimes like this one fail to realize that Postal Inspectors and our federal law enforcement partners will discover these greedy schemes and will bring the culprits to justice for their crimes against unsuspecting investors.”
The Government moved to detain the defendant as a risk of flight. Judge Dembin set a detention hearing for Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks. The defendant will remain in custody until the hearing. Judge Dembin also scheduled a motion hearing/trial setting for June 7, 2019 at 11 a.m. before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.
DEFENDANT Case Number: 19CR1391-JM
Jonny Ngo Age: 32 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 – Wire Fraud
Maximum Penalties: 20 years’ in prison, a fine of $250,000, three years of supervised release
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341 – Mail Fraud
Maximum Penalties: 20 years’ in prison, a fine of $250,000, three years of supervised release
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 – Money Laundering
Maximum Penalties: 10 years’ in prison, a fine of $250,000, three years of supervised release
AGENCIES
Federal Bureau of Investigation
United States Postal Inspection Service
An indictment itself is not evidence that the defendant committed the crimes charged. The defendant is presumed innocent until the Government meets its burden in court of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If this is a plausible scenario, then so is the intentional manufacturing of hate propaganda to fraudulently advise in the construction of law and policy for personal inurement.
Defango, of DefNews reports from the cyberbattle fields on the propaganda wars, psyops, new technology, and other interesting characters in the quest to make them stopstealin'.
Multistreaming with https://restream.io/
Right now the Ship is sinking for Qanon and UNIROCK is hot on the trail. It seems that the MSM is in contact and they will be running a story. I wonder how it will all work out? Did you hear about iran?
Tip Link
https://streamlabs.com/mannychaveziii
Support the stream
Patreon.com/defango
DONATE if you wanna
paypal.me/defango
LTC - MRoQpUx1fZxXMBRLa9uZfuzeUKY8YsY9nL
BTC - 325BQU2qBxuxBvWnUPHonzNzpRFTaYdf3s
ETH - 0xfD651b1FCD273cE68F8BD87FEB896f92F44595D5
Emails, they are not for just for gif attachments with encrypted data, anymore.
You can text pics, too, you know.
Just saying.
New York Man Charged With Theft of Trade Secrets
Xiaoqing Zheng, 55, of Niskayuna, New York, was arrested today in connection with a criminal complaint charging him with stealing trade secrets belonging to General Electric (GE).
The announcement was made by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers, U.S. Attorney Grant C. Jaquith for the Northern District of New York, and, Acting Special Agent in Charge Charles Margiotta of the FBI’s Albany Division.
The criminal complaint alleges that on or about July 5, Zheng, an engineer employed by General Electric, used an elaborate and sophisticated means to remove electronic files containing GE’s trade secrets involving its turbine technologies. Specifically, Zheng is alleged to have used steganography to hide data files belonging to GE into an innocuous looking digital picture of a sunset, and then to have e-mailed the digital picture, which contained the stolen GE data files, to Zheng’s e-mail account.
The defendant appeared today in federal court in Albany, New York, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel and was ordered detained without bail pending a hearing scheduled for August 2, at 1:30 p.m.
The charge filed against Zheng carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and a term of supervised release of up to three years. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. The charge in the complaint is merely an accusation. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
This case is being investigated by the FBI, and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Rick Belliss of the Northern District of New York, and Trial Attorneys Jason McCullough and Matt Chang of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.
The Meanies are rather crafty when being mean to my Sweetie!
Detroit Become Human is game developed by Quantic Dreams SA, out of France, by David Cage, who seems to have taken on the task to co-opt the civil rights history of Detroit by making AI and human rights issues, fungible, through predictive modeling. Quantic Dreams has a very interesting background in game development that I would deem to be a bit on the socio-psychological in its message, not that all propaganda is bad in nature, but the fact that I just see this game as another activity of amending & editing the annals of history for the purposes of expediting that "authority thang" which seems to be all the rage in Detroit, by being really mean to my Sweetie.
It seems Quantic Dream to be experiencing its own civil rights issues.
It is such a shame Detroit Become Human never came to Detroit to talk to civil rights icons, publish in Detroit, release in Detroit, or contract with anyone in Detroit, but, then again, if they did, it would not be a propaganda campaign to rewrite history.
I only call this "Heavy Rain narrative-focused" throwback propaganda is because I think, kinda sorta, I think I recall, maybe I might be a tad bit mistaken, hold on, let me sit back a moment and collect my thoughts before I go off on this.....allegation, that SONY was dipping in the TARP complex financial fraud scheme out of Detroit.
Never mind, just click the link and the Wikileaks SONY document on TARP I am providing, below.
"As strategic investors, we believe that continual learning is the core of future AI," said, Corporate Executive in charge of Intellectual Property and Mid-to-Long Term Business Development of Sony Corporation. "We are deeply aware of how previous claims in AI have failed to pan out, but we believe that Cogitai has assembled the people and tools necessary to make rapid progress toward real, continual learning AI and to harness this technology for the betterment of society through innovative commercial applications."
...Quantic Dream founder and CEO David Cage flew to New York City to show demos of his dramatic new PS4 game, Detroit: Become Human, to press. In his home city of Paris, meanwhile, a different type of drama was unfolding: French journalists were defending themselves against Cage’s legal charges.
Quantic Dream has sued the French newspaper Le Monde and the website Mediapart for reports on the studio’s working conditions, Kotaku has learned. As far as we can tell, this is the first incident of a video game studio taking legal action against the press for negative reporting. Cage and co-CEO Guillaume de Fondaumière had threatened litigation in January when the reports hit, but some observers assumed that was posturing. It wasn’t, as both Cage and the media outlets have confirmed to Kotaku.
This is a really good Super Best Friends color commentary on Detroit: Become Human.
Today is May 4, 2018 and they are just now getting around to it.
Foster care and adoption is where it happens because kids need to eat.
Computer Child Pornography
Mr. Bergasser discussed “Operation Long Arm,” a Justice Department effort to stop the exploitation of children through computer technology. He introduced two other Justice Department officials who described the arrests of a number of persons who have exploited children in this manner.
Former Assistant U.S. attorney George C. Burgasser spent Sunday
evening on his son's boat docked at Smith Boys marina in North
Tonawanda.
Then he disappeared.
George C. Burgasser
Police said his son, who was below deck, heard a sound. He came up to
the deck, saw his dad was missing and went into a panic, police said.
Another son, who came to help in the search, later found Burgasser's
lifeless body floating in the water a couple of docks away, police said.
Burgasser, who lived in North Tonawanda, was 63.
A preliminary investigation by the North Tonawanda police indicates
the death was likely either an accident or related to a medical event,
said Capt. Thomas Krantz.
News of his death shocked the legal community on Monday.
"We are heartbroken to learn this devastating news," said U.S. Attorney James P. Kennedy Jr.
Burgasser, who retired in 2017, worked for nearly 29 years in the
Justice Department, first in Washington, D.C., and eventually as an
assistant U.S. attorney in Buffalo.
Retired assistant U.S. attorney George C. Burgasser. (Courtesy of U.S. Attorney's office)
Burgasser and his son were on the boat Sunday to show it to some
friends who were interested in buying it, police said. They then stayed
on the boat, enjoying a few drinks, but did not take it out on the
water, according to police.
At some point, George Burgasser went up on deck. That's when his son
heard a sound and found his dad missing. The son called his mother who
in turn called 911. Another son came to help with the search, police
said.
North Tonawanda police are still investigating the death, Krantz
said. "Right now, it's all very preliminary until we get those autopsy
results," Krantz said.
Police said there was a cut on Burgasser's head but no other trauma
to his body. An autospy was conducted Monday but the medical examiner
was still reviewing the case Monday afternoon.
Kennedy said Burgasser "served his country and our community with distinction."
"He was everyone’s friend," Kennedy said. "Fellow prosecutors, the
defense bar, judges, juries, and even those he prosecuted, all respected
George, but perhaps, most telling is the fact they all liked George as
well."
Kennedy said Burgasser "remained compassionate to all with whom he came into contact."
"He lived and worked by the greatest legal precept of all — the
Golden Rule. Our condolences go out to George’s loving family and
countless friends," Kennedy said. "He will be missed by all."
Defense attorney Paul Cambria said his colleagues and other defense attorneys respected Burgasser.
“George was a solid public servant who did his job with no animosity
toward anyone. He prosecuted major drug cases but never acted like he
was trying to get vengeance on anyone. This really makes me sad. He’s
going to be missed,” Cambria said.
FBI Buffalo Acting Special Agent in Charge Kevin P Lyons
said, "George Burgasser was a long-time partner of ours working directly
with agents on our Safe Streets Task Force and Career Criminal Task
Force. We relied on George as the lead prosecutor for these task forces
for over twenty years. His work alone represents how committed he was
to keeping western New York communities and neighborhoods safe for those
who lived and worked in them."
This is just another model used by the privateers.
Can you start to see the Public Private Partnership Model?
That is how they are stealin' and selling tiny human intelligence.
See, it goes like this:
You are born and put into the Big Book of Life called registries.
Those registries are privately contracted tech arms of the state.
Then, through backdoor intellectual investment agreements with the now Public Private Partnership, it looks like China based companies have real time access to all our information, and as such, our trust funds.
Now, apply this model to how they are stealin' land and the vote and you will see some serious model replication going on over here.
It seems China has a privatization issue going on just like everybody else, but the question is, "Who set up these international privatization models?"
Stay tuned.
Presidential Memorandum on the Actions by the United States Related to the Section 301 Investigation
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
THE SENIOR ADVISOR FOR POLICY
THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR ECONOMIC POLICY
THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HOMELAND
SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM
SUBJECT: Actions by the United States Related to the Section 301 Investigation of China’s Laws, Policies, Practices, or Actions Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation
On August 14, 2017, I directed the United States Trade Representative (Trade Representative) to determine whether to investigate China’s laws, policies, practices, or actions that may be unreasonable or discriminatory and that may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development. On August 18, 2017, the Trade Representative initiated an investigation under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the “Act”) (19 U.S.C. 2411).
During its investigation, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) consulted with appropriate advisory committees and the interagency section 301 Committee. The Trade Representative also requested consultations with the Government of China, under section 303 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2413). The USTR held a public hearing on October 10, 2017, and two rounds of public written comment periods. The USTR received approximately 70 written submissions from academics, think tanks, law firms, trade associations, and companies.
The Trade Representative has advised me that the investigation supports the following findings:
First, China uses foreign ownership restrictions, including joint venture requirements, equity limitations, and other investment restrictions, to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies to Chinese entities. China also uses administrative review and licensing procedures to require or pressure technology transfer, which, inter alia, undermines the value of U.S. investments and technology and weakens the global competitiveness of U.S. firms.
Second, China imposes substantial restrictions on, and intervenes in, U.S. firms’ investments and activities, including through restrictions on technology licensing terms. These restrictions deprive U.S. technology owners of the ability to bargain and set market-based terms for technology transfer. As a result, U.S. companies seeking to license technologies must do so on terms that unfairly favor Chinese recipients.
Third, China directs and facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and to generate large-scale technology transfer in industries deemed important by Chinese government industrial plans.
Fourth, China conducts and supports unauthorized intrusions into, and theft from, the computer networks of U.S. companies. These actions provide the Chinese government with unauthorized access to intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, including technical data, negotiating positions, and sensitive and proprietary internal business communications, and they also support China’s strategic development goals, including its science and technology advancement, military modernization, and economic development.
It is hereby directed as follows:
Section 1. Tariffs. (a) The Trade Representative should take all appropriate action under section 301 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2411) to address the acts, policies, and practices of China that are unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. The Trade Representative shall consider whether such action should include increased tariffs on goods from China.
(b) To advance the purposes of subsection (a) of this section, the Trade Representative shall publish a proposed list of products and any intended tariff increases within 15 days of the date of this memorandum. After a period of notice and comment in accordance with section 304(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2414(b)), and after consultation with appropriate agencies and committees, the Trade Representative shall, as appropriate and consistent with law, publish a final list of products and tariff increases, if any, and implement any such tariffs.
Sec. 2. WTO Dispute Settlement. (a) The Trade Representative shall, as appropriate and consistent with law, pursue dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO) to address China’s discriminatory licensing practices. Where appropriate and consistent with law, the Trade Representative should pursue this action in cooperation with other WTO members to address China’s unfair trade practices.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Trade Representative shall report to me his progress under subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3. Investment Restrictions. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary), in consultation with other senior executive branch officials the Secretary deems appropriate, shall propose executive branch action, as appropriate and consistent with law, and using any available statutory authority, to address concerns about investment in the United States directed or facilitated by China in industries or technologies deemed important to the United States.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary shall report to me his progress under subsection (a) of this section.
When the United States as the seller is shipping property to a buyer or when the United States has property shipped to it for purchase, the status of the property in transit is determined by the contract and the application of the Uniform Commercial Code. Cf. Heath v. United States, 209 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1954); Clark v. United States, 258 F. 437 (3d Cir. 1919). It should be noted, however, that section 641 also protects property "made or being made under contract for the United States." See this Manual at 1662. Therefore, theft of property made under contract for the United States is punishable under this section without regard to title or custody.
There are many statutory provisions in Title 18 and elsewhere within the United States Code that are applicable to the property and funds of specific departments and agencies. For example, such provisions include:
18 U.S.C. § 153 (embezzlement by a trustee, receiver, custodian, United States Marshal, or other officer of the court of any property in his charge belonging to the estate of a bankrupt;
18 U.S.C. § 714m(b)-(d) (makes it unlawful for anyone to willfully steal, conceal, remove, dispose of, or convert to his own use or to that of another any property owned or held by, mortgaged or pledged to, the Commodity Credit Corporation, or any property mortgaged or pledged as security for any promissory note, or other evidence of indebtedness, which the corporation has guaranteed);
15 U.S.C. § 645(b)(1) (makes it unlawful for anyone connected in any capacity with the Small Business Administration to embezzle, abstract, purloin, or willfully misapply any moneys, funds, securities or other things of value belonging to or otherwise entrusted to the Administration); and
22 U.S.C. § 4217 (makes it unlawful for a consular officer to embezzle monies or property received by him for use of the United States or to embezzle the money, property, or effects of an American citizen received by him).
Washington, D.C. –Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, by a vote of 256 to 164. This bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act fails to accomplish meaningful reform or provide a significant measure of privacy protections. S. 139 is a flawed bill that is opposed by Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and by technology companies and by privacy and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum.
In November 2017, H.R. 3989, the USA Liberty Act, a bipartisan bill supported by Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler and Chairman Bob Goodlatte, that reforms and reauthorizes Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect both national security and Americans’ civil liberties, passed out of the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 27 to 8. Instead of giving the USA Liberty Act a full vote on the House floor, House Republican leadership instead chose to rush S. 139 to the floor without engaging the House Judiciary Committee, technology companies, civil society, or other stakeholders.
Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler released the following statement denouncing House passage of the bill:
“I am deeply disappointed in the passage of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, which fails to enact meaningful privacy protections for the Section 702 surveillance program, codifies some of the most objectionable practices of the intelligence community, and does so under the disingenuous guise of ‘reform.’
“This legislation continues to allow the FBI access to information, for purely domestic cases, without a warrant in nearly all cases. If the FBI does not have probable cause to believe that someone is committing a crime or that an act of terrorism is being planned, it should not be able to use the Section 702 database to read the private communications of U.S. persons. Those in support of this bill defeated the critical Amash-Lofgren amendment which would have corrected this very issue.
“I urge my colleagues in the Senate to thoroughly review this issue and to consider the perspectives of the House Judiciary Committee, technology companies, civil society, and other critical stakeholders who were excluded from this conversation by the GOP Majority in the House of Representatives long ago. Congress has a duty to reauthorize Section 702 in a form that respects Americans’ right to privacy as well as safeguards our nation from terrorism—and S. 139 is not the right path forward.”
This morning, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff called for S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act, to be pulled from the House floor during floor debate. Ranking Member Schiff said, “I recommend we withdraw consideration of the bill today to give us more time to address privacy questions that have been raised as well as to get a clear statement from the Administration about their position on the bill.”
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.
