Podcasts about Authorization

AP correspondent Ed Donahue reports on new questions about vapes.

This episode features Geoffrey Mattson, CEO of SecureAuth, joined by co-host Sarah Cicchetti, Director of Product Management at Semperis.Geoffrey has spent decades building and leading companies at the intersection of AI and cybersecurity, including MistNet.ai, an AI-native threat detection platform acquired by LogRhythm, and Xage Security, where he drove zero trust adoption across the U.S. military, global energy firms, and Fortune 500 enterprises. At SecureAuth, he leads a platform built around continuous, real-time identity authority across workforces, APIs, and AI agents.In this episode, Geoffrey argues that agents combine the speed of automation with the unpredictability of humans, making real-time per-action authorization the only viable control model. He discusses why “friendly fire” from well-meaning employees is the biggest threat vector right now, how MCP vendors are ignoring their own OAuth spec, and what a practical agent rollout with real guardrails actually looks like.This episode reframes authorization as the problem the identity industry has been deferring for years and can no longer avoid.Guest Bio Geoffrey Mattson is a serial entrepreneur and globally recognized cybersecurity and AI executive with decades of experience building market-defining companies and technologies that protect the world's most critical systems.He is currently CEO of SecureAuth, a leader in AI-driven identity and access management with its Continuous Authority, ensuring ongoing verification across workforces, customers, APIs, and AI agents. This is enabled through its Private Authority Platform, which puts authentication and authorization under your control through any deployment model (cloud, on prem, hybrid, air-gapped).Prior to SecureAuth, Mattson served as CEO of Xage Security, where he led the company in Zero Trust for critical environments from energy to agentic AI. Under his leadership, Xage achieved rapid adoption across the U.S. military, global energy firms, and Fortune 500 enterprises.Previously, Geoffrey Mattson was co-founder and CEO of MistNet.ai, an AI-native threat detection platform acquired by LogRhythm. He pioneered decentralized analytics and machine learning approaches for real-time cyber defense, and later served as SVP of Product at LogRhythm, driving global expansion and shaping the next generation of SIEM/SOAR solutions.Earlier, he held senior executive roles at Juniper Networks, overseeing a $2B product portfolio and leading major M&A efforts, and at Huawei Technologies as SVP and CTO for networking and data center platforms. His engineering leadership at Corona Networks, Caspian, and Bay Networks helped build foundational technologies in network and security architecture.Guest Quote “With agents, you have the power and the speed of an automated process with the unpredictability of a human. And in fact, we are seeing their behavior and their psychology makes them even perhaps less predictable than a human.”Time stamps 01:45 Meet Geoffrey Mattson: Serial Entrepreneur and Cybersecurity Executive 02:40 Why Identity Is Having a Moment 08:40 Defining Agent Identity 12:15 Behavioral Guardrails for Agents 14:37 Agent Identity Lifecycle 17:36 Just-in-Time vs. Standing Privilege 18:02 C-Suite Pressure and Friendly Fires 21:00 When Agents Live Off the Land 26:12 MCP, OAuth, and Token Pitfalls 28:04 Threat Models and Rollout Strategy 30:13 LLMs and Policy Authoring 31:23 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsSponsor The HIP Podcast is brought to you by Semperis, the leader in identity-driven cyber resilience for the hybrid enterprise. Trusted by the world's leading businesses, Semperis protects critical Active Directory and Entra ID environments from cyberattacks, ensuring rapid recovery and business continuity when every second counts. Visit semperis.com to learn more.LinksConnect with Geoffrey on LinkedInConnect with Sarah on LinkedInConnect with Sean on LinkedInDon't miss future episodesLearn more about Semperis

Nobody is coming to give you permission. In this episode of The Level Up Podcast, Paul Alex breaks down why waiting for validation is one of the biggest reasons smart people never take action. Let's be real… If you are waiting for someone to tell you that you are ready… Ready to launch… Ready to sell… Ready to lead… Ready to become the CEO… You are going to wait forever. In this episode, you'll learn: Why the market does not care about your past titles or resume How waiting for approval keeps entrepreneurs stuck on the sidelines Why action is the only credential that actually matters How to build authority by stepping up before you feel fully ready The truth is simple: No one is going to hand you the crown. No one is going to tap you on the shoulder. No one is going to magically declare that you are qualified. You have to authorize yourself. Pick up the phone. Make the pitch. Launch the offer. Take the risk. Because the only validation that matters is a paying client. Most people wait to feel ready before they move. High-level operators move first… And become ready through execution. Stop waiting for permission. Write your own permission slip. Claim the role. Do the work. And keep leveling up. Your Network is your NETWORTH! Make sure to add me on all SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS: Instagram: https://jo.my/paulalex2024 Facebook: https://jo.my/fbpaulalex2024 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGhDAD1JyGGzSQUPD9lc9HQ LinkedIn: https://jo.my/inpaulalex2024 Looking for a secondary source of income or want to become an entrepreneur? Check out one of my companies below to see if we can help you: www.CashSwipe.com FREE Copy of my book “Blue to Digital Gold - The New American Dream”www.officialPaulAlex.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeff and Jim are joined by Heather Flanagan, Content Chair, and Andi Hindle, Conference Chair, for a full preview of Identiverse 2026 at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas. They cover the 2026 theme of trust and change, why AI was removed as a standalone track and redistributed across all content areas, the provocative argument that non-human access now dramatically outpaces human access and is reshaping identity system design, whether authentication is truly solved, authorization as the harder unsolved problem, CFP surprises, networking events including Women at Identiverse, and predictions for 2027. Save 30% with code IDV26-IDAC30%. New IDPro members save $25 at idpro.org/idac.Connect with Heather: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hlflanagan/Connect with Andi: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ahindle/Identiverse 2026: https://events.identiverse.com/2026/begin?code=IDV26-IDAC30%25Heather's IAM Conference List: https://github.com/fedidcg/meetings/wiki/2026-List-of-Identity-and-Related-Conferences-and-Standards-Development-EventsConnect with us on LinkedIn:Jim McDonald: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmcdonaldpmp/Jeff Steadman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffsteadman/Visit the show on the web at http://idacpodcast.comTIMESTAMPS00:00:00 Introduction and SolarWinds breach banter00:03:27 Identiverse preview and discount codes00:06:10 Guest introductions00:06:52 Role of Content Chair00:08:46 Role of Conference Chair00:11:16 2026 conference theme00:15:00 AI as context, not a standalone track00:16:32 Control plane vs enablement plane debate00:22:19 What the industry is underestimating00:24:00 Non-human access outpaces human access00:26:52 Is authentication solved? Passkeys00:30:31 Authorization: far from solved00:36:04 Extensibility in standards and deployments00:38:22 CFP surprises: fraud and identity proofing00:41:48 Usability and UX gaps00:43:18 Agentic AI: identity or governance?00:47:55 Networking and newcomer programming00:51:45 Women at Identiverse00:52:46 AI-generated CFP submissions00:55:00 Predictions for Identiverse 202700:58:04 Theme songs for Identiverse 202601:02:58 Heather's identity conference list on GitHub01:04:47 Swag culture at identity conferences01:12:25 Wrap-upKEYWORDSIdentiverse 2026, Heather Flanagan, Andi Hindle, identity conference, NHI, non-human identity, agentic AI, passkeys, authentication, authorization, IAM, IDAC, Identity at the Center, Jeff Steadman, Jim McDonald, digital identity, continuous identity architecture, zero standing privilege, verifiable credentials, identity governance

6/2/26 Co-Host Amilcar Shabazz Sen Paul Mark: the 250th celebration – Trump v Massachusetts; state bonding authorization of billions for education, roads, vital infrastructure. Garrick Perry, Nhmptn Reparations Commission member & Councilor-at-large: Juneteenth – the celebration in Northampton on June 6 –the stars are coming & the stars have aligned. Don't miss this! Deborah Snow, co-founder of Amherst-based Bridge for Unity: dialogue for fighting racism and discrimination—the June 13th event. Author Tom Perrotta on “Ghost Town,” racism & a white town. In conversation with Martin Espada @ the Odyssey this evening. Lisa Wong, South Hadley Town Administrator, on overrides, the right number, creative solutions.

Episode 422 is the debut of Decoded by Identity at the Center, a new sub-series hosted by Jeff Steadman and Sean O'Dell dedicated to unpacking the specifications and standards powering IAM. Joining them is Pieter Kasselman, VP of Open Standards at Defakto and chair of the WIMSE working group. The conversation covers why traditional non-human identity approaches break at agentic scale, how SPIFFE and SPIRE enable short-lived automated credential provisioning without long-lived secrets, and why treating agents as workloads unlocks a decade of existing standards. Pieter walks through critical OAuth specs including JWT authorization grant, token exchange, client ID metadata, and the emerging transaction tokens draft. Sean connects these to practical gateway architecture, continuous access evaluation, and policy-based authorization. The episode closes with real-world deployment examples and a clear takeaway: the tools to secure agentic identity are available today.Episode Links:Pieter Kasselman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pieter-kasselman-0259862/AI Agent Authentication and Authorization: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klrc-aiagent-auth/Workload Identity in Multi-system environments (WIMSE): https://ietf-wg-wimse.github.io/OAuth SPIFFE Client Authentication: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-spiffe-client-auth/Transaction Tokens: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-oauth-transaction-tokens/08/Agentic Identity Control Framework. You Already Have the Pieces. Now Build It. by Sean O'Dell: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/agentic-identity-control-framework-you-already-have-pieces-o-dell-61b5e/Timestamps:00:00 Introduction to Decoded by Identity at the Center00:13 The mission of the Decoded sub-series03:02 Guest intro: Pieter Kasselman, VP of Open Standards at Defakto06:21 Why agentic identity is urgent: scale, multi-platform, and shifting threat landscape10:42 The real cost of API keys and credential sprawl in agentic systems13:23 Agentic identity identifiers and how SPIFFE assigns unique workload IDs21:00 Credential types: X.509, JWTs, and workload identity tokens31:00 Connecting SPIFFE to OAuth and dynamic registration with client ID metadata38:18 SPIFFE SVIDs, multiple credentials per agent, and governance traceability41:44 Authentication versus authorization: delegation versus impersonation47:00 Transaction tokens: binding access to specific transactions to stop token theft51:21 Identity chaining and cross-domain authorization55:00 Shared Signals Framework and dynamic authorization57:00 Gateways, CAEP, and mid-flight token revocation for rogue agents59:31 What you can deploy today with SPIFFE, OAuth, and existing IDPs01:02:58 Policy-based access control and why instance-level governance cannot scale01:04:58 Workload identity federation: Anthropic and Google Agent ID updates01:07:13 Cross-platform federation and the law of agentic utility01:11:55 Elevator pitch: agents are workloads and 95% of the problem is solved now01:17:03 What is coming next: a transaction tokens deep diveKeywords:agentic identity, SPIFFE, SPIRE, OAuth, transaction tokens, Shared Signals Framework, WIMSE, workload identity, non-human identity, authorization delegation, JWT, CAEP, API gateway, IAM standards, AIMS, Jeff Steadman, Sean O'Dell, Pieter Kasselman, IDAC, Identity at the Center, Jim McDonald, Decoded by Identity at the CenterDecoded by Identity at the Center:Jeff Steadman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffsteadman/Sean O'Dell: https://www.linkedin.com/in/seanodentity/Jim McDonald: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmcdonaldpmp/Visit the show on the web at https://idacdecoded.com/

AI is reshaping enterprise architectures, but is security keeping pace? In this episode, Martin Kuppinger, Matthias Reinwarth, and Darran Rolls talk about the urgent question of how organizations should structure their defenses for a world of autonomous, agentic AI. The answer: an AI Security Fabric. Key Topics: ✅ Why agentic AI breaks traditional, deterministic access models✅ The concept of "AIdentity" — what makes AI agent identity fundamentally different✅ Can the Identity Fabric scale to meet AI security demands?✅ Discovery, authorization, and governance as the pillars of an AI Security Fabric✅ The geopolitical divide: US "move fast" vs. EU "govern first"✅ Token delegation as the hardest unsolved problem in AI security today "We didn't build IAM for a world where the actor, the path, and the destination are all unknown until the moment of access" so what do we build instead? Find out in this episode.

AI is reshaping enterprise architectures, but is security keeping pace? In this episode, Martin Kuppinger, Matthias Reinwarth, and Darran Rolls talk about the urgent question of how organizations should structure their defenses for a world of autonomous, agentic AI. The answer: an AI Security Fabric. Key Topics: ✅ Why agentic AI breaks traditional, deterministic access models✅ The concept of "AIdentity" — what makes AI agent identity fundamentally different✅ Can the Identity Fabric scale to meet AI security demands?✅ Discovery, authorization, and governance as the pillars of an AI Security Fabric✅ The geopolitical divide: US "move fast" vs. EU "govern first"✅ Token delegation as the hardest unsolved problem in AI security today "We didn't build IAM for a world where the actor, the path, and the destination are all unknown until the moment of access" so what do we build instead? Find out in this episode.

Matt Osman is back... and this time we're going deep on one tool that can dramatically reduce the cash you bring to a co-living acquisition: the invoice authorization.In simple terms, it's an addendum where the seller agrees to pay your contractor directly at closing. Done right, it lets you fold renovation costs into your loan, keep the seller whole, satisfy the lender, and walk into a co-living-ready property with a fraction of the out-of-pocket spend.Matt shares real examples (including a $100K invoice authorization on one deal), the front-end vs. back-end negotiation playbook, how to position it with listing agents, and why the appraisal is the linchpin of the whole strategy.Connect with Matt: Email: matt@investslb.com Ask about the Co-Living Agent AcceleratorFollow Us: Miller - www.instagram.com/millermcswainCraig - www.instagram.com/craigcurelopIf you got value from this one, share it with an investor who's about to close on a co-living property, it might save them five figures.

Iran war hits authorization threshold. Friday Sound Salad. Us debt exceeds GDP.  Social media trend has young people ‘speedrunning' through the Church of Scientology. Jim Kennedy breaks down the headlines of the week. Driverless trucks take off in Texas. Zach Abraham, Bulwark Capital, talks the Iran war and oil prices. 

Today's Poll Question at Smerconish.com: Should Congress authorize the use of military force against Iran? As tensions escalate and a fragile ceasefire nears expiration, Michael Smerconish breaks down the legal, political, and strategic stakes behind a potential Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). With the War Powers deadline looming, Congress faces mounting pressure to act—or step aside. Michael examines recent military developments, inside-the-Beltway maneuvering, and why the timeline may be shaping Iran's strategy. Listen here, then vote! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

AI agents aren't just software, they're a new class of actor that can impersonate users, bypass security policies, and operate across complex identity meshes. In this episode of Analyst Chat, Matthias Reinwarth sits down with Martin Kuppinger and KuppingerCole's newly appointed AI Security Practice Lead Jonathan Care to unpack the emerging concept of AIdentity and why it's the key to securing agentic AI. Key topics: ✅ What "AI Identity" means and why it's more than just a service account✅ The dangers of agent impersonation and the "ClaudeBot dumpster fire"✅ Authorization collapse, what happens when agents bypass security policies✅ The limits of "human in the loop" as a security strategy✅ Two new market categories: AVOP and ATDR✅ Immediate actions CISOs and architects can take today AI is already in your organization, the question is whether you can see it. Stay tuned for upcoming KuppingerCole research on AVOP and ATDR, and catch Martin, Jonathan, and Matthias live at EIC Berlin in May.

Can your ERP really be compliant if you only look at one system at a time? In this episode with Infosys, we explore how cross-system risks, dynamic access decisions, and integrated governance are reshaping segregation of duties in hybrid ERP landscapes.=====The future of ERP is no longer just about moving systems to the cloud, it's about how businesses manage risk in an increasingly connected, automated, and hybrid world. In our latest episode, we sit down with Nishad Showkath from Infosys to unpack why segregation of duties needs a rethink when business processes stretch across on-premise systems, cloud applications, APIs, and automated workflows. Traditional SoD was built for a simpler era, but today's ERP landscape is far more complex, and risks don't always stay inside one system.What does that mean in practice? It means organizations can no longer rely on system-by-system compliance checks and assume the full process is secure. A user may create something in one platform, approve it in another, and complete the workflow somewhere else entirely, creating hidden cross-system risks that older approaches miss. Nishad shares why identity silos, fragmented risk libraries, and disconnected provisioning tools make this challenge even harder, and what companies need to do to build a more complete view of access and control.We also talk about what comes next: dynamic access decisions, automated risk analysis, continuous monitoring, and integrated governance that can follow the business process instead of just the individual application. Nishad explains how AI, machine learning, and identity access management tools are shaping the next phase of SoD, and why the future of ERP security will depend on treating enterprise risk as one connected ecosystem rather than a set of isolated systems.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Download Episode Transcript⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Useful Links: ⁠⁠⁠SAP Cloud ERP⁠⁠⁠Follow Us on Social Media!SAP S/4HANA Cloud ERP: ⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠=====Guest: Nishad Showkath, Senior Principal Consultant, Infosys ConsultingNishad is a Senior Security/GRC architect with overall 20+ years of experience in SAP Security, GRC access control, Process Control, SAP ITGC & Compliance Assurance. He specializes in Authorization design, configuration, and implementation of solutions in the SAP Authorization & GRC area to help customers in their digital transformation journeys and build robust, secure authorization concepts in SAP applications.Nishad's LinkedInHost 1: Richard Howells, SAPRichard Howells has been working in the Supply Chain Management and Manufacturing space for over 30 years. He is responsible for driving the thought leadership and awareness of SAP's ERP, Finance, and Supply Chain solutions and is an active writer, podcaster, and thought leader on the topics of supply chain, Industry 4.0, digitization, and sustainability.Follow Richard Howell on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Host 2: Oyku Ilgar, SAPOyku Ilgar is a marketer and thought leader specializing in SAP's digital supply chain and ERP solutions since 2017. As a marketer, blogger, and podcaster, she creates engaging content that highlights innovative SAP technologies and explores key topics including business trends, AI, Industry 4.0, and sustainability.She holds dual bachelor's degrees in Finance & Accounting and English Translation, along with a master's degree in Business Administration and Foreign Trade, specializing in marketing. With her background in digital transformation, Oyku communicates technology trends and industry insights to help professionals navigate the evolving business landscape.Oyku's ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠SAP Community⁠⁠⁠=====Key Topics: Segregation of duties, Future of ERP, Cross-system risk, Hybrid ERP, SAP Security, GRC, Identity access management, Automated risk analysis, Continuous monitoring, Integrated governance.

Episode 82:  In this episode, Timalyn talks about FinCen Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). Within recent years, FinCen has cracked down on those who are willingly not filing their FBAR. The civil penalties for mistakes with the FBAR can range from $500 - $1,000,000+. That is why Timalyn is discussing it today, to help people avoid those penalties. What is the FBAR?The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) was passed in the 1970s to help stop money laundering. Part of that requires taxpayers to disclose certain foreign financial accounts. This includes bank accounts, brokerage accounts, and mutual funds. These taxpayers are required to do this annually to the Treasury Department on Form 114.  Who needs to file the FBAR? Not all taxpayers with foreign accounts are required to file an FBAR. It can be an individual who is a citizen or resident, or an entity such as a partnership, corporation, LLC, Trust, or estate. They have a filing requirement if they meet the following requirements: A financial interest in or signature authority over at least one financial account outside of the United States. The aggregate amount in the account(s) at any time during the calendar year was $10,000 or more. There are some exceptions to these rules that can be found on the FinCen and IRS websites.  How do you file the FBAR? You can pay a tax professional to file the FBAR for you or you can file it yourself for free online by using the BSA E-filing system. If you choose to have a tax professional file this form for you, be sure that they have experience with preparing a Form 114. This is a specialized form.  If you'd like a tax professional or someone else to prepare this form for you and submit it electronically, you must fill out Form 114a, Record of Authorization to electronically file FBARs. This form is required even if the person filing the form for you is your spouse. When is the FBAR Due?The FBAR is due on April 15th, the same date as your 1040. However, it is not to be filed with your 1040. These forms go to two different areas under the treasury. Your tax return goes to the IRS and your FBAR goes to FinCen. If you miss the April 15th deadline you can get an automatic extension until October 15th, even without requesting it. If you have trouble in the future with your FBAR, you do have the right to representation. A tax professional with Form 2848, Power of Attorney, and Declaration of Representative on file with the IRS can do this for you. Only an Enrolled Agent, such as Timalyn, Certified Public Accountant, or Tax Attorney, can have a Form 2848 and be your tax power of attorney. Need Tax Help Now?If you need answers to your tax debt questions, book a consultation with Timalyn via her Bowens Tax Solutions website.  Click this link to book a call.Please consider sharing this episode with your friends and family. This information might be helpful to someone who really needs it.  As we conclude Episode 82, we encourage you to connect with Timalyn on social media. You'll be able to subscribe to this podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and many other podcast platforms.  Remember, Timalyn Bowens is America's Favorite EA, and she's here to fill the tax literacy gap, one taxpayer at a time.  Thanks for listening to today's episode.For more information about tax relief options or filing your taxes, visit https://www.Bowenstaxsolutions.com/.If you have any feedback or suggestions for an upcoming episode topic, please submit them here:  https://www.americasfavoriteea.com/contact.Disclaimer:  This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.  It provides a framework and possible solutions for solving your tax problems, but it is not legally binding.  Please consult your tax professional regarding your specific tax situation.

What if you've been overpaying on your merchant statement without even realizing it? Most businesses don't actually read their merchant statements — they just pay whatever shows up and move on. But buried inside those statements are processing rates, compliance charges, and other line items that quietly eat into your margins every single month.In this episode, Maria breaks down how merchant statements actually work, what different fees actually mean, which costs are set in stone, where you have room to negotiate, and which charges you should absolutely take steps to eliminate. No matter what type of business you're running — ecommerce, services, or online subscriptions — understanding your statement is one of the fastest ways to spot unnecessary costs and take back control of your processing.____________________________________________

Support the showThank you for listening to this podcast! Follow Pastor James D. Gailliard on all social media @jdgailliard and get connected with Word Tabernacle Church by going to https://wordtab.net/ #EveryoneThriving 

In this episode, we continue our live Q&A format, breaking down real questions from Canadians navigating employment in the United States on a TN visa, with two different guests. We cover sponsorship and how to explain TN visas to U.S. employers, along with border denials, CBP scrutiny, and what happens when your role or employer doesn't fit the typical mold.   More Info: TN Visa for Canadians

Recommendations for identification and selection of bioactive compounds to develop antimethanogenic feed additives. Dr. Yáñez-Ruiz (8:23) How can we search for molecules that modify how feed is fermented in the rumen? Conventionally, we have used scientific literature to look for plant extracts and compounds that have been researched before. Now, we have computational technology that offers opportunities to model how molecules interact with rumen microbes. Once a candidate compound is selected, in vitro tools can be used to test dose responses before animal experiments.  Recommendations for testing enteric methane-mitigating feed additives in ruminant studies. Dr. Yáñez-Ruiz for Dr. Alexander Hristov (17:07) Once compounds have been identified and selected, they need to be tested in the animal. These experiments are costly and best practices for experimental design, animals used, diets fed, delivery of the test compound, and measurement of methane should be followed. Some of these guidelines are strongly linked to the regulatory aspects that provide requirements for how in vivo trials need to be conducted.  Feed additives for methane mitigation: Modeling the impact of feed additives on enteric methane emission of ruminants—Approaches and recommendations. Dr. Bannink (22:43) Once experimental data is collected, it can be used to develop models to predict how effective an additive is, how it works, and its relevance. The intention is to quantify how an additive will work if you feed it to an animal. This can be complex due to variation among different datasets and natural fluctuation in methane production in the animal. One factor that plays a big role in the effectiveness of additives is the type of diet that animals are fed.  A guideline to uncover the mode of action of antimethanogenic feed additives for ruminants. Dr. Belanche (30:03) Understanding the mechanism of action for methane mitigants is challenging. We know some compounds work to reduce methane, but we don't know how or why they are working. There are five main types of additives when grouped by mode of action: modify rumen fermentation to decrease hydrogen production; methane inhibitors that act specifically against methanogens; inhibit enzymes common to all methanogens; hydrogen sinks to redirect hydrogen away from methanogenesis and toward other metabolic pathways; and promote methanotrophs that oxidize methane. The most effective are methane inhibitors, which decrease methane but don't increase animal productivity. Combining a methane inhibitor with a hydrogen sink may help redirect hydrogen and result in improved animal productivity. Regulations and evidence requirements for the authorization of enteric methane-mitigating feed additives. Dr. Tricarico (41:22) There are as many regulatory systems as there are jurisdictions. Two concepts that are shared across jurisdictions are regulatory status/legal classification and intended use. While each jurisdiction requires some legal classification of a feed additive compound, each has a different criteria base from which they classify products. For example, “inhibitor” is a legal classification in New Zealand, but doesn't even exist in other jurisdictions. Sometimes, the same word may mean different things in different jurisdictions. Authorization of a compound is not a blanket authorization, it is an authorization of the intended use of the compound. This specificity is critical for all involved to understand. Feed additives for methane mitigation: How to account for the mitigating potential of antimethanogenic feed additives—Approaches and recommendations. Dr. del Prado (49:42) A major challenge in this area is what kind of accounting system will be used: farm level, lifecycle analysis, carbon markets, national greenhouse gas inventories, etc. An accounting system needs to be well tailored from the type of experimental data available to the complexity used on the scale of the method. Experimental data, modeling, and accounting move hand-in-hand.  Panelists share their take-home thoughts. (58:57) Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to invite more people to join us at the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.   If you want one of our Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Include your size and mailing address, and we'll mail you a shirt.

Hello Interactors,This one attempts to balance the privilege of cold analytical escapism with the gruesome rehumanization of past, present, and future atrocities. I end up trying to make sense of the political psychology that leads to such jubilant violence. While it can be understood, its the very intelligibility that makes it so intolerable. PRESSURE, POWER, IMPUNITYIn 1965, as my umbilical cord was being severed in Iowa, U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were cutting the ears off innocent dead Vietnamese children. And their parents. The shriveling cartilage served as “proof” they were killed. They'd string them into necklaces or hoard them in “ear bags” as trophies. Their commanders demanded a tally. This morbid ritual, born from the military's obsession with numeric “success” metrics amid “search and destroy” orders, exposed not just individual moral depravity but a systemic disregard for human life.Such barbarity serves as just another example of America's enduring pattern of defying Geneva Conventions on civilian protections, proportionality, and prohibited weapons. These atrocities are wrapped in bureaucratic euphemisms like “collateral damage”; all to evade accountability and perpetuate unchecked imperial violence.When barbarity returned like a boomerang to hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, the term “collateral damage” was absent. But “search and destroy” came back. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” These expanded interpretations of and the idea of a “continuing, imminent threat” led to doctrines that allowed drones and bombs to be used as sanctioned forms of force across borders. Targeted killings are domestic justifications that override attempts at global legal constraints.As my own kids were being born in 2004, U.S. drones were flying across the skies over Afghanistan, Yemen, and beyond, vaporizing wedding parties, schools, and outdoor markets, shredding innocent men, women, and children into mangled flesh mixed with bone fragments. These ‘Hellfire missiles' were sold to the public as possessing surgical precision. These “precision” killings, justified as “targeted” under the euphemism of “signature strikes,” leave behind charred craters, orphaned survivors screaming amid the rubble, and “double taps” that slaughter first responders rushing to the scene. And here again the body-count calculus of modern warfare dehumanizes the dead as mere “collateral” in an endless cycle of remote-control atrocity.However, unlike in Vietnam, groups controlling casualty numbers and combatant definitions created incentives to undercount civilian deaths to bolster the claims of legal precision. Because such reasoning was long classified, external scrutiny relied on leaks and sporadic court‑ordered disclosures.Obama deployed 10 times more drones than Bush. They all occurred in legal grey zones. They were justified through broad claims of self‑defense against “imminent threats” from non‑state actors operating in countries not formally at war with the United States. Legal assessments have found that many attacks did not meet the threshold of an “armed conflict” — meaning strikes there should have been constrained by international human‑rights law — thus violating requirements of necessity, last resort, and proportionality.Recent incidents, like the Iranian Khamenei killing, further expose gaps between law and practice. In the case of the 2020 killing of Iranian General Soleimani, scholars argue that the official rationale failed to meet the UN Charter's Article 51 requirement of an actual armed attack. Since then, the U.S. and its allies have instead advanced an even more squishy view of “imminence” to justify anticipatory defense against imagined potential threats. Critics say these interpretations transform what was intended to be a narrow exception into a license for routine, preemptive killing.The U.S. government is seemingly unequaled in its interpretive flexibility of law. Rather than submitting to adjudication, they practice “norm‑shaping” noncompliance. This involves acting first, then using rhetoric and diplomatic influence to normalize or justify those actions. Research on the UN Security Council demonstrates how veto rights, opaque bargaining, and diluted resolutions enable permanent members to escape condemnation while weaker states are disciplined. In effect, international law becomes a language powerful states can manage, not a rulebook to obey.U.S. operations in Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere are often positioned as short-term “strikes” meant to sustain “rules-based order.” But the U.S. doesn't have to behave orderly. Moreover, these actions show a longstanding system where the law on force sustains hegemony. Though the justifications shift — from humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and WMD prevention in Iraq to “responsibility to protect” in Libya or preemption against terrorists or nuclear programs in Iran — the underlying logic is the same. You can see why the U.S. systemically refuses to ratify the 1998 Rome Statute. This treaty established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and grants it jurisdiction over the most serious international crimes — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression — committed by nationals of states parties or on their territory. It was created after ad hoc tribunals like as those in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to ensure accountability. But by remaining outside the Rome Statute (while accepting some of its principles in domestic law), the United States — along with Israel, Russia, and Sudan — avoids the ICC's adjudicative authority over its own personnel and operations. The U.S. (and three other states) has essentially insulated its use of force from external legal accountability.This suggests a deeper political culture where U.S. force is assumed to be protective and exceptional. When national security conflicts with legal limits, they are negotiable, and most Americans accept this as normal.The stability of these justifications over time suggests a shared worldview and America's place in it. It's a settler-imperial, racialized imagination of place that makes some regions dangerous and disorderly, while viewing U.S. power as the necessary instrument for security and progress.STRUCTURES OF SPATIAL SUPPRESSIONTo get a better grasp of how legal gray areas become permanent features of the geopolitical landscape, we need to look beyond the law and explore the spatial imaginaries that come before it. The “lawless power” I describe is not merely a failure of international oversight; it is the modern expression of a settler-imperial logic that has long used the map as a weapon. This logic functions through what historian Patrick Wolfe termed a “logic of elimination”: a systemic drive to clear space for a dominant order by rendering the original inhabitants of that space invisible, irrelevant, or “out of place”. The bridge between the “body-count calculus” of Vietnam and the “Hellfire missiles” of today lies in the historical practice of declaring territory terra nullius — land belonging to no one. By portraying Indigenous lands as “empty” or “underused,” settler-colonial legal fictions justified removal and massacre as “regrettable but necessary” steps toward progress. This spatial erasure serves as the architectural blueprint for modern drone warfare. Just as 19th-century maps rendered Native peoples “spatially absent” to normalize dominion, modern military doctrines use “bureaucratic euphemisms” to turn vibrant communities into “trouble spots” and “problem-spaces” for management.When a “signature strike” occurs, the target is not a legal subject but a “pattern of life”. This is the ultimate form of algorithmic governance, where the individual is erased by the data-point before the missile is even fired. By defining specific regions as inherently “disorderly,” the U.S. creates domestic justifications that override attempts at global legal constraints. In this framework, regions treated as a modern “frontier” — a zone where ordinary rules of necessity and proportionality are “negotiable”.This “geometry of dominion” is not exclusive to foreign policy; it is mirrored in the way U.S. power organizes its own domestic heartland. George Lipsitz's concept of the “white spatial imaginary” explains how space is arranged to prioritize the exclusion and property rights of the affluent while subjecting communities of color to displacement and surveillance. We see this in the physical “concrete” of urban planning:* Highway Infrastructure: Interstate routes were systematically redirected to demolish poor white, Black, and brown communities, ensuring affluent white residents could “get home faster”.* Nuisance Abatement: In cities like Los Angeles, nuisance laws are used to “preemptively reclaim” areas through speculative policing and banishment, enacting a fantasy of dominion over racialized bodies.* Racialized Sorting: The world is sorted into “secure cores” and “unruly peripheries,” a dynamic that scales from the “redlined” neighborhood to the “sanctioned zone” or “reservation”.In both the urban grid and the global borderland, the goal is this: to produce order for some while underwriting “legally malleable violence” on “others”. The “collateral damage” of an Afghan, Palestinian, or Iranian village is the international equivalent of the “nuisance” of a demolished neighborhood. Both are viewed through an imperial lens that deems certain lives “disposable” for the sake of a broader, racialized security. This spatial sorting creates the infrastructure of impunity. When a region is mapped as a “zone of exception,” the violence committed there ceases to feel like a violation; it feels like “maintenance” of a “rules-based order”. This explains why the U.S. can “practice ‘norm-shaping' noncompliance,” acting first and using diplomatic influence to “normalize” the act afterward. The settler-imperial imagination flattens distant worlds into “mappable, legally alienable parcels” of land management. Whether it is the “search and destroy” missions of the 1960s or the “precision” killings of the 2020s, the underlying logic is to secure the “place” of the empire, the “place” of the other must be erased.Once the world is spatially divided into “ordered property” and “disorderly wards,” it becomes easy for the citizens of the empire to grow comfortable with the authoritarian's embrace. Dispossessions become necessary to sustain a system where the “other” is already spatially and legally absent. Their suffering barely registers as a tragedy. It's just the cost of a “righteous” mission.PROPHETS OF POLITICAL POWERSpatial erasures don't just reorganize the land; they reorganize the human psyche. When a society “sees like an empire,” it adopts a specific cognitive map that determines who belongs and whose lives are disposable. This “architecture of absence” is maintained by a set of psychological formations that transform the fear of a “disorderly” world into a mandate for righteous violence.Political psychology shows how when people experience the world as dangerous and uncertain, they become more attracted to strong leaders, rigid hierarchies, and harsh treatment of “threatening” others. This cluster of attitudes is the essence of authoritarianism. It is not just a set of ideas but a way of managing fear and uncertainty. Authoritarianism is especially potent when it fuses with nationalism and religion. Then it becomes “messianic authoritarianism”: the sense that “our” nation or faith community has a special mission in history, is under constant attack, and must therefore be defended at all costs, even by breaking ordinary rules. In this mindset, law and institutions are not neutral constraints; they are either tools for the mission or obstacles to be overridden.Research on authoritarianism finds a common psychological “core” across left and right: a desire for enforced conformity, punishment of deviants, and centralized control, particularly when people believe they live in a dangerous world.(14) When this core is wrapped in national or religious stories of chosen-ness and persecution, it becomes a powerful justification for violence and impunity. Leaders who promise order, purity, and redemption can present extreme measures as necessary acts of protection.Over time it builds a collective narcissism: the belief that “our” group is great but unfairly unrecognized and disrespected by others. This is different from healthy hometown pride. It is fragile, defensive, and quick to see insults everywhere. Studies show that collective narcissism predicts hostility toward out‑groups, support for aggressive policies, conspiratorial thinking, and backing for populist and authoritarian leaders. People who feel their group's greatness is denied are more willing to tolerate or endorse harm, so long as it is framed as restoring respect and status.In religious Zionism, White Christian nationalism, and Khomeinist Shi‘ism, these dynamics are visible through different meanings. Religious Zionist currents interpret control of the land as a non‑negotiable step in a divine redemption process, making territorial compromise feel like a betrayal of a given god's plan, not just a political choice. Christian Zionist and White Christian nationalist discourses in the United States have portrayed the nation as founded by a Christian god, under siege by secular and racial “others,” and uniquely tasked with defending Israel and Christian civilization. Leaders like Donald Trump have been cast as “instruments of god” because of specific policies (for example, on Israel or Iran), even when their personal conduct contradicts ordinary religious standards. The mission outweighs the man. Khomeini's project in 1979 Iran framed the revolution as rescuing Islam from corruption at home and humiliation abroad, casting the new state as the vanguard of an oppressed community engaged in permanent struggle. Even as his regime oppressed…and still does.(16)Across these cases, the same psychological building blocks appear:A world narrated as dangerous and full of enemies.A group identity that is both superior and victimized (“we are great, but unrecognized and under attack”).A leader who claims to embody the group and its destiny.A willingness to override normal legal and moral limits in the name of survival and redemption.Political psychology also clarifies how these movements treat opponents. When group identity becomes sacred and narcissistic, critics inside the group are labeled traitors, and external critics are portrayed as existential threats. Research shows that collective narcissism and authoritarianism are linked to dehumanization of out‑groups and even justification of political violence; seeing others as less than fully human makes it easier to ignore or excuse their suffering.(15) This helps sustain the kinds of selective empathy and invisible harms I've described. Some deaths are tragedies, others are regrettable but necessary, and others barely register at all.These patterns are not confined to a few extremists. Everyday citizens can be drawn in because messianic authoritarianism offers psychological rewards. In times of rapid change, economic insecurity, or cultural displacement, people often experience self‑uncertainty: a shaky sense of who they are and where they belong. Joining a tightly defined, morally exalted group — with clear enemies and a clear mission — can resolve that uncertainty. Research on uncertainty and extremism shows that people in this state are especially attracted to groups and leaders that provide simple, absolutist answers and sharply draw the line between “us” and “them”.(14) Messianic narratives deliver exactly that.Once in place, these psychological formations feed directly into infrastructures of impunity. If one believes the nation is uniquely chosen yet unfairly treated, international law and human rights norms can be reimagined as biased constraints imposed by hostile outsiders, rather than shared rules. If one experiences politics as a siege, then surveillance, occupation, or lethal force are not lawless; they are “defensive” acts that outsiders cannot judge. Authoritarian dispositions, collective narcissism, and uncertainty‑driven group identification supply the emotional energy that keeps unequal legal arrangements and racialized security practices politically acceptable.We're living in a world now where legal impunity and structural violence are not sustained only by special interests and institutions. They are also held up by recurring psychological patterns rooted in fear of danger, longing for certainty, wounded pride, and the seductions of belonging to a “chosen” community. Messianic authoritarian projects in Israel, the United States, and Iran differ in theology and history, but they draw on similar psychological wells to make extraordinary violence feel not just permissible, but righteous.Throughout history those claiming victory have found that while they may be able to occupy a territory, they cannot “win” against a people who remain connected to it. The presence of 575 Indigenous nations (and 1200 tribes and villages) with government-to-government relations with the U.S. is testimony. Topophilia is a heavy weight. Those killed aren't coming back, but those who remain or have been displaced do. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, “No one won the last war, and no one will win the next war.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

"One Rental to Freedom" and the Creative Wealth AcceleratorWe're thrilled to announce the Creative Wealth Accelerator, a three-day intensive training happening March 26-28 from 10 AM to 4 PM via Zoom. Join Chad and Scott Poirier as we dive deep into the strategies you need to acquire properties without relying on banks or your own cash. We'll cover everything from running numbers and making creative finance offers to talking with sellers and private lenders.At just $97, this is an investment you won't want to miss. Check out the link below for more information and to sign up today!https://go.mydealinc.com/creativewealthaccelerator In this episode of the One Rental to Freedom Podcast, host Chad Harris sits down with 16-year real estate veteran David Randolph to pull back the curtain on short sales. While many investors struggle with high market prices, David reveals how he buys properties at a massive discount—sometimes for pennies on the dollar—by negotiating directly with banks.David shares his step-by-step process for identifying distressed properties, navigating the bank's bureaucracy, and using the "Request for Mortgage Assistance" (RMA) to stop foreclosures in their tracks. Whether you are a flipper or a landlord looking for high cash-flow rentals, this episode provides the blueprint for finding opportunity where others see crisis.Key Takeaways:What a short sale actually is and why banks prefer them over foreclosures.How David bought a house for $29,600 and sold it for $275,000.The "ATR" (Authorization to Release) form: Your key to talking to the bank.Why you should never fax your documents (and what to do instead).How to find leads through public foreclosure notices.

Sponsor Links:This episode of SpaceTime is presented with the support of Squarespace....your one stop for when you're ready to get online. To chek our special discount offers, simply voisit www.squarespace.com/spactime and use the cou[on code SPACETIME at checkout.SpaceTime Series 29 Episode 29 *Earliest known barred spiral galaxy Our Milky Way galaxy is known as a barred spiral, and debate continues on exactly how the bar section at the heart of these types of galaxies form and evolve. Now astronomers have discovered one of the earliest barred spiral galaxies ever seen. *Australia's SpIRIT satellite mission comes to an end After more than 25 months of successful operations in space, the University of Melbourne's SpIRIT satellite mission has come to an end. *International Space Station to remain in orbit an additional two years International Space Station is now expected to remain in orbit for an additional two years extending its operational life to 2032. *The Science Report Climate is likely to see neutral El Ni?o/La Ni?a conditions until at least the middle of the year. New research into the mating habits between Neanderthals and modern human. The diverse range of foods eaten across Europe thousands of years ago. Skeptics guide to claims smoking cures cancer.For more SpaceTime visit www.spacetimewithstuartgary.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/spacetime-with-stuart-gary--2458531/support.

Are attackers really using AI to run end-to-end cyber campaigns? In this episode, Edward Wu (Founder and CEO, DropzoneAI) joins Ashish to separate the hype from reality when it comes to AI-driven attacks .Edward explains how attackers are currently using open-source LLMs for reconnaissance and spear-phishing , and why the major commercial models now explicitly prohibit users from generating exploits without vetting . On the defense side, Edward shares how AI agents have successfully automated over 160 years' worth of alert investigations in the real world proving that 100% software-delivered SOC triage is already here .We also debunk the myth of AI "hallucinations," explaining why most errors are actually just poor context management . If you're building a security operations center or working with an MSSP, this episode will teach you how to shift from manual alert fatigue to leveraging AI for threat hunting.Guest Socials -⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Edward's Linkedin Podcast Twitter - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@CloudSecPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you want to watch videos of this LIVE STREAMED episode and past episodes - Check out our other Cloud Security Social Channels:-⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Cloud Security Podcast- Youtube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Cloud Security Newsletter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you are interested in AI Security, you can check out our sister podcast -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ AI Security Podcast⁠Questions asked:(00:00) Introduction(02:50) Who is Edward Wu? (Founder of Dropzone AI) (04:50) The Reality of AI Cyber Attacks Today (Recon vs. End-to-End) (07:20) Why Commercial LLMs Are Blocking Exploit Generation (11:50) How MSSPs are Evolving with AI Triage (18:20) The Asymmetric Capacity Gap: Why Humans Can't Keep Up (22:30) Automating 160 Years of Alert Investigations (23:50) Why AI Hallucinations are Actually Context Management Failures (26:00) Build vs. Buy: The Data Network Effect for AI Agents (29:20) The New Workflow for SOC Analysts & Threat Hunters(31:30) Defining "Threategy": Scope, Authorization, and Context (35:50) How to Detect Prompt Injection (Treat it like an Insider Threat) (38:30) Dropzone AI Announcements at RSACResources spoken about during the episode:- Dropzone Diner RSAC 2026- If you want to learn more about Dropzone- you can do that here!

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, an in-depth investigatory show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (3/4/26). As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant. !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u2q643"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");   Rumble("play", {"video":"v74gh2i","div":"rumble_v74gh2i"}); Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (21) R A W S A L E R T S on X: "

Americans are facing a challenge in returning to the US from the Middle East. CBS's White House Correspondent Natalie Brand joins Megan Lynch with an update on all things related to the US-Israel/Iran conflict.

John Yoo reports that in a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the IEEPA does not grant the president power to impose universal tariffs without explicit Congressional authorization. 5.1888 SCOTUS

Episode #493: The entry point was children. During the reform period, as the Myanmar military and other armed groups feared making concessions that would affect the battlefield, international mine action specialists sought common ground by emphasizing civilian protection."The civilians were the victims, and everybody could see that it was not a good thing to have young children being killed or wounded by the mines," says Pascal Simon, a veteran humanitarian mine action and national capacity development officer. “Everybody wants to save lives and protect civilians, in theory.”In this episode, Simon reflects on his work in Myanmar from 2016 to 2020 and the delicate process of expanding mine action education in contested space. He describes how it was importantto "try to remain open and neutral" in an attempt to focus on prevention rather than blame. Simon says this neutrality allowed mine risk education to be gradually integrated into education and social welfare networks, including in EAO-controlled areas and refugee communities in Thailand.Progress culminated at the 2019 National Mine Action Conference, which brought together civilian ministries, military representatives, international organizations, and ethnic actors, putting "the government in the leading seat" to discuss landmines as a national humanitarian issue. The workshop concluded with the need to establish a National Mine Action Authority.The proposed authority never materialized. When the 2021 military coup abruptly ended the transition period, it dismantled both the coordination infrastructure and the trust that had been built.Throughout the interview, Simon returns to the importance of trust, consistency, and neutrality, engaging with all actors. Engagement with the military, which risks legitimization, remains a critical tension for international organizations. "We have to talk to everybody, at least to try to and, of course, we have to make sure that they're not using us," Simon says.

In this episode of One Vision — FinTech Fuse podcast, Theodora Lau and Jas Randhawa discuss the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP) and implications for agentic commerce. They explore the challenges of chargebacks, the need for regulatory clarity, and the importance of consumer independence in the evolving landscape of e-commerce. While adoption is likely to grow, major risks include consumer manipulation, monopolistic outcomes, and the amount of personal data agents may require (buying, browsing, health, and other patterns), increasing privacy and security concerns. Now is the time to engage with policymakers and advocate for regulatory clarity and for the well-being of consumers. 00:00 Welcome Back to One Vision + Introducing Jas Randhawa (StrategyBRIX)01:10 What Is the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP)? The Big Picture03:27 How UCP Works: Product Cataloging for AI Shopping Agents07:05 KYA (Know Your Agent): Identity, Authorization & Trust08:58 Chargebacks in Agentic Commerce: Who's Liable When Things Go Wrong?12:02 Fraud Detection Breaks: Geolocation, New Signals & Re-Engineering Controls13:44 Agent Independence & Consumer Protection: Bias, Collusion, and Oversight Gaps21:28 Regulatory Clarity (or Lack Thereof): The ‘Wild West' Phase + T&Cs Reality28:06 Time to Get Ready: Travel Use Cases, Audit Trails, and Dispute Proof33:26 Sanctions, VPNs, and High-Velocity Agent Behavior: Financial Crime Risks37:12 Are We Too Early? Will Consumers Adopt—and at What Cost?42:59 Privacy, Data Control & The Need for Neutral Standards Bodies (Wrap-Up)47:45 Final Thoughts#AI #AgenticCommerce #UCP #Agents #Fintech Hot take:  ”The amount of information this agent now needs to have about me is shocking and it scares me a little bit because you're talking about buying patterns, browsing patterns, sleeping patterns, health pattern. For this agent to be really effective, it just needs to know everything that's in my head, right? It's gonna be very effective, but that's again, a major risk because no one's watching out for the consumer.”Hot take: “ The future of this world is unfortunately not you or me. It's a lot of these younger kids, their ecosystem is a lot different. These products are being designed for them."More about our guest 

Connect to John Gilroy on LinkedIn   https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-gilroy/ Want to listen to other episodes? www.Federaltechpodcast.com When people look back on 2025 they will see many changes in the FedRAMP process.  It looks like a new administration examined the process, got feedback from companies, and launched new initiatives to speed up the process. During today's interview, Irina Denisenko (Knox CEO) details FedRAMP's challenges and something called "FedRAMP 20x." Knox runs the largest FedRAMP-managed cloud, enabling 90-day authorizations by hosting customers' production environments. Denisenko explains the story of the origin of Knox Systems:   she was running a training company and the Air Force wanted to use her product.  It would have taken so long to complete the FedRAMP requirements that she just bought a company that was FedRAMP compliant. It is hard to believe that the process is so frustrating that fewer than 500 apps are authorized at moderate/high FedRAMP The initiative from the GSA is called FedRAMP 20x  It shifts to continuous monitoring and continuous authorization, moving from annual audits (sampled every 3 years) and monthly CVE spreadsheets to real-time, machine-readable data. What Knox offers is a tried-and-true platform that has reduced time for compliance in order to better serve federal needs. 

In this episode of One Vision — FinTech Fuse podcast, Theodora Lau and Jas Randhawa discuss the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP) and implications for agentic commerce. They explore the challenges of chargebacks, the need for regulatory clarity, and the importance of consumer independence in the evolving landscape of e-commerce. While adoption is likely to grow, major risks include consumer manipulation, monopolistic outcomes, and the amount of personal data agents may require (buying, browsing, health, and other patterns), increasing privacy and security concerns. Now is the time to engage with policymakers and advocate for regulatory clarity and for the well-being of consumers. 00:00 Welcome Back to One Vision + Introducing Jas Randhawa (StrategyBRIX)01:10 What Is the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP)? The Big Picture03:27 How UCP Works: Product Cataloging for AI Shopping Agents07:05 KYA (Know Your Agent): Identity, Authorization & Trust08:58 Chargebacks in Agentic Commerce: Who's Liable When Things Go Wrong?12:02 Fraud Detection Breaks: Geolocation, New Signals & Re-Engineering Controls13:44 Agent Independence & Consumer Protection: Bias, Collusion, and Oversight Gaps21:28 Regulatory Clarity (or Lack Thereof): The ‘Wild West' Phase + T&Cs Reality28:06 Time to Get Ready: Travel Use Cases, Audit Trails, and Dispute Proof33:26 Sanctions, VPNs, and High-Velocity Agent Behavior: Financial Crime Risks37:12 Are We Too Early? Will Consumers Adopt—and at What Cost?42:59 Privacy, Data Control & The Need for Neutral Standards Bodies (Wrap-Up)47:45 Final Thoughts#AI #AgenticCommerce #UCP #Agents #Fintech Hot take:  ”The amount of information this agent now needs to have about me is shocking and it scares me a little bit because you're talking about buying patterns, browsing patterns, sleeping patterns, health pattern. For this agent to be really effective, it just needs to know everything that's in my head, right? It's gonna be very effective, but that's again, a major risk because no one's watching out for the consumer.”Hot take: “ The future of this world is unfortunately not you or me. It's a lot of these younger kids, their ecosystem is a lot different. These products are being designed for them.”More about our guest

Connect to John Gilroy on LinkedIn   https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-gilroy/ Want to listen to other episodes? www.Federaltechpodcast.com Way back in 2011, one of the goals of FedRAMP was to eliminate software redundancy. The federal government had evolved to the point where one agency would spend millions of dollars on the same application program that the agency in the same zip code had just invested heavily in. The theory proposed by luminaries like Vivek Kundra was to move to the cloud to share services. Reducing cost and improving resilience. FedRAMP was the initiative that established a safe environment for federal cloud use. Companies can comply with regulations outlined in an Authorization to Operate (ATO). Well, fifteen years later, and we are seeing the same duplication not in the application programs, but in the process to get the ATO itself. For example, FedRAMP, RMF, and agency internal policies may require specific artifacts to satisfy one or the other. During the interview, Travis Howerton paints the legacy model—static documentation, annual/3-year audits, spreadsheets. His solution is to have AI assist with documentation, which will drastically reduce compliance time; he cites an example of reducing a process from 52 weeks to 356 weeks. RegScale uses OSCAL (XML/YAML/JSON) to auto-generate RMF artifacts and integrate with SIEMs (Splunk, Elastic), Axonius, ServiceNow, and APIs. Howerton understands the limitations of many automated systems and suggests that a human is a key component after the machine language has assembled the data to make the decision.    

Are UAS test ranges and FAA test sites the same thing… or totally different?In this episode of Your Drone Questions Answered, we sit down with Jesse Steele, Range Manager at the Pendleton UAS Range, to break down the real difference between FAA-designated UAS test sites and the ranges that operate under them. You'll learn:The difference between a UAS test site and a test rangeHow COAs (Certificates of Authorization) are created and managedWhy Pendleton offers 14,000 square miles of test airspaceWhat makes this location ideal for advanced testingThe types of companies and platforms testing there (from commercial to defense)Whether the public can visit or even fly at a range like thisFrom EVTOL projects like Airbus' Vahana to large-scale testing operations and cross-country drone flights, the Pendleton range has hosted 175+ unique companies and more than 67,000 test flights.If you've ever wondered how high-level UAS testing actually works in the United States—and who makes it possible—this episode gives you a behind-the-scenes look.To learn more about the range or schedule a tour, visit pendletonuasrange.comHave a drone question you'd like answered on a future episode? Visit ydqa.io and submit it.#Drones #UAS #DroneTesting #Aviation #FAA #DroneIndustry #UAV #EVTOL #CommercialDrones #DroneTechnology

This episode is sponsored by PlainID. Visit plainid.com/idac to learn more.In this sponsored episode, Jim McDonald and Jeff Steadman talk with Gal Helemski, CTO and co-founder of PlainID, about the evolving landscape of authorization. The conversation covers the transition from traditional roles and attributes to a modern policy-based access control (PBAC) approach. Gal explains how PlainID helps organizations centralize authorization logic, improve security posture, and simplify the management of access across complex hybrid and multi-cloud environments. The discussion also touches on the importance of visibility into who has access to what and the role of standards like Cedar and Rego in the future of authorization.Connect with Gal: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gal-helemski-b9542231/Learn more about PlainID: plainid.com/idacConnect with us on LinkedIn:Jim McDonald: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmcdonaldpmp/Jeff Steadman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffsteadman/Visit the show on the web at idacpodcast.comTimestamps:00:00 Introduction to the Sponsor Spotlight02:15 Meet Gal Helemski from PlainID05:30 The shift from RBAC to PBAC10:45 Challenges with traditional authorization methods15:20 How PlainID centralizes authorization logic22:10 Integrating with existing identity providers28:45 The role of visibility and auditing in authorization35:30 Discussion on authorization standards: Cedar and Rego42:15 Future trends in identity and access management50:00 Final thoughts and where to learn moreKeywords:IDAC, Identity at the Center, Jeff Steadman, Jim McDonald, PlainID, Authorization, Policy-Based Access Control, PBAC, RBAC, Cybersecurity, IAM, Access Management, Gal Helemski, Identity Security

When it comes to agents and MCPs, the interesting security discussion isn't that they need strong authentication and authorization, but what that authn/z story should look like, where does it get implemented, and who implements it. Dan Moore shares the useful parallels in securing APIs that should be brought into the world of MCPs -- especially because so many are still interacting with APIs. Resources https://stackoverflow.blog/2026/01/21/is-that-allowed-authentication-and-authorization-in-model-context-protocol/ https://fusionauth.io/articles/identity-basics/authorization-models Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw-369

When it comes to agents and MCPs, the interesting security discussion isn't that they need strong authentication and authorization, but what that authn/z story should look like, where does it get implemented, and who implements it. Dan Moore shares the useful parallels in securing APIs that should be brought into the world of MCPs -- especially because so many are still interacting with APIs. Resources https://stackoverflow.blog/2026/01/21/is-that-allowed-authentication-and-authorization-in-model-context-protocol/ https://fusionauth.io/articles/identity-basics/authorization-models Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw-369

When it comes to agents and MCPs, the interesting security discussion isn't that they need strong authentication and authorization, but what that authn/z story should look like, where does it get implemented, and who implements it. Dan Moore shares the useful parallels in securing APIs that should be brought into the world of MCPs -- especially because so many are still interacting with APIs. Resources https://stackoverflow.blog/2026/01/21/is-that-allowed-authentication-and-authorization-in-model-context-protocol/ https://fusionauth.io/articles/identity-basics/authorization-models Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw-369

What does a NASA authorization bill actually do, and why does it matter? In this episode of Space Policy Edition, we dig into one of the most misunderstood but powerful tools Congress uses to shape the future of U.S. space exploration. Host Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, is joined by Jack Kiraly, the Society’s director of government relations, for a deep dive into how NASA authorization bills work, how they differ from appropriations, and why they can have decades-long consequences for science missions, human spaceflight, and planetary defense. The discussion also reflects on a major recent win for space advocates: Congress’s bipartisan decision to protect NASA science funding. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/spe-what-is-a-nasa-authorization-billSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chief of Space Policy Casey Dreier and Director of Government Relations Jack Kiraly break down what NASA authorization bills actually do and why these laws matter for long-term U.S. space policy, from science missions to human spaceflight and planetary defense.

This Day in Legal History: “Axis of Evil”On January 29, 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his first State of the Union address after the September 11 attacks, a speech that would shape U.S. legal and foreign policy for years to come. During the address, Bush coined the term “Axis of Evil” to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, alleging these nations were actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism. The speech marked a significant rhetorical shift in the U.S. posture toward preemptive military action and helped solidify a legal framework for broad executive authority in the name of national security. Citing the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the Bush administration would go on to justify military interventions without new Congressional declarations of war.The “Axis of Evil” framing played a critical role in building public and political support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Though the legal justification centered on Iraq's supposed weapons programs and ties to terrorism, both claims were later discredited, leading to intense scrutiny of the legal rationale behind the war. Domestically, the period following the speech saw rapid expansion of executive power, new surveillance authorities, and detention practices that raised constitutional concerns. Internationally, the speech signaled a departure from multilateral norms and toward unilateral action under the banner of American security interests.The legal legacy of the address continues to reverberate in debates over presidential war powers and the limits of the AUMF. Critics argue the speech set a precedent for indefinite military engagement without sufficient Congressional oversight. Supporters contend it met the urgency of a new kind of threat in the post-9/11 world. Regardless of viewpoint, the 2002 State of the Union redefined the intersection of law, war, and foreign policy in the 21st century.A preliminary review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) into the murder of Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis did not state that Pretti brandished a firearm, contradicting earlier claims by Trump officials. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, was shot after reportedly refusing to move from the street when ordered by a customs officer. Initial official statements described Pretti as an armed threat, with the Department of Homeland Security noting he had a handgun—though it was holstered—and Trump aide Stephen Miller labeling him a “domestic terrorist” without evidence. However, video footage from the scene challenged these claims, showing an agent removing a holstered weapon from Pretti's waist before the shooting.The CBP review, based on body camera footage and internal documents, said officers attempted to move Pretti and a woman from the street and used pepper spray when they didn't comply. A struggle followed, during which a Border Patrol agent shouted “He's got a gun!” before both agents opened fire. The review, which is standard protocol, was shared with lawmakers but emphasized it contained no final conclusions. The identities and experience levels of the involved officers, particularly regarding urban crowd control, remain undisclosed. The incident has sparked national controversy and prompted a more restrained response from Trump in its aftermath.U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm | ReutersThe U.S. federal judiciary may only be able to continue full paid operations through February 4 if Congress does not pass funding legislation in time to avert a partial government shutdown. Judge Robert Conrad, who oversees the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a memo warning of the looming shortfall, stating that while courts will remain open on February 2, they would quickly exhaust available funds by February 4. The uncertainty comes amid a broader funding standoff in Congress, where a six-bill package—including money for defense, housing, transportation, and a $9.2 billion judiciary allocation—is stalled.A key point of contention is the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), especially following the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti by immigration officers. Senate Democrats are now refusing to approve DHS funding without reforms, throwing into doubt whether the broader package can pass. Although the bills had passed the Republican-controlled House and previously seemed poised for Senate approval, the Pretti incident has triggered renewed partisan gridlock.If no agreement is reached, this shutdown could affect the judiciary much sooner than the previous lapse in 2025, when courts operated for over two weeks before curtailing services. The current funding crisis threatens court staffing, case management, and broader access to justice. The memo underscores the fragile position of the courts in a prolonged budget standoff, with potential furloughs and suspended operations looming if a deal isn't struck.US judiciary may not be able to fully maintain operations past Feb. 4 in government shutdown | ReutersGoogle has agreed to pay $135 million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of collecting Android users' cellular data without their consent. The settlement, filed in federal court in San Jose, California, still needs judicial approval. The lawsuit claimed that even when users closed Google apps, disabled location sharing, or locked their devices, Google continued to gather mobile data, which users had paid for through their carriers. Plaintiffs alleged this behavior amounted to “conversion,” a legal term referring to the unauthorized taking of someone's property for one's own use.Though Google denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to stop transferring data without user consent during Android device setup. The company will also update its Google Play terms to clearly disclose data transfers and give users simpler options to disable them. The case covers Android users dating back to November 12, 2017. If approved, users could receive up to $100 each from the settlement fund.Plaintiffs' attorneys described the agreement as the largest known payout in a conversion case, and they may seek nearly $40 million in legal fees. A trial had been set for August 2026 before the settlement was reached. Google has not commented on the resolution.Google to pay $135 million to settle Android data transfer lawsuit | ReutersGoogle to Pay $135 Million to Settle Android Phone-Data SuitA Christian substitute teacher, Kimberly Ann Polk, has lost her attempt to revive First Amendment claims against Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) after refusing to use transgender students' pronouns. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision, finding Polk unlikely to succeed on claims that the district's pronoun policy violated her free speech and religious freedom rights. The court ruled she failed to show any evidence of religious hostility from the school board and did not meet the legal threshold to proceed with her constitutional claims.Polk argued that MCPS's policy, which requires staff to use names and pronouns aligned with students' gender identities and bars disclosing those identities to unsupportive parents, conflicted with her belief that gender is fixed at birth. While the court dismissed her constitutional claims, it allowed her separate Title VII claim for religious accommodation to proceed. This claim argues that MCPS violated federal civil rights law by not making space for her religious beliefs in its employment practices.The decision was split, with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissenting. He called the school policy a “gross assault upon the First Amendment” and argued Polk had a valid free speech claim. The case reflects ongoing national legal tensions between employee religious rights and school policies supporting LGBTQ+ students. Notably, another federal appeals court had previously sided with a teacher in a similar dispute, signaling a potential circuit split.Christian Teacher Can't Undo Pronoun Case First Amendment Loss This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

OAuth is a widely used authorization (not authentication) protocol that lets a resource owner grant access to a resource using access tokens. These tokens define access attributes, including scope and length of time. OAuth can be used to grant access to human and non-human entities (for example, AI agents). OAuth is increasingly being abused by... Read more »

OAuth is a widely used authorization (not authentication) protocol that lets a resource owner grant access to a resource using access tokens. These tokens define access attributes, including scope and length of time. OAuth can be used to grant access to human and non-human entities (for example, AI agents). OAuth is increasingly being abused by... Read more »

Data security relies on clarity around authorization controls and assets, but AI tools can risk exposure sensitive information as they are increasingly being integrated into everything we use. In this episode of Security Noise, Geoff is joined by Principal Security Consultant Drew Kirkpatrick as they dive into the use of LLMs such as Microsoft Copilot at organizations and its implications for data security and authorization. They explore the importance of data classification policies and the potential risks associated with using AI tools at work. The conversation also touches on the effectiveness of data leak protection controls and the need for a review process for agent deployment. What's the agent doing behind the scenes and is it connecting to other agents? About this podcast: Security Noise, a TrustedSec Podcast hosted by Geoff Walton and Producer/Contributor Skyler Tuter, features our cybersecurity experts in conversation about the infosec topics that interest them the most. Find more cybersecurity resources on our website at https://trustedsec.com/resources.

A new congressional spending bill could offer a lifeline to reauthorize the Technology Modernization Fund, which expired last month and froze nearly $200 million in unused funds. Congressional appropriators released the final slew of fiscal 2026 spending bills Tuesday, allocating more than $1 trillion to federal agencies and extending various laws or programs. Among the extensions is the reauthorization of the TMF through FY2026, or Sept. 30. It comes just over a month after authorization of the innovation funding vehicle expired Dec. 12. TMF was created in 2017 to fund technology projects across the government, but the bill that made it also set an expiration date that only Congress can extend. Lawmakers failed to move forward with standalone legislation to reauthorize the fund last month, and efforts to include it in larger spending packages also fell flat. Trade groups and IT industry experts were disappointed at the time, telling FedScoop in previous interviews that the expiration was not representative of the issue's typical bipartisan support. Some pinned the blame on procedural hurdles in Congress, including the 43-day-long government shutdown that pushed various nonfunding priorities toward the end of the year. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced bills in the last three Congresses to reauthorize TMF beyond 2025, but they did not make it out of the Senate, where they have at times faced pushback from congressional appropriators. Members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency embedded in the Social Security Administration potentially exposed personally identifiable information via a third-party server, the Department of Justice said in a court filing that also revealed coordination between DOGE and an advocacy group seeking “evidence of voter fraud.” A lawsuit filed last February by the AFL-CIO and other labor groups against the SSA sought to cut off DOGE's access to sensitive data housed in agency systems. In March, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a temporary restraining order to limit that access. But after an SSA records review of the agency's “former DOGE Team for audit and litigation purposes,” the DOJ said in a filing dated Friday that “communications, use of data, and other actions” were found to be “potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant” with the court's order. One of those instances involved DOGE's sharing of data via a third-party Cloudflare server — a system that is “not approved for storing SSA data and when used in this manner is outside SSA's security protocols,” the DOJ wrote. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

Let's talk about Trump's authorization to go after Greenland and Iran....

Hello nerds.It's been a while since I sat down and did what Nerds for Humanity was originally built for. Not shorts. Not algorithms. Not rage bait. But long-form, structural analysis of how power actually works in this country, and why things that feel shocking in the moment are often the predictable outcome of rules written decades ago.This livestream was about Trump's military operation in Venezuela. But not in the way cable news framed it.I wasn't interested in relitigating whether Trump is reckless, authoritarian, or dangerous. If you're reading this Substack, you already know where you land on that. The more important question is this.How was he able to do it?How was a single president able to order a major military operation against a sovereign country, deploy massive air and naval assets, seize the country's leader from its capital, and then inform Congress afterward?The uncomfortable truth is that Trump didn't invent some new authoritarian power. He exploited one that has been sitting in plain sight for more than fifty years.And worse, he did so largely within the mechanics of existing law.The law that was supposed to stop thisIn 1973, in the shadow of Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. Its purpose was simple. Presidents were not supposed to be able to drag the country into war on their own.The law created two central guardrails.First, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing US forces into hostilities.Second, unless Congress authorizes the action, those hostilities must end within 60 days, with an additional 30-day period allowed for withdrawal.At the time, this seemed reasonable. Military action moved slowly. Wars took time to prepare. You could not overthrow a government in a weekend. The assumption was that Congress would have ample opportunity to intervene before anything irreversible happened.As I said on the livestream,“At that time in 1973 the thinking was well, surely no one can invade a country and capture the head of state inside of 48 hours. They would need weeks to prepare for it.”That assumption is now dangerously obsolete.We are using 1973 traffic laws for modern warfareOne analogy I used resonated with a lot of people.Trying to govern modern warfare with the War Powers Resolution is like applying 1970s traffic rules to autonomous flying cars.The law was written for an era of B-52 bombers, carrier groups, and weeks-long mobilizations. It was not written for drones, cyber operations, special forces insertions, precision strikes, and operations capable of destabilizing or decapitating a regime in days or even hours.Today, a president can dramatically alter another country's political reality before Congress has even finished debating whether the notification email landed in the right inbox.The time-based trigger is the flaw. It assumes time equals restraint. That is no longer true.As I put it during the stream,“This time-based system is flawed. It doesn't work for a world where you can basically destabilize and replace a regime in a few hours.”Trump didn't invent this powerIt is tempting to treat Trump as a unique aberration. He isn't.Modern presidents of both parties have steadily expanded executive war-making authority.George H. W. Bush built up a massive military force in the Gulf before Congress voted, and then received authorization shortly before the 1991 Gulf War began.George W. Bush secured a separate 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force to invade Iraq, and the post-9/11 era normalized expansive readings of both congressional authorizations and Article II authority.The Obama administration conducted extensive drone campaigns and the Libya intervention without a formal declaration of war, arguing that certain operations did not meet the War Powers Resolution's definition of “hostilities.”Every modern president has pushed the envelope. Trump simply sprinted through it.As I said on the livestream,“This has been a loophole that's been used by many presidents. We just relied on them to exercise judgment and honor the office. That honor code is clearly gone.”A system that relies on voluntary restraint is not a system. It is a gamble.Language laundering: from war to “kinetic action”One of the most revealing shifts has been linguistic.Presidents learned that if you do not call something a war, you do not need a declaration of war.So we get euphemisms.“Kinetic action.”“Law enforcement operation.”“Targeted strike.”As I pointed out,“They don't want to say we are conducting warfare. If you don't call it a war, then you don't need a declaration of war.”This is how large-scale military action against a sovereign state becomes a “police-like operation.”If another country flew dozens of military aircraft into Washington, DC and seized the US president, we would call it an act of war without hesitation. Euphemisms only work when we are the ones using them.The public justifications kept shiftingThe administration's public rationale for the Venezuela operation evolved quickly.Initial statements emphasized fentanyl and drug trafficking. Analysts and critics noted that available trafficking data does not identify Venezuela as a significant fentanyl source, which raised questions about that justification.Subsequent messaging emphasized cocaine trafficking and broader security threats, but those claims were also contested.What became clearer over time was that the operation was aimed at exerting decisive pressure on the Maduro regime itself.As I said during the livestream,“What some messaging from inside Trump's orbit suggested was that this was really about regime change.”Trump later publicly discussed American oil companies entering Venezuela, reclaiming seized assets, and modernizing infrastructure as part of a post-Maduro arrangement.If that sounds familiar, it should.“That sounds a little colonial to me.”Because it does.The moral high ground is not abstractEvery time the US violates the sovereignty of another nation under contested legal theories, it weakens the norms it relies on to restrain other powers.As one viewer put it during the livestream,“I'm afraid the US just gave a license to Russia to take Ukraine and China to take Taiwan.”You cannot argue that international law matters only when it constrains other countries. Either it restrains power, or it doesn't.Trump's actions did not just affect Venezuela. They further eroded America's standing in a world already drifting toward a more unstable multipolar order.This is bigger than TrumpOne of my core arguments, and the reason this livestream mattered, is simple.Trump will not be the last president to exploit this structure.Even if Trump disappears tomorrow, the authority remains.History shows that presidents, particularly lame ducks, often become more willing to take foreign risks once electoral constraints disappear.As I said,“We can't rely on Trump or any president. Every president eventually realizes how much power this office has.”This is not about stopping one man. It is about fixing a system that assumes good faith in an era where bad faith is a governing strategy.How the law could actually be fixedThe War Powers Resolution does not need cosmetic reform. It needs modernization aligned with modern warfare.I outlined several possible approaches.First, scale-based triggers. Certain actions should automatically require prior authorization, regardless of duration, such as the use of specific aircraft types, large troop deployments, or major munitions thresholds.Second, target-based triggers. Actions aimed at heads of state, national command infrastructure, or critical civilian systems should never fall under a post-hoc notification model.Third, funding enforcement. If authorization is not granted, funding freezes. No money, no mission.As I argued,“Sometimes the US will have to use force. But introducing liabilities for the whole country should not be determined by one branch alone.”In corporate governance, CEOs cannot acquire companies without board approval. Presidents should not be able to remake countries without congressional consent.A simple test for candidatesThe good news is that this is a fixable problem.Congress can change this law.And elections create leverage.As I said on the livestream,“Now is a great time to ask every candidate one simple question. Do you support updating the War Powers Resolution?”Not a detailed proposal. Not a legal dissertation. Just whether they believe the current system is acceptable.If a candidate believes any president should have a 60-day blank check to wage war, they should say so plainly.The uncomfortable truthI said this near the end of the stream, and it bears repeating.“This is a known vulnerability in the system. It's just time to patch the bug.”We like to tell ourselves that American democracy is protected by norms, traditions, and good people.But systems that rely on virtue instead of constraints always fail eventually.Trump did not invent this power. He stress-tested it.And it failed.Support the channelIf you found this analysis useful and want Nerds for Humanity to keep doing long-form work like this, consider supporting the channel directly.You can become a YouTube channel member to help cover operating costs and get a shout-out on every livestream.Thanks for sticking with the long version.Bye nerds. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nerdsforhumanity.substack.com

Slava Mayer - Authorization 001 2026

How is zero-trust security evolving? Michele Leroux Bustamante discusses the challenges CISOs face today in controlling access to infrastructure, authenticating and authorizing users, and managing the ongoing evolution of an organization's dependencies. The conversation digs into the variety of stacks available to address various elements of an organization's security requirements. Michele also talks about the NIST Cybersecurity Framework as a starting point for understanding the security elements your organization needs to focus on and improve—security is a continuum, not a destination!LinksAzure EntraAuth0DuendeKeyCloakNIST Cybersecurity FrameworkOpen Policy AgentPolicy ServerDefender for CloudAzure API ManagementAzure Front DoorRecorded October 29, 2025

In this episode of Security Matters, host David Puner welcomes back David Higgins, senior director in CyberArk's Field Technology Office, for a timely conversation about the evolving cyber threat landscape. Higgins explains why today's attackers aren't breaking in—they're logging in—using stolen credentials, AI-powered social engineering, and deepfakes to bypass traditional defenses and exploit trust.The discussion explores how the rise of AI is eroding critical thinking, making it easier for even seasoned professionals to fall for convincing scams. Higgins and Puner break down the dangers of instant answers, the importance of “never trust, always verify,” and why zero standing privilege is essential for defending against insider threats. They also tackle the risks of shadow AI, the growing challenge of misinformation, and how organizations can build a culture of vigilance without creating a climate of mistrust.Whether you're a security leader, IT professional, or just curious about the future of digital trust, this episode delivers actionable insights on identity security, cyber hygiene, and the basics that matter more than ever in 2026 and beyond.

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. PEACE TALKS: Want Jordan's advice on how to navigate relationships amid the polarizing political climate? ⁠SUBMIT YOUR DILEMMA HERE⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: What We Know About the Follow-Up Strike on the Alleged Drug Boat in the Caribbean (1:12) Trump Threatens to Void All Biden Actions Signed With Autopen, But Can He? (13:42) ICE to Target Somali Migrants in Minnesota Amid Accusations of Fraud; Here's What We Know (~21:27) White House Launches New 'Media Bias' Webpage (~44:13) Quick Hitters: Dell Family Donates $6.25B to Trump Accounts, New DoD Inspector General Report on Hegseth's Signal Chat, Trump Pardons Democratic Representative (~47:29) Rumor Has It: Did the DOJ Spend Nearly $1M in Overtime Pay for Agents to Redact Epstein Files? Does Kamala Harris Want the Voting Age Lowered to 16? (~50:02) Critical Thinking Segment (~53:01) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

(December 04, 2025) Insurers promise to ease authorization burden after UnitedHealthcare CEO’s murder… Here’s what happened. How to claim ‘Trump Accounts’ for kids after $6BIL contribution. Ultra-Orthodox Conscription bill threatens crisis for Israel’s government. Even affluent American’s don’t feel wealthy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our entire premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast An all-star activist panel has been assembled to answer Briahna's questions about the strategy and efficacy of contemporary direct actions. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of feminist anti-war organization code pink, Palestinian activist Hazami Barmada, who staged last week's viral "Thanksgiving" demonstration outside of Union Station in DC featuring demonstrators dressed as Trump, Netanyahu, & other war criminals; and Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, all bring their expertise and courage to the question of how direct action can fill the role historically played by organized labor, and how the left can exploit mass protests to greater effect. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).