Wednesday, April 5, 2017

'Chemical attack' in Syria draws international outrage

UN to investigate potential war crimes after dozens, including children, die in rebel-held town of Idlib province.

WARNING: The above report contains images some may find distressing.

SYRIA'S CIVIL WAR-05 Apr 2017

A suspected chemical attack on a rebel-held town in Syria's Idlib province has drawn widespread international condemnation, with the United Nations saying it will investigate the bombing raid as a possible war crime.

At least 72 people, including 11 children, were killed in Khan Sheikhoun on Tuesday, according to the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), which runs several field hospitals in the area. More than 550 people were injured.

SAMS doctors on the ground said the attack caused people to vomit and foam from the mouth. Others lost consciousness and suffered muscle spasms.

The group said the symptoms, which also included constricted pupils and slow heart rate, were indicative of an organo-phosphorus compounds agent - a category of toxic gases which includes sarin.

"We were affected by the gas. We couldn't stand up," Veda Ajej, one of the survivors treated in a hospital in the Turkish town of Reyhanli, near the Syria border, told the Reuters news agency.

"I felt dizzy and nauseous," she said, lying in a hospital bed. "I couldn't breathe."

Local health workers said the death toll could rise and eventually reach 100. A member of the White Helmets, a rescue group that operates in rebel-held areas, told Al Jazeera that up to 300 people had been injured.

The Syrian National Coalition, an opposition group, said a gas similar to sarin was used in the attack, which it blamed on government planes.

Syria's military rejected the accusation, saying in a statement that the army "denies using any toxic or chemical agents in Khan Sheikhoun today, and it did not and never will use it anywhere".

Russia, an ally of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, on Wednesday said Syrian aircraft had carried out a raid, but the chemicals were part of a "terrorist" stockpile of "toxic substances" that had been hit on the ground.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was "deeply disturbed" by the attack, his spokesman said, adding that the world body was "currently not in a position to independently verify" the reports of use of chemical weapons.

An emergency Security Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday. The United States, Britain and France proposed a Security Council resolution that diplomats said would be likely to be put to a vote.

The draft text, seen by Reuters, says Syria's government must provide an international investigation with flight plans and logs for Tuesday, the names of all helicopter squadron commanders and provide access to air bases where investigators believe attacks using chemicals may have been launched.

If confirmed, it would be the deadliest chemical attack in Syria since sarin gas killed hundreds of civilians in Ghouta, near the capital, Damascus, in August 2013. Western states said the Syrian government was responsible for the 2013 attack. Damascus blamed rebels.

Khan Sheikhoun residents said the attack began in the early hours of Tuesday morning, when they heard planes in the sky followed by a series of loud explosions, after which people very quickly began to show symptoms. They said they could not identify the planes. Both Syrian and Russian jets have bombed the area before.

"My family and I were sleeping during the attack," Ahmed, another survivor treated in Reyhanli, told Reuters. "The bombing was carried out and there was a big explosion. I felt dizzy and nauseous. I had trouble breathing - I don't remember the rest."

22h

Al Jazeera English

✔ @AJEnglish

#AJNewsGrid: 58 people killed and dozens “fainting, vomiting, foaming at the mouth” after chemical attack in Idlib. http://aje.io/kq8c pic.twitter.com/PEnpOnKkcU

Follow

Al Jazeera English

✔@AJEnglish

This is the aftermath of a suspected chemical gas attack in Syria's Idlib.

(Via @AJPlus)

This is the aftermath of a suspected chemical gas attack in Syria's Idlib.

(Via @AJPlus) pic.twitter.com/DM2t7jwhE8
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) April 4, 2017

2:46 PM - 4 Apr 2017

2,0612,061 Retweets

865865 likes

Charles Duelfer, a chemical weapons expert in Washington DC, said it was "unlikely" that the attack was not the work of the Syrian regime.

"What changed is the nature of the agent," he told Al Jazeera. "There were previous cases where the OPCW [Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] and the UN have identified that the regime used a chemical but it's only been chlorine. This agent appears to be a military agent which is far more effective."

Duelfer also said it was "puzzling" why government forces appeared to have resorted to using chemical weapons at a time when they are doing well militarily on the ground.

"They [chemical weapons] are not really serving a substantial military purpose. They can certainly spread terror, and they certainly seem to have a political effect, although it's hard for me to calculate how that would be a positive thing for Bashar al-Assad right now - unless he wants to demonstrate that he's there, no matter what anyone else says or wants to do about it."

Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Turkey hopes the UN will punish the attack's perpetrators in the name of humanity.

"The inhumane savagery in Idlib, Syria this morning, unfortunately, shocked all of us deeply," he said.

Britain and France also called for renewed efforts at the Security Council for those behind the use of toxic gas in the war to be held accountable.

Such attempts have been repeatedly blocked by Russia, Syria's main ally and a veto-wielding council member.

"This is clearly a war crime," British Ambassador Matthew Rycroft told reporters.

"I call on the Security Council members who have previously used their vetoes to defend the indefensible to change their course."

Spain seizes $736m property empire of Bashar al-Assad's uncle

Spanish authorities seize more than 500 properties belonging to Rifaat al-Assad, the uncle of Syrian president

A civil guard stands guard outside Rifaat al-Assed's sprawling estate in Puerto Banus near Marbella (Reuters)

Wednesday 5 April 2017

Police in southern Spain have staged raids targeting $736m of property assets of the uncle of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

The swoop comes less than a year after Rifaat al-Assad was put under investigation in France for tax fraud and money laundering.

Magistrate Jose de la Mata has ordered the confiscation of 503 properties including holiday homes, car parks, luxury apartments and rural estates worth $736m, the High Court said in a statement on its website.

Authorities also seized a sprawling ranch with a market value of 60 million Euros in Puerto Banus, close to the Marbella. They also froze dozens of bank accounts.

French and Spanish authorities have been cooperating on the case and Spain opened an investigation on the back of the French one.

Rifaat al-Assad, 79, is the brother of former Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad, the father of Bashar al-Assad.

Dubbed the 'Butcher of Hama' for his alleged commanding role in the bloody suppression of an uprising in that city in 1982, he fled Syria in the 80s after attempting to seize power from his brother.

On Hafez's death in 2000, he made another bid for power – this time from his villa in Spain – but failed when his nephew Bashar took charge.

He is believed to have received $300m of state cash which he used to buy real estate in France, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Curacao.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that he was living in a $12m Mayfair townhouse in 2011.

Some of the assets are registered to Rifaat al-Assad and companies linked to him, and some to his wives, children and daughters-in-law.

The owner of one of the blocked accounts is a Spanish citizen who heads the company that manages most of the Assad family's business abroad.

In a statement released to Reuters, Rifaat al-Assad and his family retorted that they had "never benefited from financing that in any way wronged the Syrian state and its people."

"They question the timing of these coordinated judicial actions, 33 years later, at a time when their country is suffering more than ever and where Rifaat al-Assad's voice should be heard to contribute to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict," it read.

The raids come a week after Spain's High Court launched a criminal investigation against the Syrian security forces for their alleged role in the death under torture of a truck driver.

China denounces India hosting Dalai Lama in disputed region of Arunachal Pradesh

Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama arrives to deliver teachings in Bomdila, in the northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, India April 5, 2017. REUTERS/Anuwar Hazarika

Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama pauses as he delivers teachings in Bomdila, in the northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, India April 5, 2017. REUTERS/Anuwar Hazarika

By Michael Martina and Sunil Kataria | BEIJING/TAWANG, INDIA

China said on Wednesday that India's decision to host Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama on a contested stretch of land on the India-China border would cause serious damage to relations between the two countries.

The Dalai Lama's week-long trip to Arunchal Pradesh, an eastern Himalayan region administered by New Delhi, but claimed by China as "southern Tibet", has raised hackles in Beijing, which labels the monk a dangerous separatist.

"China expresses firm opposition to this and will lodge stern representations with the Indian side," foreign ministry spokeswomen Hua Chunying told a regular briefing in the Chinese capital.

The 81-year-old Buddhist monk and Nobel peace laureate had planned to fly by helicopter to the 17th-century Tawang monastery and hold three days of spiritual teachings starting on Wednesday.

However, heavy rainfall forced him to travel by road - a two-day drive through rugged mountain terrain - and he is not now expected to arrive until Friday.

The Dalai Lama received a rapturous welcome on Tuesday in the town of Bomdila, with large crowds turning out in streets festooned with flags, as musicians and dancers clad in traditional costumes performed before his sport-utility vehicle.

Later, the maroon-robed prelate walked slowly through the crowds, a fellow monk supporting him by the arm and another holding a large umbrella overhead to shield him from the rain.

Indian officials have dismissed China's criticism of the Dalai Lama's second visit to Arunachal Pradesh in eight years, saying he is a spiritual leader who has a devoted following in the region.

"His visit to this part of the country is totally religious," the state's chief minister, Pema Khandu, told Reuters Television.

"As far as the boundary issue is concerned, I have also maintained that we don't share our boundary with China, but we share our boundary with Tibet."

SEVERELY DAMAGED

China has repeatedly criticised visits by foreign officials to Arunachal Pradesh, which it calls South Tibet and over which it has a long-standing claim.

In its latest broadside, Beijing said that by ignoring China's concerns and persisting in arranging the trip, India had "severely damaged China's interests and China-India relations".

"We demand that India immediately cease using the Dalai Lama's mistaken behaviour to damage China's interests," Hua added. "It will not bring any benefit to India. China will take necessary measures to firmly safeguard its territorial sovereignty and legitimate rights."

The Dalai Lama fled in 1959 over the border not far from the Tawang monastery, the largest of its kind in India. At the start of his tour, he was reunited with an elderly Indian border guard who had helped him to safety.

He now resides in the Indian hill town of Dharamsala, where his supporters also run a small government in exile. He has renounced any political role in leading the Tibetan diaspora.

The Indian government has rejected China's criticism of the Dalai Lama's visit - his first to Arunachal Pradesh since 2009.

"The government has clearly stated on several occasions that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a revered religious leader, who is deeply respected by the Indian people," it said in its latest statement on the matter.

"The government, therefore, urges that no artificial controversy be created around his present visit to Arunachal Pradesh."

(Additional reporting by Douglas Busvine in New Delhi; Writing by Christian Shepherd and Douglas Busvine; Editing by Nick Macfie and Clarence Fernandez)

Blackwater founder held secret Seychelles meeting to establish Trump-Putin back channel

Blackwater founder Erik Prince met with a Russian person close to President Vladimir Putin, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

By Adam Entous, Greg Miller, Kevin Sieff and Karen DeYoung April 3 at 4:29 PM

The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.

Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests VIEW GRAPHIC

Blackwater founder held secret Seychelles meeting to establish Trump.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Putin Is Soft on Terrorism

While St. Petersburg mourns the dead, Russia’s president is calling for a war against terrorists. Don’t fall for it.

BY MOLLY K. MCKEW-APRIL 4, 2017

On Monday afternoon, a bomb exploded in a St. Petersburg subway train, killing at least 14 people and injuring dozens more. The official response from the Russian government was initially muddled. The prosecutor-general seemed to confirm soon afterward that it was a terrorist attack, a label echoed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, but President Vladimir Putin, also in St. Petersburg to meet with visiting Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, cautioned later that day that the motives were not yet known. The attack is now being investigated as an act of terrorism, though Russia has yet to offer confirmation.

For the Kremlin’s state media, however, the battle drill was clear. Nonstop coverage of the “terrorist attack” was launched immediately, replete with photos of victims and an alleged attacker — later revealed not to be the perpetrator but a witness — as well as of a second device that was allegedly found and defused. Putin, too, despite his earlier caution, issued a statement on the condolence call from U.S. President Donald Trump, saying the two leaders agreed that “terrorism is an evil that must be fought jointly.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov added an appeal for more international cooperation to combat terror. With Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expected to visit Moscow in the next few weeks, and with the Russian government still trying to distract from recent anti-corruption protests across the country, it is certainly no surprise to see the state media machine (and the government officials that fuel it) pivoting to the importance of the United States and Russia cooperating to fight terrorism — and the need for heightened security at a time of potential unrest. The Duma has already proposed banning political demonstrations “for awhile” because of the attack.

Russia’s narrative opportunism will undoubtedly spark fresh rumors, among Russians and foreigners alike, that the attacks may have been staged. The rumors have been hard for the Kremlin to dodge since respected investigative journalists compiled substantial evidence that the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings were conducted by the Federal Security Service (FSB) in order to create a pretext for the second Chechen war that landed Putin in the presidency.

But the speculation about “false flag” operations distracts from the reality of the Kremlin’s current positions on terrorist organizations and terror attacks. And this reality is chilling enough without any embellishment.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Kremlin has endeavored to use the mutual desire to fight terrorism as a foundation for restored relations with Washington.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Kremlin has endeavored to use the mutual desire to fight terrorism as a foundation for restored relations with Washington. This was the entreaty to the George W. Bush administration, the trap for the Barack Obama administration, and now the line of effort pursued with a Trump administration amenable to playing along with the idea that “terrorism” is the top threat to America, rather than Russia. Across the Middle East, Russia is expanding its military and diplomatic footprint, calling for “stability,” which tends to mean the preservation of autocratic regimes, as a means of countering terror.

All these words stand in stark contrast to Russian actions. Moscow’s escalating intervention in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has fueled a crisis that has destabilized the region. It has also seen the Kremlin partnering with a number of terrorist organizations. In Syria, for example — where it has been widely noted that the Kremlin’s main goal is to preserve Assad rather than to fight the Islamic State — Russia has used Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran’s Quds Force in their supposed fight against the Islamic State, with both groups acting as paramilitary forces for ground operations to take territory or leading local militias.

It has also been documented that, in addition to other forms of aid given to the Islamic State by Russia and Assad — which include Assad’s purchases of oil from the Islamic State, allegations of intelligence sharing with Islamic State forces, and the fortuitous resupply of arms and ammunition from Russian stocks — the FSB has helped recruit fighters for the Islamic State and facilitated the movement of jihadis to Syria. Although some have said this was a “local initiative” to clean up the North Caucasus before the Sochi Olympics, there is reporting that this recruitment was happening via Russian assets across Europe as well.

This early support yielded clear results for the Kremlin. It is hard to ignore that the first group of Russian-speaking jihadis showed up in Syria at exactly the right time to help turn the war away from Assad and toward Iraq. They did so with the intelligence to act quickly and in alignment with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and other Sunni Islamic State leaders, many of whom were KGB-trained (an artifact from the Kremlin’s long-term partnership with the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq). The arrival of the Islamic State was a key part of Russia’s narrative that there were no moderate rebels to support against Assad.

There is evidence that Russia has been working with the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well. The Russians believe that empowering the Taliban, in particular with legitimacy and intelligence sharing, will take space away from the expansion of the Islamic State. However, this has also meant working against American interests as U.S. troops continue to fight the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the Islamic State alike.

The message from the Kremlin has become increasingly clear: If you want to be a terrorist, you have to be our terrorist (and you have to be outside of Russian territory).

The Kremlin has weaponized migration. It has weaponized information and built complex information architecture inside Western social and other media. It uses that information architecture to weaponize data in order to target discourse meant to isolate, influence, and recruit key demographics to causes and narratives that help the Kremlin achieve its objectives. Kremlin ideologues have described democracy and terrorism as similar forms of extremism. So perhaps it should come as no surprise that they have cultivated radicalization as another tool of hybrid warfare.

This is why, even in the wake of tragedy, calls for greater cooperation on terrorism from the Kremlin sound hollow.

This is why, even in the wake of tragedy, calls for greater cooperation on terrorism from the Kremlin sound hollow. There is no simple answer to how America can fight terrorism alongside a nation that views terrorist groups as just another tool in hybrid or conventional warfare alike. While the Kremlin has changed its nuclear doctrine to view nuclear weapons as “just another conventional weapon,” its consistent capture of terrorist elements exposes its willingness to use any means necessary in the war against the West.

This array of tools has been cultivated because it gives Putin’s Russia greater control in determining and negotiating the outcomes they want. Put differently, the Kremlin is comfortable using its “bad actor” status to get better deals for its far-weaker nation. As consistently noted in the recent Senate hearings on Russia, the Russians are not “ten feet tall.” But until we are willing to see the full range of tools and tactics they are willing to use against us — and how they use them, in ways often unthinkable to us, to force the hand of their opponents — we aren’t entering negotiations on fair footing or with clear eyes.

As concerns about a renewed terrorist threat echo through Russian media, we should be cautious — but not cynical — in watching how a new narrative on terrorism is used by the Kremlin.

The Trump administration should resist the impulse to make terrorism the top priority or a key area of bilateral outreach to Russia. One-on-one, the Kremlin knows how to use its unconventional tools to keep opponents off-guard and dominate negotiations. There tend to be surprises once you get to the table — often in the form of crises that only Russia and its unconventional tactics can solve. But it is far harder to get away with this in a multilateral format or with a well-informed opponent. Within the framework of a strong NATO alliance, for example, Russian aggression can be contained and balanced, and the Kremlin is always in a position of comparative weakness when their tricks and storytelling are seen for what they are.

Monday’s attack was a tragedy for the victims. But there is no excuse to allow Putin to evade serious questions about Russia’s partnerships with terrorist organizations abroad — partnerships that expose its backing of anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-NATO sentiment in armed abundance. As with many things, the Kremlin’s narrative about fighting terror looks flawless on Russian television. But Americans must understand the reality behind this fiction, or risk getting blamed for the Kremlin’s crimes.

Photo credit: DMITRI LOVETSKY/AFP/Getty Images

European parliament backs red lines resolution for Brexit negotiations

Resolution on negotiating mandate insists that transition arrangement for UK after 2019 can last no longer than three years

Michel Barnier says parallel divorce and trade talks would be ‘very risky’. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Daniel Boffey in Strasbourg-Wednesday 5 April 2017

The European parliament has overwhelmingly backed a resolution detailing its red lines for Brexit negotiations.

MEPs in Strasbourg approved the negotiating mandate by 516 votes to 133, with 50 abstentions, comfortably exceeding the two-thirds majority sought by parliament leaders to show unity behind their approach.

The resolution calls for phased negotiations in the divorce proceedings, going against the wishes of London, which would like exit talks and discussions of a future trade arrangement to happen in parallel. It also asserts that the UK must respect its membership obligations until it leaves the EU.

Speaking during the debate that preceded the vote, the EU’s chief negotiator picked apart Theresa May’s argument for a swift Brexit deal, warning that parallel divorce and trade talks would be “very risky”.

Michel Barnier said it was not a ruse on the part of the EU to insist on dealing with the UK’s divorce bill first, but an essential precondition for success.

Citing the British prime minister’s six-page letter notifying the EU of the country’s intention to withdraw, he said: “Theresa May’s letter seeks a rapid agreement but, honourable members, the devil is quite clearly going to be in the detail and the six months of work done so far points to that.

“A single financial settlement, as a result of UK commitments to the EU, and the EU commitments to the UK, there your resolution is very clear. We do not seek to punish the UK but simply ask the UK to deliver on its commitments and undertakings as a member of the EU.”

Barnier said the European parliament’s resolution, as the first response to May’s letter by an EU institution, would set the tone for the talks.

The resolution insists that a transition arrangement for the UK after 2019 can last no longer than three years.

The European court of justice would also be responsible for settling any legal challenges during the transition period, according to the parliament, and there would be no special deal for the City of London “providing UK-based undertakings preferential access to the single marketand, or the customs union”. The parliament has the right to veto any future deal between the UK and the EU.

Addressing the former Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, who earlier in the debate accused the EU of behaving like the mafia in making “impossible demands”, Barnier said: “In fact, Mr Farage, all we are doing is settling the accounts no more, no less”.

The EU believes that the Treasury will need to pay about €60bn (£51bn) to cover unpaid budget commitments, pension liabilities, loan guarantees and spending on UK-based projects.

EU behaving ‘like the mafia’ over Brexit, says Nigel Farage

Some cabinet ministers have dismissed the idea of the UK paying a large bill on leaving. However, Barnier explained that the EU could not with confidence discuss the future without the British government having dealt with its commitments from the past.

“The UK letter makes clear that the UK government will push for parallel negotiations on the withdrawal and the future relations,” he said.

“This is a very risky approach. To succeed we need, on the contrary, to devote the first phase of the negotiation to reaching an agreement on the principles of exit. We are not proposing this to be tactical or to create difficulties for the UK.

“On the contrary, it is an essential condition to maximise the chance of reaching an agreement together in two years, which is very short. It is also our best chance to build trust. To build trust before proceeding to the second phase of negotiations.”

Barnier explained that, contrary to May’s recent claims that the EU and UK would negotiate a trade deal after settling the issues of money and citizens’ rights, the second phase of talks would merely be a matter of scoping out what a possible deal would look like and coming to an agreement on a transition arrangement to cushion the UK’s withdrawal on 29 March 2019.

“To put it differently, the sooner we agree on the principles of an orderly withdrawal, the sooner we can prepare our future relations, a free and fair trade agreement, a level playing field, but also in security and defence.”

The European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, Guy Verhofstadt, spoke sadly of Britain’s withdrawal, but admitted it had “never been a love affair”. “Perhaps it was always impossible to unite Great Britain with the continent”, he added.

He said he believed a young leader would in time try to place the UK back in the EU, when a new generation was able to see Brexit “for what it is – a catfight in the Conservative party that got out of hand, a loss of time, a waste of energy, a stupidity”.

Internet Privacy 2017 | What You Need to Know

Apr-04-2017

There has never been a reasonable expectation of online privacy, and there never will be.

(NEW YORK, New York) - Regardless of what you may have recently heard about joint resolutions or nullifications, nothing has changed. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have always had the right to use your data as they see fit, within a few Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) parameters. This has not changed.

And you have given FANG (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google) the right to use your data as they see fit (with a few privacy policy exceptions and within the few aforementioned FTC and FCC parameters). So regarding online privacy, for all practical purposes, absolutely nothing has changed.

What About S.J.Res.34?

Update: On April 3, 2017, the president signed S.J.Res.34, a joint resolution that nullified the FCC’s “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services” rule. But the FCC rule never went into effect. So net/net, nothing has changed.

What Does This Mean?

One side will tell you that the FCC rule was overly burdensome for ISPs because they would have had to obtain opt-in permission from each customer to use the customers’ data.

The other side will tell you that the FCC rule was absolutely necessary because ISPs have access to 100 percent of your online activity while FANG can only see what you do on their respective sites.

Most of the explanations from elected leaders failed to mention that you pay hard currency to your ISP for access to the Internet. Therefore, you would expect some privacy options (even if those options were offered at a premium price).

On the other hand, you pay for Facebook and Google with your data, so as the cliché goes, “YOU are the product,” and you should not have any expectation of privacy (other than what’s written in the user license agreement or Privacy Policy of the respective sites).

As for Amazon and Netflix, you pay with both cash and data. But you can rest easy. Both Amazon and Netflix only use your data internally. While they offer insights to certain vendors, sponsors, and suppliers, the amount of actual data they make available to 2nd or 3rd parties is negligible.

Short Term

In the short term, all of this is meaningless. ISPs don’t make money selling your data (although they could), and most of them do not yet have an effective way to sell advertising. They make money by charging you for Internet access. FANG literally lives on your data. Without it, FANG would be severely disabled. But you already grant them the rights, so nothing has changed.

Long Term

Long term, things will change. There are many probable futures. One of them is not the passage of the previously proposed privacy rules by the FCC. What has changed is the method we will use to draft and legislate privacy policy. It is a non-trivial matter and is, and will continue to be, a topic which inspires vigorous debate.

In a data-deregulated environment, ISPs are free to develop all kinds of new capabilities as the technologies become practical. We might see “intelligence layers” between us and the networks.

Hypothetically, this type of AI would know where you are, where you are likely to be, what you like to do, when you like to do it, etc. In practice, it would be used to sell you stuff.

It could also be useful for autonomous vehicles and IoT applications. But, as with all things, there’s a dark side. Thinking about potential abuses of this type of data-driven AI should give one pause.

Should We Have Internet Privacy Laws?

Should we have Internet privacy laws? What should we protect? Are privacy laws antithetical to a free and open Internet? Or would a well-reasoned set of privacy rules provide a level playing field and fertile ground for commerce and communication?

Under this administration, it looks like whatever laws are in place will remain in place. Whatever proposals can be nullified seem to be fair game. For those who supported the previous administration’s worldview, it’s time for a new strategy.

It’s a Bigger Topic – What You Can Do

There’s more at stake than online privacy. The concepts of Net Neutrality and a free and open Internet and a set of reasonable rules that promote investments and reward investors are not mutually exclusive.

We should strive for consensus. Regardless of your personal preferences, you should contact your elected officials and let them know your thoughts.

When discussing online privacy, remember the Internet not only transports your smartphone and web browser data, it also transports your banking data (from bank to bank), your health records (from doctor to hospital), autonomous vehicle data, Internet of Things data, municipal sensor data (such as water meters and weather data), and every other type of data that we create by interacting in a completely digital world.

VPNs & Encrypted Email

Since the joint resolution passed, I’ve had a remarkable number of questions about Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and email encryption, as if suddenly there’s a new need for these services. (BTW: We’ll discuss online privacy vs. online security in another article. They are not the same thing.)

If you didn’t need a VPN or encrypted email yesterday, you probably don’t need it today. That said, I only access the Internet through VPNs, and I encrypt communication that I would not like to see on WikiLeaks.

I do not endorse any of the following products, but I pay for and use some of them. They all work as well as consumer-grade systems can work. If you feel like you will be safer using a VPN or encrypted email, here’s a short list of options:

VPNs

NordVPN
Cloak
VPN Unlimited

Encrypted Email

ProtonMail
Virtru
What We Really Need

What We Really Need

Data is a very valuable asset. How valuable? Have a look at the combined market cap of FANG. They, and most online businesses, transform the value of our data into their wealth. Which raises the question, should they own the data we create, or should we?

If we create it, shouldn’t it be ours? I can argue both sides. Perhaps you can too. Let’s start the discussion immediately!

Previously published: ShellyPalmer.com

Australia: Police make biggest meth bust in history

AFP-4-940x580

An AFP officer takes a sample of the meth they found among the wooden floorboards. Source: AFP

5th April 2017

AUSTRALIAN police have seized almost a tonne of methamphetamine from traffickers in what is the largest haul of the drug to date.

Two men, aged 53 and 36, face life imprisonment after they were arrested in connection to trafficking 903kg of crystal methamphetamine with an estimated street value of AUD898 million (US$680 million). They will be charged with trafficking a commercial quantity of illegal narcotics.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) raided a warehouse in east Melbourne where they found boxes of wooden floorboards, each containing methamphetamine. The total weight of the drugs was 862.9kg.

“We located 70 boxes of floorboards … in each of those floorboards was concealed 2kg of methamphetamine,” AFP Assistant Commissioner Neil Gaughan said.

“We didn’t arrive at that location by mistake. It was due to the fact there was significant intelligence-sharing across international borders as well as the borders here in Australia.”

SEE ALSO: Australia: 6 Malaysians, 8 Chinese arrested over $144m worth of meth in drug bust

Victorian Police also conducted a series of raids across the city which uncovered 40kg of methamphetamine, AUD140,000 (US$106,000) in cash, and 175,000 contraband cigarettes.

A further AUD5 million (US$3.78 million) worth of property, cars and cash were frozen under provisions of Australia’s Proceeds of Crime Act.

Australia has seen a rapid increase in the use of methamphetamine in recent years. A study released in 2016 showed there were almost 300,000 regular and dependent meth users in the country.

“Police are best-placed to stem the supply of illicit drugs by targeting organised crime syndicates,” Gaughan said.

“Our law enforcement effort is coordinated with the health and education sectors, which are focused on demand reduction.”

Gaughan said the AFP were still looking for two Asian-looking men and were expecting to make more arrests.