North American News


Feminists Sue University for Failing to Protect Them from Mean Internet Comments

26th May 2017

A feminist student group at the University of Mary Washington has filed a Title IX lawsuit against the institution for failing to protect them from mean comments on the internet.

Feminists United, a student group at the University of Mary Washington, has claimed in a recently filed lawsuit that the administration failed to protect them from posts made on the anonymous social media app, Yik Yak.

The suit alleges that the university failed to protect the students by refusing to ban access to the app via the university’s wifi system. The complaint ignores the reality that most students have access to the app via LTE internet service on their cellular devices, which would render a ban on the university’s wifi system almost worthless.

The students claim that the university’s decision to allow students to access the app via the school’s wifi network fostered a hostile environment in which the students were subjected to “overtly and/or sexist/threatening” anonymous messages.

Writing on the lawsuit for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Susan Kruth argued that the university did not violate Title IX policies by refusing to act on comments made on the anonymous app, Yik Yak, which was recently shut down in May.

Universities should respond to true threats and to serious allegations of sexual harassment, and they can provide non-punitive resources to people who encounter offensive speech. But to the extent that remarks are merely sexist or offensive, a public university must recognize that such language is protected under the First Amendment and decline to take unlawful steps to censor it. Throughout their complaint, the plaintiffs conflate alleged threats and a pattern of conduct that they claim deprived them of educational benefits with remarks or behavior that made them uncomfortable.

 

source/read more:http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/05/25/feminists-sue-university-for-failing-to-protect-them-from-mean-internet-comments/

Mark Zuckerberg joins Silicon Valley bigwigs in calling for government to give everybody free money

26th May 2017

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg called on the need to consider universal basic income for Americans during his Harvard Commencement Speech.

Zuckerberg’s comments reflect those of other Silicon Valley bigwigs, including Sam Altman, the president of venture capital firm Y Combinator.

“Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it’s time for our generation to define a new social contract,” Zuckerberg said during his speech. “We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful. We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.”

Zuckerberg said that, because he knew he had a safety net if projects like Facebook had failed, he was confident enough to continue on without fear of failing. Others, he said, such as children who need to support households instead of poking away on computers learning how to code, don’t have the foundation Zuckerberg had. Universal basic income would provide that sort of cushion, Zuckerberg argued.

 

source/read more: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/25/mark-zuckerberg-calls-for-universal-basic-income-at-harvard-speech.html

After Katy Perry Offers ‘Open Borders’ As Terror Fix, Navy SEAL Drops Brutal 3-Word Bomb

26th May 2017

For some reason, famed celebrities seem to think they know more than the American people, and Katy Perry most recently decided to prove just that. Unfortunately for her, after suggesting that “open borders” is the best way to end terrorism, things miraculously blew up in her face – and that’s about the time a Navy SEAL put her in her place with just 3 brutally honest words.

The world and most of all England is still mourning after a Muslim man killed 22 people and injured 119 more in a Manchester bombing. Now, some liberals have decided to use the opportunity to offer their opinion where it isn’t needed, wanted, or even helpful in the slightest.

In fact, Katy Perry made an absolute fool of herself by offering her two cents while apparently knowing nothing about the situation. Sadly, celebrities still don’t see that they’re perhaps the most out-of-touch group when it comes to everyday people:

No barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just coexist,” Perry said on the Elvis Duran Show Tuesday.

“The greatest thing we can do now is just, like, unite as people, as, like, fanbases…all of it,” she offered. “Cause, like, as much as, like, whatever we say behind people’s backs, cause the internet can be a little bit ruthless as far as fanbases go, but I think that the greatest thing we can do is just unite and love one another.” [Source: Daily Caller]

Too bad for her, it seems that her “just love everyone” suggestion came at a cost – and it wasn’t pretty. According to Daily Caller, Former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie was speaking with Fox News host Shannon Bream, where he had some pretty harsh words for the clueless celebrity.

 

“If you come to America, you’re American and nothing else … but we don’t have people who respect the culture of the United States of America,” he began. “You have people like Katy Perry…this woman has said, ‘oh we need to give them hugs, hug it out.’”

Although Higbie was mocking at first, he then decided to drop a brutal 3-word bomb on Perry’s head that would put her in her place for good. “Go to hell, Katy Perry,” he said. “Hold one of your concerts in Syria and see how that goes.”

Although he went on to refer to Perry’s statements as “benign,” he added that “[celebrities] don’t understand any of this and they don’t want to understand, too. And that’s why I’m so strong against these celebrities who want to speak out.”

Being nice is one thing, but putting political correctness above the lives of people is an entirely different monster. The fact of the matter here is that the Muslim ideology can’t “coexist” as their holy text demands they Jihad their way to world domination. That’s the entire point of Islam: Kill until all that remains if for Allah.

Celebrities do have a certain amount of influence on the public, given their popularity. However, that doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is right or that they even know what they’re talking about when they speak on matters like this. When it comes down to it, celebrities need to close their fat traps and only open them when it’s time to do their job – entertain.

 

 

 

source:http://madworldnews.com/katy-perry-borders-navy-seal/

Chelsea Manning released from prison

17th May 2017

Chelsea Manning, the army private who released a vast trove of US state secrets and was punished by the US military for months in penal conditions denounced by the UN as torture, has been released from a military prison in Kansas after serving seven years of a 35-year sentence.

Manning walked out to freedom after 2,545 days in military captivity. She was arrested in May 2010 outside a US army base on the outskirts of Baghdad, having leaked hundreds of thousands of documents and videos downloaded from intelligence databases to WikiLeaks.

The US military confirmed that Manning was released on Wednesday morning.

The disclosures included Collateral Murder, the footage of a US Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad in which two Reuters journalists and other civilians were killed.

Her seven-year ordeal has seen her held captive in Iraq, Kuwait and the US, always in male-only detention facilities. In that time, she has waged a relentless legal battle to be respected as a transgender woman, winning the right to receive hormone treatment but still being subjected to male-standard hair length and dress codes.

Barack Obama granted Manning clemency in his final days in office in January. In commuting to time served her 35-year sentence – the longest ever penalty dished out in the US to an official leaker – the outgoing commander in chief said that “justice had been served”.

Speaking from her prison cell as she prepared for release last week, Manning said: “I’m looking forward to breathing the warm spring air again.

“I want that indescribable feeling of connection with people and nature again, without razor wire or a visitation booth. I want to be able to hug my family and friends again. And swimming – I want to go swimming!”

Obama’s decision to release the soldier early leaves her with legal challenges still hanging over her. Foremost of those is the fact that her sentence from 2013 under the Espionage Act remains in full force ­– a fact that her lawyers regard as ominous given the current incumbent of the White House.

As a result, even in freedom Manning will continue to press vigorously for her sentence to be overturned. Her appeal, filed almost exactly a year ago in the US Army court of criminal appeals, argued that her 35 year sentence was “perhaps the most unjust sentence in the history of the military justice system”.

Manning’s appeal lawyer, Nancy Hollander, told the Guardian: “People keep assuming that just because someone is released their appeal is over. The rest of her case is still out there and we want to clear her name. She was convicted of crimes that I don’t believe she committed and her whole prosecution was unfair.”

A fundraising drive to help Manning raise the legal fees needed to keep going with the appeal has been launched by Courage Foundation together with the German branch of Reporters Without Borders and the Wau Holland Foundation.

Manning’s mother Susan Manning, who is Welsh, told the Press Association that she was rejoicing at news of the release. “I am so proud of Chelsea and delighted she will finally be free again.”

Manning moved to Haverfordwest in Wales in 2001 when she was 14 to live with her mother, but returned to the US where she was born and brought up after school ended.

 

 

source:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/17/chelsea-manning-released-from-prison?CMP=fb_gu

Murdered DNC staffer ‘DID have links to Wikileaks

16th May 2017

DNC staffer Seth Rich did have contact with Wikileaks before he was gunned down in Washington DC last year, a new investigation has claimed.

Mr Rich, 27, was shot dead in the city’s affluent Bloomingdale neighborhood in the early hours of July 10 while on the phone to his girlfriend after a night out in what police claim was a ‘botched robbery’.

His father has insisted his son was not behind the mammoth leak of tens of thousands of DNC emails prior to the 2016 presidential election, including messages from seven key staffers, which led to the resignation of chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The emails were released by Wikileaks over several months before Hillary Clinton lost the election.

And Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the Rich family, claims there is evidence on Rich’s laptop which suggests he was communicating with Julian Assange’s site.

Mr Wheeler says either DC police or the FBI are holding the data analyst’s laptop as part of a conspiracy to cover up his death.

The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,’ said Wheeler in a report to be aired on Fox News today.

He goes on: ‘They haven’t been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.’

Mr Wheeler claimed sources have given him ‘confirmed’ evidence that Mr Rich was in contact with Wikileaks while a DC police insider has told him they were ‘told to stand down on this case’.

WikiLeaks published thousands of hacked DNC emails less than two weeks after Rich’s death.

 

source; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4509952/DNC-staffer-Seth-Rich-DID-links-Wikileaks.html?ito=social-facebook

Trump: ‘I’m a Nationalist and a Globalist’

30th April 2017

On the eve of the 100 days in office milestone, President Donald Trump claims he is both a nationalist and a globalist — despite campaign promises that his presidency would reject globalism and put America first.

“Hey, I’m a nationalist and a globalist,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. “I’m both.”

“And I’m the only one who makes the decision, believe me,” Trump said.

But Trump also said that he would terminate NAFTA “if we’re unable to make a deal, but hopefully we won’t have to do that.”

Trump’s remarks come as debate swirls around his presidential campaign promise to end the North America Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA in contrast to his recent assertion that he will “negotiate” a revision of the treaty that has guided U.S. trade policy with Mexico and Canada since 1994.

The Journal reported that Trump received almost back-to-back calls from Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Following those conversations Trump said, “They’re serious about it and I will negotiate rather than terminate.”

“Meanwhile, Sonny Perdue—the agriculture secretary who took office two days earlier—and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross met with Mr. Trump and showed him a map indicating the states where jobs would be lost if the pact collapsed, according to a person familiar with the matter,” the Journal reported, noting that many of the states on the map supported Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

“Those conversations, along with a flood of calls to the White House from business executives, helped steer Mr. Trump away from an idea that some of his own advisers feared was a rash and unnecessary threat to two trading partners who fully expected to renegotiate the agreement anyway,” the Journal reported.

“I expect the administration to closely consult with Congress before such major trade-policy decisions are made,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees trade. “Withdrawing from NAFTA would have significant effects on the America economy.”

Following Trump’s election in November, Chriss Street penned a commentary for Breitbart News focused on how Trump’s “America First” message would strike a blow to “world socialism.”

“The election of Donald Trump now represents an existential threat to World Socialism across the planet,” Street wrote. “Socialists know that when President Reagan went rogue with his muscular capitalist policies, communism quickly imploded. Trump has already torn up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have internationalized the law covering $28 trillion in trade and investment, about 40 percent of global GDP.

“Trump seems determined to destroy “Socialist Globalization” with the same capitalist tax cuts and regulatory relief that President Reagan used to destroy communism,” Street wrote.

In an interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham last month, former presidential candidate and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan said abandoning his populist economic message would be “fatal” for Trump’s presidency.

 

source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/trump-im-a-nationalist-and-a-globalist/

Suicide Pills Needed in Fight Against ISIS?

26th April 2017

(Originally published 2015)

The fate of any American captured by the Islamic State group seems clear: They will be brutally murdered with much fanfare, and footage of their tortuous death will be widely circulated in a well-produced propaganda film.

The group has beheaded American, British and Japanese journalists and humanitarians on tape and earlier this month released a film showing the grisly death of a Jordanian pilot burned to death in a cage after his plane went down while participating in U.S.-led airstrikes.

With the grim prospect of capture in mind, analysts say the military should at least consider offering  some of the troops working against the jihadi group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, the means to take their own lives with a so-called “suicide pill.”

U.S. pilots bombing Islamic State locations in Syria and Iraq currently are not provided pills that would cause a quick death, nor are the 3,000 on-the-ground troops helping shore up an unreliable Iraqi military and guarding U.S. facilities, military officials say.

Suicide pills are a common element of spy thrillers and works of fiction, but only decades ago they were manufactured and distributed by the U.S. government, with shellfish poison and cyanide pills provided to pilots and spies for use to avoid capture by Nazis and Soviets.

Today, armed forces spokesmen say providing troops such pills would be inconsistent with military values, even in the face of excruciating alternatives at the hands of the sadistic self-declared caliphate that gleefully flouts Geneva Convention principles on prisoner treatment.

“Pilots are trained to evade capture or resist and escape,” says U.S. Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek, who confirmed the force’s in-theater command does not provide such pills. “If pilots do go down, the Air Force will employ all its resources to locate, protect and recover them.”

Thus far, U.S. attempts to rescue Americans, such as journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and aide workers Peter “Abdul-Rahman” Kassig and Kayla Mueller, have failed. In one publicized rescue attempt, commandos stormed a suspected dungeon but were too late. And, unlike other countries who have met financial demands from the Islamic State, the public position of the U.S. government is that it will not pay ransoms to free hostages.

Like the Air Force, other military branches say they don’t provide suicide pills. Army spokesman Matthew Bourke says “suicide pills aren’t included in the solider kit bag” for troops working near the jihadis. Lt. Col. John Caldwell of the U.S. Marine Corps says it “seems highly unlikely” the service – which has about 320 members on a western Iraq air base ISIS recently attacked – would do so.

Maj. Curtis Kellogg, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, the military entity coordinating anti-Islamic State actions, says he “would bet your children’s college fund” no branch of the U.S. military offers – or would offer – suicide pills to at-risk personnel.

“The mere thought of it is not congruent with our military values whatsoever nor our code of conduct,” Kellogg says.

The government lacked such lofty convictions at various points in the last century. During World War II, the Office of Strategic Services – the CIA’s forerunner – produced two types of suicide pills for sensitive operations, and research and development continued into the first half of the Cold War

In 1975, CIA Director William Colby told Congress the agency had worked with the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick, Maryland, to build on OSS’s work, developing a shellfish toxin-based suicide option to supplement the agency’s cyanide “L-pills.”

Colby told members of the Church Committee – a Senate panel headed by Democratic Sen. Frank Church of Indiana that investigated intelligence practices – that “a considerable amount of work was done in developing concealment schemes” for the shellfish poison, which kills in seconds at low doses.

Colby admitted to just one instance where the shellfish poison was dispensed, in 1960, when poison hidden in a silver dollar was issued to U-2 spy pilot Francis Gary Powers, who was shot down over the Soviet Union but declined to kill himself.

Francis Gary Powers Jr. says his father removed the poison from the coin while in his parachute and contemplated using it to avoid torture. Instead, he “decided to hide it in one of his flight suit pockets in case he needed to use it once on the ground.” Powers told KGB agents what it was during a third strip search, his son says, to ensure they didn’t accidentally kill themselves. He was exchanged for a Soviet spy in 1962.

“He obviously did not use it, and was not instructed to do so; it was offered to him to provide him with the option,” said Colby, who said other pilots had been issued cyanide pills.

An inventory of a CIA building’s toxic wares published by the Church Committee recorded 18 cyanide L-pills and more than 11.4 grams of shellfish poison – enough for hundreds of thousands of lethal doses – which former CIA chemist Nathan Gordon testified was retained to “prepare supplies of suicide pills and/or any other uses.”

Some experts say it might be worth considering equipping troops with suicide pills in the present conflict – but point out it would neither be an easy decision or one that would necessary accomplish its goals.

“Perhaps the military could consider, quietly, making such [pills] available if an individual wants to have them,” say Richard Kohn, a military history expert at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “even if it somehow seems to buy into this awful enemy’s cult of death.”

But Kohn sees competing interests.

“We’re a society that believes in individual choice,” he says, but suggesting suicide to troops may seem to violate “the norm of ‘leave no one behind.’”

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a Vietnam War veteran who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff, says “perhaps the issuance of such a pill … should be made a voluntary matter for the troops involved.”

But Wilkerson points out there would be “many problems and complexities” doing so

“For example, some no doubt will refuse to use the pill, believing they will survive,” he says. “Or, indeed, a soldier might use it and rescue be possible but useless since the pill has been used.”

Wilkerson, now a professor at the College of William and Mary, says on-the-ground members of the military in conflict zones almost certainly are armed and suicide pills may not augment their options.

A gun “is always an ‘out’ to prevent capture – it always has been,” he says.

Martin Cook, a professor of professional military ethics at the U.S. Naval War College, says military leaders he’s spoken with are against the idea.

Widely dispensing the pills could contribute to the military’s existing problem with suicide among members, he says.

“At most, you’d be thinking about issuing it on the eve of a specific mission that’s high-risk,” Cook says, such as on-the-ground personnel guiding of airstrikes or perhaps embedded missions with Iraqi troops.

But Cook says troops are highly trained to resist detention and generally would view suicide as needless while potential opportunities for escape exist.

“Even when they’re walking you out to the execution site, there might be a SEAL team inbound,” Cook says, adding a Navy SEAL admiral told him he’s never heard of suicide pills as a consideration.

U.S. airstrikes began against the Islamic State group in August as militants plunged into Iraqi Kurdistan after seizing Mosul. The strikes were expanded to Syria in August after the group released videos of Foley and Sotloff being beheaded

John Hall, a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a military historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says he could see some members of the military carrying suicide pills, but doubts the practice would be widespread.

“Spies and soldiers are distant cousins with some of the same attributes but vastly different professional ethics,” he says in an email. “The expansion of the Special Operations community has, however, complicated this distinction, and the idea of deep ‘black ops’ personnel carrying suicide pills does not strike me as outrageous – nor would it anyone else, as their deaths will never be publicly acknowledged.”

But, he says, beyond that narrow category, “I don’t think American military – let alone civilian – culture would tolerate such measures.”

source: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/19/suicide-pills-needed-in-fight-against-isis-death-cult?int=news-rec

Feds to Deploy Facial Recognition Tech at Border Checkpoints

20th April 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is planning to unveil a facial recognition program that will track visa holders at U.S. airports while using the same technology on drones to patrol the southern border.

The system, called Biometric Exit, is currently being tested on a one-way flight from Atlanta to Tokyo and is expected to be rolled out to more airports this summer after being expedited by the Trump Administration, according to a report from The Verge.

The current practice used by Customs and Border Protection agents is to take photos and fingerprints of every visa holder who enters the U.S., but there is no system in place to verify that a visa holder has left before their visa expires. This is where Biometric Exit comes in.

Passengers will have their photos taken at the airport before boarding flights, that photo will cross-reference with “passport-style photos provided with the visa application.” If there is no match, then that will raise flags about whether the visitor entered the United States illegally.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Larry Panetta, who is leading the airport segment of the project, said, “We currently have everyone’s photo, so we don’t need to do any sort of enrollment. We have access to the Department of State records so we have photos of US Citizens, we have visa photos, we have photos of people when they cross into the US and their biometrics are captured into [DHS biometric database] IDENT.”

President Trump expedited the implementation of Biometric Exit when he signed the executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States,” the same document that called for the temporary halt of immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries.

“Sec. 7.  Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System.  (a)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,” the executive order states.

The CBP is also looking to use facial recognition at the border to help identify any person that is in relevant law enforcement databases.

Officials with the CBP solicited proposals from companies for small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), like consumer drones, for deployment by Border Patrol agents along the southern border.

The agency is specifically looking for a drone that is small enough that it can fit into a truck, weighs under 55 pounds, and is deployable by a single agent in less than 5 minutes. Officials also want a drone fitted with state-of-the-art sensor technology which reportedly may include, “infrared cameras and facial-recognition capabilities.”

A document included with the solicitation, Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Capabilities, said the agency is looking for a drone that can, “distinguish between natural and artificial features, and between animals, humans, and vehicles at long range.”

The same document also states that the agency is looking for a drone that, “would have facial recognition capabilities that allow it cross-reference any persons identified with relevant law enforcement databases.”

The goal will be to cross-reference the facial scans against multiple government databases that collect biometric information, including the FBI. “The bureau can draw from over 411 million photos spread across state and federal databases, including more than 173 million driver’s license photos, as part of the new biometric effort,” according to a government document that was analyzed by The Verge.

Ari Schuler, co-lead of CBP’s Silicon Valley office, which is managing the project, said that a drone that has these capabilities would allow Border Patrol Agents to identify traffickers who have violent criminal backgrounds, allowing the Agent the call backup.

Since large portions of the border lack cellular service, the biggest challenge for contractors is figuring out how to stream data from the drones. The CBP is also looking for a drone that is secure, not vulnerable to hacking.

The move to go from large military-style drones to small consumer ones comes from the disappointment the CBP has had with the Predator. A report from 2014 shows that the cost to operate 10 Predators over the course of a year exceeded $60 million. The drones failed to lower the cost of border surveillance and were vulnerable to GPS jamming and other attacks.

 

 

source:http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/19/feds-deploy-facial-recognition-tech-border-checkpoints/

CIA, FBI launch manhunt for leaker who gave top-secret documents to WikiLeaks

20th April 2017

CBS News has learned that a manhunt is underway for a traitor inside the Central Intelligence Agency.

The CIA and FBI are conducting a joint investigation into one of the worst security breaches in CIA history, which exposed thousands of top-secret documents that described CIA tools used to penetrate smartphones, smart televisions and computer systems.

Sources familiar with the investigation say it is looking for an insider — either a CIA employee or contractor — who had physical access to the material. The agency has not said publicly when the material was taken or how it was stolen.

Much of the material was classified and stored in a highly secure section of the intelligence agency, but sources say hundreds of people would have had access to the material. Investigators are going through those names.

The trove was published in March by the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks

In his first public comments as director of the CIA just last week, Mike Pompeo railed against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.

“It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: A non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” he said.

WikiLeaks has said it obtained the CIA information from former contractors who worked for U.S. intelligence. The CIA has not commented on the authenticity of the WikiLeaks disclosures or on the status of the investigation.

 

source:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-fbi-on-manhunt-for-leaker-who-gave-top-secret-documents-to-wikileaks/

Battle intensifies between Trump’s CIA, WikiLeaks

15th april 2017

The battle between the CIA and WikiLeaks is intensifying.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo used his first major public remarks on Thursday to skewer WikiLeaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service” willing to work with Russia and other foreign actors to promote their interests.

He blasted Julian Assange as a “fraud” interested in his own fame, seeking to undermine efforts by the WikiLeaks founder to be viewed as a legitimate ally of civil libertarians.

“It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” Pompeo said.“Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value,” the former Republican congressman charged. “He relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous. He is a fraud—a coward hiding behind a screen.”

WikiLeaks was quick to respond, sending out a series of messages on Twitter claiming that Pompeo vowed to “silence” the organization over its purported disclosures of CIA hacking tools and using his remarks to promote an op-ed written by Assange in the Washington Post.

In the op-ed, Assange wrote that WikiLeaks had the same mission as news outlets such as the Post and The New York Times.

The organization also mocked Pompeo by sending out a since-deleted tweet he wrote last July, when the former Kansas lawmaker cited stolen Democratic National Committee emails released by WikiLeaks as proof that the presidential nomination had been “fixed” for Hillary Clinton.

Pompeo’s speech was a wide departure from President Trump’s praise of WikiLeaks on the campaign trail. Trump and his administration have taken a much more hostile approach to WikiLeaks since taking office.

U.S. national security experts welcomed Pompeo’s comments as a signal that the new director was taking a hard line on an organization that has leaked information damaging to American interests.

“I think what [Pompeo] did was putting him on notice, which I think is exactly the right thing to do,” James Carafano, a national security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said. “I think he’s throwing down the gauntlet.”

But the speech was not warmly embraced by all. Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who published documents leaked by Edward Snowden, slammed Pompeo for his remarks, accusing him of “explicitly” threatening free speech and press freedoms.

“WikiLeaks now has few friends in Washington,” Greenwald wrote in The Intercept. “But the level of affection for WikiLeaks should have no bearing on how one responds to these press freedom threats from Donald Trump’s CIA Director. Criminalizing the publication of classified documents is wrong in itself, and has the obvious potential to spread far beyond their initial target.”

WikiLeaks for weeks has needled the CIA by releasing troves of leaked documents allegedly revealing the agency’s hacking programs.

The releases, called “Vault 7,” contain documents describing hacking techniques used by the CIA, such as tools to breach mobile devices and hack into smart televisions, as well as other internal communications.

Hours after Pompeo’s speech, WikiLeaks leaked yet another trove of documents that claimed to reveal information about a top-secret CIA hacking program called Hive.

Experts have largely described the contents of the periodic document releases as unsurprising, and evidence that the CIA is doing its job. Nevertheless, they have renewed the debate around privacy and intelligence community spying and also raised questions about the source of the leaks.

“Obviously, this hurts when other people know where you have been, what you have been thinking,” said former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who said that the documents show no abuse of the agency’s powers.

“There is the danger that even though these things might reflect appropriate activities that Americans don’t object to, the fact that you can’t keep the tools secret, the fact that you can’t keep the data you collect from other prying eyes, that creates a real big, strong argument for, ‘then I don’t want you doing it in the first place,’” Hayden said.

Some note that the leaks underscore the persisting problem of insider threats, which has been a major cause for concern since the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and former soldier Chelsea Manning.

Pompeo acknowledged Thursday that the agency needs to strengthen its own systems to prevent leaks.

Adam Klein, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, said that a major concern about WikiLeaks is that the organization provides an “outlet” for insider threats and encourages them.

“Insider threats are our intelligence agencies’ biggest security threat,” Klein told The Hill.

WikiLeaks has appeared to target CIA interns as potential sources of information. “CIA advertises internships. Whistleblowing opportunity?” the organized wrote on Twitter in mid-March.

“To the extent that there’s any news here, it’s that we have not gotten a handle on insider threats,” Klein said of the latest releases, noting that Congress should be concerned about the CIA leaks.

“I think it’s good news, frankly, that the CIA us thinking creatively about collecting information from foreign intelligence targets in the digital age,” Klein said.

The CIA has not confirmed the authenticity of any of the documents released, which Pompeo mentioned briefly on Thursday.

“As a policy, we at CIA do not comment on the accuracy of purported intelligence documents posted online,” Pompeo said. “In keeping with that policy, I will not specifically comment on the authenticity or provenance of recent disclosures.”

“But the false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be ignored,” he said.

 

source: http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/328918-battle-intensifies-between-trumps-cia-wikileaks