Podcasts about United States Intelligence Community

Today on Lawfare No Bull: On March 25, the Senate Intelligence Committee held the annual Worldwide Threats hearing based on the Annual Threat Assessment of the United States Intelligence Community. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, National Security Agency and Central Security Service Director Timothy Haugh, and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Jeffrey Kruse testified before the committee. Members of the intelligence committee questioned the witnesses about their participation in a Signal group chat that discussed plans to conduct strikes in Yemen, threats posed by Russia and China, the intelligence community's assessment of emerging threats, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today on Lawfare No Bull: On March 26, the House Intelligence Committee held the annual Worldwide Threats hearing based on the Annual Threat Assessment of the United States Intelligence Community. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, National Security Agency and Central Security Service Director Timothy Haugh, and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Jeffrey Kruse testified before the committee. Members of the intelligence committee questioned the witnesses about their participation in a Signal group chat that discussed plans to conduct strikes in Yemen, threats posed by Russia and China, the intelligence community's assessment of emerging threats, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

pWotD Episode 2749: 2016 United States presidential election Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 225,331 views on Sunday, 10 November 2024 our article of the day is 2016 United States presidential election.The 2016 United States presidential election was the 58th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. The Republican ticket of businessman Donald Trump and Indiana governor Mike Pence defeated the Democratic ticket of former secretary of state and First Lady of the United States Hillary Clinton and Virginia junior senator Tim Kaine, in what was considered one of the biggest political upsets in American history. It was the fifth and most recent presidential election in which the winning candidate lost the popular vote. It was also the sixth and most recent presidential election in U. S. history in which both major party candidates were registered in the same home state; the others have been in 1860, 1904, 1920, 1940, and 1944.Incumbent Democratic president Barack Obama was ineligible to pursue a third term due to the term limits established by the Twenty-second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Clinton secured the nomination over U. S. senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and became the first female presidential nominee of a major American political party. Trump emerged as his party's front-runner amidst a wide field of candidates in the Republican primary, defeating, among other candidates, U. S. senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and governors John Kasich and Jeb Bush. Trump's right-wing populist, nationalist campaign, which promised to "Make America Great Again" and opposed political correctness, illegal immigration, and many United States free-trade agreements, garnered extensive free media coverage due to Trump's inflammatory comments. Clinton emphasized her extensive political experience, denounced Trump and many of his supporters as a "basket of deplorables", bigots, and extremists, and advocated the expansion of president Barack Obama's policies, racial, LGBT, and women's rights, and inclusive capitalism.The tone of the general election campaign was widely characterized as divisive, negative, and troubling. Trump faced controversy over his views on race and immigration, incidents of violence against protesters at his rallies, and numerous sexual misconduct allegations including the Access Hollywood tape. Clinton's popularity and public image were tarnished by concerns about her ethics and trustworthiness, and a controversy and subsequent FBI investigation regarding her improper use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state, which received more media coverage than any other topic during the campaign. Clinton led in almost every nationwide and swing-state poll, with some predictive models giving Clinton over a 90 percent chance of winning.On Election Day, Trump over-performed his polls, winning several key swing states, while losing the popular vote by 2.87 million votes. Trump received the majority in the Electoral College and won upset victories in the Democratic-leaning Rust Belt states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The pivotal victory in this region, which Trump won by fewer than 80,000 votes in the three states with the combined 46 electoral votes, was considered the catalyst that won him the Electoral College vote. Trump's surprise victories were perceived to have been assisted by Clinton's lack of campaigning in the region, the rightward shift of the white working class, and the influence of Sanders–Trump voters who refused to back her after Bernie Sanders dropped out. Ultimately, Trump received 304 electoral votes and Clinton 227, as two faithless electors defected from Trump and five from Clinton. Trump flipped six states that had voted Democratic in 2012: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as Maine's 2nd congressional district. Trump was the first president with neither prior public service nor military experience. With ballot access to the entire national electorate, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson received nearly 4.5 million votes (3.27%), the highest nationwide vote share for a third-party candidate since Ross Perot in 1996, while Green Party nominee Jill Stein received almost 1.45 million votes (1.06%). Independent candidate Evan McMullin received 21.4% of the vote in his home state of Utah, the highest share of the vote for a non-major party candidate in any state since 1992.On January 6, 2017, the United States Intelligence Community concluded that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 elections, and that it did so in order to "undermine public faith in the U. S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency". A Special Counsel investigation of alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign began in May 2017, and ended in March 2019. The investigation concluded that Russian interference in favor of Trump's candidacy occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government".This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:58 UTC on Monday, 11 November 2024.For the full current version of the article, see 2016 United States presidential election on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm standard Kimberly.

On Today's Episode – Mark rolls right into introducing our returning guest, Drew Berquist.  Mark talks a little about the Kroger Heath Fest in a couple weeks in Cincinnati.  Mark then pivots back to Drew, and the guys talk about the 2ns assassination attempt on former President Trump. Drew talks a little about leadership, and how some are just born with it.  Trump is a badass, he's just next level all the while these attempts are being made on his life.  Mark gets into some nerd talk about genetics and how some people are hard wired warriors. It is a pretty small group of people in D.C. who are generally interested in doing their job FOR the American people.  Kamala has now done less interviews than Trump has dodged bullets.  Tune in for all the fun   https://x.com/drewberquist   Drew's Book   Drew Berquist is a producer, writer and on-air talent. He is the host of “This is my Show with Drew Berquist.” His programming has aired on CRTV, BlazeTV, and LifeZetteTV. Additionally, he has also hosted “Headlines Tonight with Drew Berquist” and “This Week in the News with Drew Berquist” both televised nationally on One America News Network. Prior to his work in digital media, he served as a counterterrorism officer for the United States Intelligence Community, where he performed more than thirty deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct intelligence operations against the Taliban, al-Qai'da and more recently ISIS. Drew also serves as the National Spokesman for Mammoth Nation, and routinely comments on national security and political matters on network television.

How do we live in the world but not of the world? This is a timeless question that people of faith have asked themselves when evaluating how to live their lives, however when politics becomes intertwined the parameters are often blurred.   Former Senior White House and United States Intelligence Community official under former President Trump, Cliff Sims delves into his firsthand account of the clash between politics & spirituality when holding a position of power. Cliff also shares anecdotes from his latest book, The Darkness Has Not Overcome: Lessons on Faith and Politics from Inside the Halls of Power. Follow Trey on X: @TGowdySC Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode Summary:This week we are joined by Vinita Fordham, a technology leader working at the cutting edge. Vinita is Chief Innovation Officer for Bridge Core, LLC and previously served as an AI specialist leader at Deloitte focused on delivering and advocating for mission ready AI strategies and solutions. She also served as a senior executive in the United States Intelligence Community. Tune in to hear how her older brother's love for engineering encouraged and inspired her career path and how she developed a passion for the intelligence mission. Show Notes:02:40 Louisiana State University (LSU) 05:25 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) 08:35 Bihar, India 12:00 In-Q-Tel (IQT) 26:30 CIA, Digital Futures Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"The federal government is stepping up its efforts to counter foreign disinformation." In this episode, we explore the lesser-known agencies within the United States Intelligence Community. With the rise of false information and disinformation as a major threat, the federal government is increasing its efforts to counter foreign disinformation. The Director of National Intelligence discusses the establishment of a farm line influence center and their work in understanding the plans and intentions of key actors in this space, including China, Russia, and Iran. We also hear from Brady Roberts, COO of Emergent Risk International, and Andrea Leibman, an analyst with the Psychological Defense Agency of Sweden. Join us as we delve into the complex world of intelligence agencies and the battle against disinformation. [00:02:11] China, Russia, Iran. [00:08:01] Russian influence on Sweden. [00:10:33] Deplatforming and outing actors. [00:13:19] Government body for investigating disinformation. [00:19:41] Government organization and enforcement. [00:21:55] CISA Got questions, comments or ideas or an example of disinformation you'd like us to check out? Send them to paulb@emergentriskinternational.com. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Special thanks to our guests Brady Roberts and Andrea Leibman, our sound designer and editor Noah Foutz, audio engineer Nathan Corson, and executive producers Michael DeAloia and Gerardo Orlando. Thanks so much for listening. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Samantha Ravich, Chairman for the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at Foundation for Defense of Democracies joins the podcast this week. She shares insights from her many years on the geopolitical and economic front lines of cyber, and work with many renowned government leaders, on developing a plan of action to address today's cyber threat landscape and looming threat against critical infrastructure and essential services. She also provides perspective on building resiliency, what we can learn from natural disasters relative to cyber attacks, as well as the opportunity and impact of states creating and driving their own continuity of the economy plans. Dr. Samantha Ravich, Chairman, Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, Foundation for Defense of Democracies ---- Dr. Samantha Ravich is the chairman of FDD's Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation and its Transformative Cyber Innovation Lab and the principal investigator on FDD's Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project. She is also a senior advisor at FDD, serving on the advisory boards of FDD's Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP) and Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP). Samantha serves as a commissioner on the congressionally mandated Cyberspace Solarium Commission and as a member of the U.S. Secret Service's Cyber Investigation Advisory Board. Samantha served as deputy national security advisor for Vice President Cheney, focusing on Asian and Middle East Affairs as well as on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation. Following her time at the White House, Samantha was the Republican co-chair of the congressionally mandated National Commission for Review of Research and Development Programs in the United States Intelligence Community. Most recently, she served as vice chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) and co-chair of the Artificial Intelligence Working Group of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. She is advisor on cyber and geo-political threats and trends to numerous technology, manufacturing, and services companies; a managing partner of A2P, a social data analytics firm; and on the board of directors for International Game Technology (NYSE:IGT). Her book, Marketization and Democracy: East Asian Experiences (Cambridge University Press) is used as a basic textbook in international economics, political science, and Asian studies college courses. Samantha is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and advises the U.S. Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense. She is a frequent keynote speaker on: What Corporate Boards need to know about Cyber Security and Warfare; The Longer-Term Trends in International Security; and the Future of Intelligence Collection and Analysis. Samantha received her PhD in Policy Analysis from the RAND Graduate School and her MCP/BSE from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. --- https://www.linkedin.com/in/samantha-ravich-7b5aa08b/ For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e254

This episode of Over the Edge features an interview between Matt Trifiro and Jay Limbasiya, Global AI & Data Science business Development Lead at Dell Technologies. With a background in the United States Intelligence Community, Jay specializes in AI, data science, analytics, and data management. Matt and Jay discuss why we should care about the edge, the complexities of deciding where to treat data and the last mile problem. They also talk about the benefits of data lakehouses and the current debate around the dangers of AI. ---------Key Quotes:“You can use this data maybe ten years down the road for something else, right? You can use it for a completely different type of use case you never even thought of. And that's why the data is so valuable. It's not so much the algorithm itself, it's can you capture this data and even save this data for maybe technology that hasn't even come out yet?”“It definitely doesn't make sense to me to completely say, Hey, the data's too large at the edge, so we're just not gonna consume it… that obviously doesn't make sense. I think there's a efficiency play out here as well. And that efficiency play is, obviously it costs money to store data, so let's make sure we store the right data.”“What's the value of the data that you're collecting and how can these pieces of data enhance the algorithm at the edge? Because even though you deploy something on the edge in order to refine it for future trends, maybe four years down the road, or three years down the road, you still need data to be able to kind of do that R and D work.”“The core is actually where you identify, is there data I'm missing? Is there something I haven't even collected?”---------Show Timestamps:(02:30) Jay's start in technology(07:01) Working in U.S. intelligence(09:00) Why we should care about edge?(13:26) How to make decisions about managing and treating data(18:45) The Last Mile Problem (26:00) Data cleansing(29:00) Data analysis at the edge (30:00) Training the models and pushing them towards the edge(35:14) Data lakehouses(44:42) Jay's thoughts on the dangers of AI--------Sponsor:Over the Edge is brought to you by Dell Technologies to unlock the potential of your infrastructure with edge solutions. From hardware and software to data and operations, across your entire multi-cloud environment, we're here to help you simplify your edge so you can generate more value. Learn more by visiting DellTechnologies.com/SimplifyYourEdge for more information or click on the link in the show notes.--------Links:Follow Matt Trifiro on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mtrifiroFollow Matt Trifiro on LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/mtrifiroConnect with Jay Limbasiya on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaylimbasiya/www.CaspianStudios.com

Join us for a groundbreaking live stream featuring Vinnie Adams of Disclosure Team and Christopher Sharp of The Liberation Times as they delve into the explosive revelations from The Debrief that the United States is in possession of crashed UFOs of extraterrestrial origin. In this exclusive interview, they will discuss the recent article that unveils classified information provided by a former intelligence official turned whistleblower to Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The whistleblower, David Charles Grusch, has disclosed extensive details about deeply covert programs involving the retrieval of intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin.According to Grusch, these covert programs have been ongoing for decades, conducted by the government, its allies, and defense contractors. The retrieved objects are of exotic origin, possessing unique atomic arrangements, radiological signatures, and advanced material science. Grusch's complaint alleges that Congress has been illegally kept in the dark about these programs, and he has faced illegal retaliation for his confidential disclosures.With corroborating information from other intelligence officials, both active and retired, the implications of this disclosure are far-reaching. The live stream will explore the significance of these revelations for national security and the implications for our understanding of non-human intelligence.As Vinnie Adams and Christopher Sharp engage in a riveting discussion, they will address the covert nature of these programs, the historical context dating back to World War II, and the ongoing competition between nations to exploit and reverse-engineer these technologies. They will also touch on the challenges faced in bringing this information to light and the growing determination within Congress to seek answers regarding unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP).This live stream will feature in-depth analysis and insights from experts in the field, including Karl E. Nell, a retired Army Colonel who worked closely with Grusch, and Jonathan Grey, a generational officer of the United States Intelligence Community specializing in UAP analysis. They will shed light on the global nature of this phenomenon and the urgent need for a coordinated solution.Don't miss this exclusive live stream as Vinnie Adams and Christopher Sharp unpack the shocking disclosures, discuss their implications, and provide a platform for experts to share their perspectives on this unprecedented revelation. Join us for an eye-opening conversation that challenges our understanding of the world and the presence of non-human intelligence.You can find Chris Sharp at:https://www.liberationtimes.com/Twitter:https://twitter.com/ChrisUKSharpTwitter:https://twitter.com/LiberationTimesVinnie Adams has studied the UFO/UAP subject for over a decade. In 2020 he started Disclosure Team, a social media-based outlet for the latest news, UFO/UAP photos, videos, and more. In 2021 he started the podcast ‘Disclosure Team' where he interviews prominent figures in the UAP community. During that same year, Vinnie became a member of UAP Media UK, a central resource on the UAP subject for Britain's members of Parliament, national and local media, and private and public organizations. Vinnie has also spent time in the field investigating UFOs/UAP, most recently taking repeated trips to Colombia to investigate a case involving mysterious light phenomena. Vinnie was recently joined by his new co-host Katie Howland to host the Disclosure Team show.#ufoキャッチャー #uap #thegoodtroubleshow The Good Trouble Show:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TheGoodTroubleShowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheGoodTroubleShowTwitter: https://twitter.com/GoodTroubleShowInstagram: @goodtroubleshowTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@goodtroubleshowFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/The-Good-Trouble-Show-With-Matt-Ford-106009712211646

Cliff Sims sits down with Evan and talks about his former roles while in the white house under the Trump presidency on this weeks episode of the BRCC Podcast. About: Clifton David Sims is an American entrepreneur, author and former senior White House and United States Intelligence Community official. He served as Special Assistant to the President and Director of White House Message Strategy, and later as Deputy Director of National Intelligence during the Trump Administration. https://cliffsims.com/ https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/ Follow the show on Instagram and Twitter: IG: @blackriflecoffeepodcast Twitter: @brccpodcast #podcast #blackriflecoffee

That was the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff casually admitting that he blackmailed social media companies to censor speech he does not like. Social media companies could not exist without immunity for what their users post. What Schiff confessed was nothing short of saying that if social media companies don't do what he says he will destroy their business model. This is a brazen and unconstitutional violation of everyone's First Amendment rights. But it goes beyond Schiff and it's not just about silencing Americans. At the end of the day, Schiff is just a mouthpiece of the intelligence community. Thanks to new Twitter Files we can now prove that the United States Intelligence Community engaged in a complex influence operation to make Joe Biden president. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

Matt Taibbi released the sixth installment of the Twitter Files over the weekend, exposing the company as, essentially, a cutout for the US intelligence community. From FOX News: Substack writer Matt Taibbi added a "supplemental" thread on Sunday to his latest "Twitter Files" drop on FBI connections with the social media site. After revealing on Friday in the sixth iteration of the "Twitter Files" that Twitter employees had near constant communication with FBI agents from 2020 to 2022, Taibbi detailed an additional conflict between the federal agency and the social media company when the FBI appeared displeased with Twitter's responses. "In July of 2020, San Francisco FBI agent Elvis Chan tells Twitter executive Yoel Roth to expect written questions from the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), the inter-agency group that deals with cyber threats," Taibbi tweeted. He continued, "The questionnaire authors seem displeased with Twitter for implying, in a July 20th ‘DHS/ODNI/FBI/Industry briefing,' that ‘you indicated you had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.'" Although Taibbi noted that "one would think" that report from Twitter would be "good news," FBI agents appeared to "feel otherwise." He emphasized that Chan remarked that discussions within the United States Intelligence Community pushed for "clarifications" withing Twitter on its propaganda monitoring, often using mainstream media articles as sources. "The task force demanded to know how Twitter came to its unpopular conclusion. Oddly, it included a bibliography of public sources - including a Wall Street Journal article - attesting to the prevalence of foreign threats, as if to show Twitter they got it wrong," Taibbi explained. "Roth, receiving the questions, circulated them with other company executives, and complained that he was ‘frankly perplexed by the requests here, which seem more like something we'd get from a congressional committee than the Bureau.'"      Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's show is dedicated to The Twitter Files part 6, which dropped late Friday night and had a supplemental drop on Sunday night. The entire episode is about how the FBI treated Twitter like a wholly owned subsidiary, there to do the Bureau's bidding. In a series of tweets, Matt Taibbi shows the cozy relationship that blossomed between Twitter and the FBI. As the relationship grew, so did the volume of interactions, both through email and proprietary portals or platforms. What's clear is the FBI continued to act as though this were part of their mission to cut down on foreign interference in our election. However, when looking at the accounts or tweet flagged, they were all domestic, which is in direct opposition to the First Amendment. Through the course of the episode it is clear, Twitter had concerns about taking direction from the FBI. In a move that borders on intimidation, the agency suddenly issued a questionnaire to Twitter, stating their concerns that Twitter didn't see nearly as much propaganda as they did. The FBI also referenced concerns coming from the whole of the United States Intelligence Community. In essence, Twitter was strong-armed (to a degree) to take orders from the FBI and deal with the accounts as flagged. The relationship grew forward from there to where Twitter really was considered a subsidiary of the FBI, expected to heel and take orders like a good doggy. The fact the Legacy/mainstream media seems disinterested in what should be one of the biggest stories of our lifetime is all you need to know to realize how pervasive the corruption. The Legacy/mainstream media cannot risk reporting on this lest their own collusion with the Executive Branch to censor and propagandize Americans is revealed. What matters now is whether or not anything will be done. It's up to us to contact our representatives and see that everyone who pushed the wanton infringement of our First Amendment is removed from government permanently. Take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!

On today's episode of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec and Libby Emmons of the Post Millennial break down the fallout of the bombshell Twitter Files and Elon Musk's Q & A from the weekend. Was the United States Intelligence Community complicit in a coup to influence public opinion prior to the 2020 election? What other hardline issues did Twitter censor before Elon took over? What is Elon's opinon on centralized digital currency? All these questions will be answered with zero punches pulled and no static, all news, today on this can't miss edition of Human Events Daily! Here's your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Go to www.itargetpro.com to get 10% off and free shipping with offer code POSODownload PublicSq for free at https://publicsq.com/welcome?path=/marketplace/online  

Former covert CIA intelligence officer and U.S. Air Force combat veteran Andrew Bustamante joins Tim to talk about his life as a CIA operative, the lessons he's learned, and we get some insights into the world of the CIA. Today, Andrew is a Fortune 10 corporate advisor, and he's the man behind the EveryDay Spy self-improvement program, and the host of the EveryDay Espionage podcast. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Andrew_Bustamante_Episode_auphonic.mp3 Before we talk to our guest, you need to know some things about America's intelligence infrastructure. The United States of America has a vast intelligence community. To manage it all, the United States Intelligence Community, or IC, is an actual group of organizations that work separately and collectively to conduct intelligence activities that are supposed to support the nation's foreign policy and national security interests. Member organizations include the intelligence agencies, military intelligence, civilian intelligence, and analysis offices within federal executive departments. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence oversees the Intelligence Community. That director reports directly to the President of the United States, who as commander in chief is also the chief of all intelligence operations. The list of member organizations is a familiar one. The Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency or NSA, and of course, the Central Intelligence Agency or the CIA. One of the more common points of confusion when it comes to the intelligence community is where the CIA's responsibilities end, and where the FBI's begin. And vice versa. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. It is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States. It is the federal government's principal law enforcement agency.  As part of the Department of Justice, the FBI reports to the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of National Intelligence. Again, the FBI's focus is domestic. The CIA is a civilian foreign intelligence service. It was created by President Harry Truman right after World War II. It is charged with gathering, processing, and analyzing information relevant to national security. That information can come from around the world. The CIA is not responsible for spying on American citizens. Though should American citizens be involved with any potential foreign threat, they could find themselves under the microscope of the CIA. Unlike the FBI, which is focused on domestic security, the CIA has no law enforcement function and is officially mainly focused on overseas intelligence gathering. The mysteries surrounding the work of the CIA has been the stuff of books, of Hollywood movies and TV shows. In the news media, it's been the stuff of legend. You never know what's really true or not.  That question was my starting point when I had the chance to sit down with former CIA operative Andrew Bustamante. Links EveryDay Spy (website) EveryDay Espionage Podcast (Apple) Why Nations Go to War, by John Stoessinger (Amazon) Sun Tzu's Art of War (Amazon) Former CIA Agent Explains How He Made Targets Fall For Him, Lad Bible About this Episode's Guest Andrew Bustamante Andrew is a self-declared “improvement junkie; a former covert CIA intelligence officer, US Air Force combat veteran, and Fortune 10 corporate advisor.”  He is the man behind the EveryDay Spy program for self-development. It's an integrated education and training platform that teaches international espionage tactics that benefit everyday life. He's also the creator and host of the EveryDay Spy podcast. The mental, physical, and social spy skills CIA gave me have helped me accomplish everything I've set my mind to achieve,” he says. “The same can be true for you if you are willing to listen, learn and train with me. I believe all people can learn to master their mind,

Support, Communication, and Simplifying Complex Problems.In this episode of The Outspoken Podcast, host Shana Cosgrove talks to Ashley Spurr and Lisa Harris, Co-Owners of Elevare, LLC. Ashley and Lisa discuss starting Elevare and how they landed on the name over chips and salsa. They also explain how narrowing their offerings resulted in a more refined approach for Elevare. Ashley and Lisa dive deep into the world of GWACs, Polaris, Service MACs, and more. Finally, Ashley tells us about the many animals she has living on her property while Lisa reveals how she became a Guinness World Record holder. QUOTES “They fall into that sales pitch that they're going to have the tool, and automatically poof they'll have a pipeline. But it's not that easy, and that's why the service that Ashley and I offer is so important. We can manage the tool, and we can take it and give them just the opportunities that they should be looking at” - Lisa Harris [12:00] “I have a list of everybody I have ever talked to on the phone about Elevare's services. And every six months I'm shooting them an email - ‘hey, still here, what do you need?' Because that repetition is letting them know that even though you're not supporting them, you still think about them.” - Ashley Spurr [28:10] “The average is 18 months before you win something in the federal space as a prime or sub [contractor], so you have to stick with it. And I think we bring that calmness of telling you ‘just stay with it, and it will work out.'” - Ashley Spurr [33:38] “When you get started, do not skimp on your attorney, do not skimp on your accountant. Make sure you do everything right from the beginning because you don't want to be playing catch-up. Don't start your business first and then go back and try to put all these things in place.” - Lisa Harris [46:17]   TIMESTAMPS  [00:04] Intro [01:31] Meeting Ashley and Lisa [06:27] Starting Elevare [09:00] How Ashley and Lisa Met Shana [11:48] Getting Comfortable with Business Tools [15:24] Lisa's Transition from a Full-Time Job to Elevare [17:42] Ashley and Lisa's Morning Meetings [18:29] Ashley's Family [20:07] Refining the Services Elevare Offers [23:29] Lisa's Family [24:37] Picking Elevare's Name [29:22] Landing New Clients [31:33] What Elevare Offers [39:25] GWACs [41:30] Polaris and Service MAC [43:20] Ashley and Lisa's First Jobs [44:24] Unique Benefits to a Woman-Owned Business [47:40] Ashley's Surprising Fact [49:35] Lisa's Surprising Fact [51:16] Advice for their Younger Selves [53:02] Outro     RESOURCES https://www.visitfortwayne.com/ (Fort Wayne, Indiana) https://www.in.ng.mil/ (Indiana National Guard) https://www.todaysmilitary.com/education-training/rotc-programs (Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)) https://briljent.com/ (Briljent, LLC) https://theniic.org/news/launch-women-pitch-competition-winners-selected/ (Elevare Wins Launch Women Pitch Competition) https://www.defense.gov/ (Department of Defense (DOD)) https://www.nps.gov/ (National Parks Service (NPS)) https://www.national8aassociation.org/ (National 8(a) Association) https://www.colts.com/ (Indianapolis Colts) https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackLa00.htm (Lamar Jackson) https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TuckJu00.htm (Justin Tucker) https://www.purdue.edu/ (Purdue University) https://www.hubspot.com/products/crm (HubSpot) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel (Microsoft Excel) https://www.naics.com/what-is-a-naics-code-why-do-i-need-one/#:~:text=A%20NAICS%20(pronounced%20NAKES)%20Code,related%20to%20the%20US%20Economy. (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code) https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-guide/prime-subcontracting (Prime Contracting and Subcontracting) https://www.intelligence.gov/ (United States Intelligence Community) https://www.va.gov/osdbu/ (VA Office of Small And Disadvantaged Business Utilization...

Today's show rundown: No one is charged with the crime of insurrection, vaccinations that aren't vaccines, hunters laptop was no big deal? The Left is just covering up everything. The cost of food and doing businesses in restaurants oh my goodness. Chucks Wife's restaurant have just gone through the roof. Last month to this month the cost of living has gone up 9 percent. Mark introduces us to our guest Drew Berquist - Mark kicks it to Drew with the Biden Administration being an administration free of ANY controversies or questionable decision (Sarcasm). Drew says these guys are so beyond bad, he needs to come up with new words for how bad they are. If you thought 2008-20016 was bad, if you aren't feeling regret and embarrassment now you have your head in a hole. How is it possible that the Left is not embarrassed at all? Drew talks about all our 3-letter agencies, FBI, CIA etc. He says that the intel departments have been politicized and weaponized by these administrations. Middle management at these places were concerned that Trump was going to blow the lid off how things actually worked. The DC Swamp creatures got their friends to pull off what they did. Drew clarifies that the people who work in the counter terrorism realm are some the most patriotic group of people around. DREW BERQUIST IS A PRODUCER, WRITER AND ON-AIR TALENT. HE IS THE HOST OF “THIS IS MY SHOW WITH DREW BERQUIST.” His programming has aired on CRTV, BlazeTV, OpsLens TV and LifeZetteTV. Additionally, he has also hosted “Headlines Tonight with Drew Berquist” and “This Week in the News with Drew Berquist” both televised nationally on One America News Network. Prior to that he served as a counterterrorism officer for the United States Intelligence Community, where he performed more than thirty deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct intelligence operations against the Taliban, al-Qai'da and more recently ISIS. Berquist speaks to audiences and has commented on national security and political matters on Fox News, Newsmax, The First TV and a number of other shows throughout the country. https://www.drewberquist.com/ https://rumble.com/DrewBerquist https://www.linkedin.com/in/drew-berquist-976b679/ https://twitter.com/drewberquist?lang=en https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4FYwBasJ4MTe9iV-Ofykeg https://www.facebook.com/drewtberquist

Host Rich Goldberg speaks with two guests from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, Dr. Samantha Ravich and Retired Admiral Mark Montgomery. They discuss cybersecurity threats to cryptocurrency, ransomware, Russia, the Biden Administration’s recent Executive Order and much more! Dr. Samantha Ravich Dr. Samantha Ravich is the chairman of FDD's Center onCyber and Technology Innovation and its Transformative Cyber Innovation Lab and the principal investigator on FDD's Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project. She is also a senior advisor at FDD, serving on the advisory boards of FDD's Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP) and Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP). Samantha serves as a commissioner on the congressionally mandated Cyberspace Solarium Commission and as a member of the U.S. Secret Service's Cyber Investigation Advisory Board. Samantha served as deputy national security advisor for Vice President Cheney, focusing on Asian and Middle East Affairs as well as on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation. Following her time at the White House, Samantha was the Republican co-chair of the congressionally mandated National Commission for Review of Research and Development Programs in the United States Intelligence Community. Most recently, she served as vice chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) and co-chair of the Artificial Intelligence Working Group of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. She is advisor on cyber and geo-political threats and trends to numerous technology, manufacturing, and services companies; a managing partner of A2P, a social data analytics firm; and on the board of directors for International Game Technology (NYSE:IGT). Adm. Mark Montgomery (Ret.) Mark Montgomery serves as senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, where he leads FDD's efforts to advance U.S. prosperity and security through technology innovation while countering cyber threats that seek to diminish them. Mark also directs CSC 2.0, an initiative that works to implement the recommendations of the congressionally mandated Cyberspace Solarium Commission, where he served as executive director. Previously, Mark served as policy director for the Senate Armed Services Committee under the leadership of Senator John S. McCain, coordinating policy efforts on national security strategy, capabilities and requirements, and cyber policy. Mark served for 32 years in the U.S. Navy as a nuclear-trained surface warfare officer, retiring as a rear admiral in 2017. His flag officer assignments included director of operations (J3) at U. S. Pacific Command; commander of Carrier Strike Group 5, embarked on the USS George Washington, stationed in Japan; and deputy director for plans, policy and strategy (J5) at U. S. European Command. He was assigned to the National Security Council from 1998 to 2000, serving as director for transnational threats. Mark has graduate degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Oxford and completed the U.S. Navy's nuclear power training program.

Dr. Samantha Ravich, Chairman for the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at Foundation for Defense of Democracies joins the podcast this week. She shares insights from her many years on the geopolitical and economic front lines of cyber, and work with many renowned government leaders, on developing a plan of action to address today's cyber threat landscape and looming threat against critical infrastructure and essential services. She also provides perspective on building resiliency, what we can learn from natural disasters relative to cyber attacks, as well as the opportunity and impact of states creating and driving their own continuity of the economy plans. Dr. Samantha Ravich, Chairman, Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, Foundation for Defense of Democracies ---- Dr. Samantha Ravich is the chairman of FDD's Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation and its Transformative Cyber Innovation Lab and the principal investigator on FDD's Cyber-Enabled Economic Warfare project. She is also a senior advisor at FDD, serving on the advisory boards of FDD's Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP) and Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP). Samantha serves as a commissioner on the congressionally mandated Cyberspace Solarium Commission and as a member of the U.S. Secret Service's Cyber Investigation Advisory Board. Samantha served as deputy national security advisor for Vice President Cheney, focusing on Asian and Middle East Affairs as well as on counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation. Following her time at the White House, Samantha was the Republican co-chair of the congressionally mandated National Commission for Review of Research and Development Programs in the United States Intelligence Community. Most recently, she served as vice chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) and co-chair of the Artificial Intelligence Working Group of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. She is advisor on cyber and geo-political threats and trends to numerous technology, manufacturing, and services companies; a managing partner of A2P, a social data analytics firm; and on the board of directors for International Game Technology (NYSE:IGT). Her book, Marketization and Democracy: East Asian Experiences (Cambridge University Press) is used as a basic textbook in international economics, political science, and Asian studies college courses. Samantha is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and advises the U.S. Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense. She is a frequent keynote speaker on: What Corporate Boards need to know about Cyber Security and Warfare; The Longer-Term Trends in International Security; and the Future of Intelligence Collection and Analysis. Samantha received her PhD in Policy Analysis from the RAND Graduate School and her MCP/BSE from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. --- https://www.linkedin.com/in/samantha-ravich-7b5aa08b/ For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e169

  Today we welcome Justin Adams and Pat Morrell, co-founders of Anduin.  Many of you know this is their second startup together as they sold Digitize.ai back in 2019 – which is now part of Waystar.  So, this is our first podcast dealing with co-founders in Charlotte who have built and sold and are now building again, together. For that reason, we get to dive into some great topics with them.  We didn't ask them, “what would you do differently”, we asked, “what ARE you doing differently?”  This dynamic allows us to cover some great aspects of their entrepreneurial journey.  We dove into the concept of Digitize.ai and how they jumped into it as co-founders.  We learn how they built the product and sold it customers.  Along the way, we hear about their travels to Atlanta as well as the sacrifices – personally and professionally – they both made along the way. As we run through their trials and tribulations with Digitize.ai, we naturally break straight into the discussion of how Anduin has been developed differently.  What have they instantly put into practice with the second startup and where are they seeing the results along the way? For a little background, Justin serves as the CEO of Anduin and was also the CEO of Digitize.ai.  Prior to the startup route, Justin spent his career helping transform organizations through technology and innovation from Fortune 500 firms to the United States Intelligence Community. He also sat on a board that advised a venture capital firm on promising new technologies Pat Morrell is the Chief Revenue Officer at Anduin.  Pat grew up Raleigh and spent some time in DC, dealing with campaign politics. He moved back to Raleigh to work for a start-up, Three Ships. Pat and I first met when he was with Skookum where he was the Director of Strategic Partnerships. Anduin started in June 2020. They help accounting firms fix their billing process and speed up their cash flow. Their intelligence-based billing solution automates and improves time-consuming back-office finance processes. Anduin's mission is to fix the work-to-cash cycle to help accounting firms save time, speed up cashflow, and deliver a superior client experience. It's a great podcast to hear of their success from their beginnings to where they are now.   William Bissett is the owner of and an Investment Advisor Representative of Portus Wealth Advisors, a Registered Investment Adviser. Registration does not imply a certain level of skill or training. Opinions expressed on this program do not necessarily reflect those of Portus Wealth Advisors. The topics discussed and opinions given are not intended to address the specific needs of any listener.   Portus Wealth Advisors does not offer legal or tax advice, listeners are encouraged to discuss their financial needs with the appropriate professional regarding your individual circumstance.  Investments described herein may be speculative and may involve a substantial risk of loss. Interests may be offered only to persons who qualify as accredited investors under applicable state and federal regulation or an eligible employee of the management company. There generally is no public market for the Interests. Prospective investors should particularly note that many factors affect performance, including changes in market conditions and interest rates, and other economic, political or financial developments. Past performance is not, and should not be construed as, indicative of future results.

Jacqueline Tame, former Acting Deputy Director and inaugural Chief Performance Officer for the Department of Defense's Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, joins Iron Butterfly to discuss her winding path into the United States Intelligence Community. Jacqueline bravely shares both her professional and personal hurdles, how she overcame them, and why they shaped her into the woman and professional she is today.In an awe-inspiring conversation, Jacqueline discusses experiences with mentors, superiors, and mentees, while sharing her background that shows that challenges do not define you. Join us in listening to Jacqueline Tame's phenomenal story in our premier episode of Iron Butterfly's third season! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Stephen Paul Rodriguez joined us to talk about the importance of praying for the men and women who serve our country in light of the Afghanistan withdrawal.Stephen Paul Rodriguez is the Managing Partner of One Defense and an investor at Refinery Ventures. He began his career at Booz Allen Hamilton shortly before 9/11 supporting their National Security practice. In his capacity as an expert on game theoretic applications, he supported the United States Intelligence Community, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security as a lead architect for the Thor's Hammer, Schriever II/III and Cyber Storm wargames. He subsequently was a Vice President at a artificial intelligence company called Sentia Group and served as Chief Marketing Officer for NCL Holdings, an international defense corporation.Mr. Rodriguez serves as a Board Director or Board Advisor of ten venture-backed companies. He is also Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council and a Life Member at the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Rodriguez received his B.B.A degree from Texas A&M University and an M.A. degree from Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is published in Foreign Policy, WarOnTheRocks, National Review, and RealClearDefense.Mr. Rodriguez resides in Washington D.C. with his wife, Laura, a venture capitalist with Bulldog Innovation Group and their children, Fletcher, Violet, and Pierce.

Franc Milburn is a strategic and operational advisor, Fmr British Intelligence Officer and Alumnus of Sandhurst and The London School of Economics, Franc has previously written for The Middle East Economic Survey, the Combating Terrorism Centre at West-Point and the institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is also a member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) and has contributed two UAP related white-papers to the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA) Bob McGwier served within the United States Intelligence Community from 1982 - 2011 before going on to found the Humes Research Centre for National Security & Technology at Virgina Tech which is now the highest funded research centre at Virginia Tech. Amongst his many feats in the realm of sensor-fusion, Bob is also one of the original hardware developers for technology used within the SkyHub UAP Tracking & Analysis tool, created by Steve McDaniel. Become a Patreon and gain access to the Unity Community Discord Server | https://www.patreon.com/ProjectUnity

In this episode of  Empowered with Sarah Moffat, we are joined by the delightful Mika Cross, a transformational workplace expert, and strategist.  We discuss how that in the past we have been left out of very important conversations that impact our work experience. In the climate, we now find ourselves in she shares with us a unique perspective that we don't have to go back to the way things looked like pre-pandemic.  It is important to use the unique opportunity we've been given to use our voices and advocate for workplace flexibility. We don't have to go back, but rather we can move forward and create the workplace we want!Note: The book mentioned in the podcast is called "Resilience" by Eric Greitens. Great book!About Mika CrossMika J. Cross is a widely acclaimed workplace expert, speaker, strategist and innovator specializing in interdisciplinary expertise among the areas of innovative global workplace initiatives, remote and distributed work, culture change, strategic communications, knowledge management, next generation workplace and future of work predictions and initiatives, performance/talent management, employee/labor relations, diversity, inclusion and employee engagement. Her career includes 20+ years of public service with assignments throughout the United States Intelligence Community and she is a veteran of the United States Army, having served as both an enlisted soldier and commissioned officer.

Hamody Jasim was 12 years old when he was arrested and tortured in one of Saddam Hussein’s prisons. Hamody enlisted in the Iraq Army while still a teeenager, and was ultimately recruited by the United States Intelligence Community. He went on to become a major asset to that community - and to America-  by eliminating high-level Al-Qaeda and Islamic State operatives, and terrorist organizations. Hamody was hunted and tracked by Al Qaeda until he was forced to flee to America in order to save his own life. He remains in touch with his contacts in the Intelligence community, and stays up to date on recurring and emerging threats to the country he gave so much in service of. He is an author and speaker, and produced a documentary detailing his experiences and insight. We interviewed Hamody back in Episode #21. Since our community has grown and our country has taken such drastic turns, we are bringing him back to apply his extensive knowledge to current events, and share his insight on all of it. In this episode of American Snippets Hamody Jasim offers a recap of his life in Iraq and addresses specific issues pertaining to our country’s climate, direction, and national security.Follow us on FacebookFollow us on InstagramSubscribe on YouTube

Today's episode features Joe Forline. Joe is a Sr. Manager of Chapter Advancement at Make-a-wish America. Make-a-wish creates life changing experiences for children with critical illnesses. Founded in 1980, Make-a-wish has granted over 330,000 wishes for children with critical illnesses in the US, and 15,800 wishes in 2019 alone - when a child's wish is granted by Make-a-wish, it helps build the physical and emotional strength needed to combat critical illness. This idea, making contributions of energy, gratitude, and love in the form of acts of kindness, are at the center of the today's episode.Joe brings with him both a Bachelor of Science and a Masters in Mechanical engineering, and began his career as a product engineer at L3 Technologies, an Aerospace & defense business, who provides solutions to DoD, the United States Intelligence Community, and Nasa. You will learn more about what pulled Joe to Make-a-wish, and you'll learn more about the idea of purpose and the very human emotions that come along with serving others. If you are wondering how you can contribute to the welfare of others, or you are searching for something to be a part of that will enrich your life and the lives of others, you'll find this episode enlightening for you, as Joe helps us navigate the essence of giving and the simplicity of the process. If you would like to contribute at any level or capacity, to create a life changing experience for a child with a critical illness, you can navigate to wish.org to learn more. Key Takeaways:[06:44] What Joe's role is at Make-A-Wish[09:46] The mission of Make-A-Wish, the magic of a wish to the child that it serves[16:29] A favorite story of Joe's favorite wish, and other memorable examples[18:31] What prompted Joe to do work that serves others, and how Joe made the transition from aerospace and defense, to a non-profit.[23:24] How the work at Make a Wish has changed the way Joe sees the world.[26:06] “Mission Monday moment's” – the importance of anchoring an organization in it's mission, and how this impacts culture[29:02] The feedback loop of gratitude expression within an organization, and the lasting impact across it's people.[34:28] How gratitude can help define and direct organizational culture[37:03] Applications, methods, and tools used to generate gratitude across an organization [45:57] Additional thoughts on how to contribute to causes we care for – how to get started Memorable Quotes:[09:46] “Our mission is laser-focused. We, together, grant life-changing wishes for children with critical illness. That's all we do. It's simple and that's what everyone is marching towards.”[12:27] “I joined Make a Wish for a number of reasons but ultimately, I was brought up that giving back to others and serving others was just something you did. It was important and that's ultimately the purpose of life, to serve others.”Resources:Joe P. Forline LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-p-forline/Joe P. Forline Email - jforline@wish.orgMake a Wish - https://wish.org/Brody's Wish - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US0AICx_LKsGabe's Wish - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRl1cpR-eF8Kudos App - https://www.kudos.com/Richard K. Davis - https://wish.org/news-releases/new-ceoGordon Ramsay - https://www.gordonramsay.com/Life Rolls On - https://liferollson.org/Thank you for listening! --------------------------------Join the **New Monthly Newsletter** - Data Binge REFRESH: https://www.derekwesleyrussell.com/newsletter Interested in starting your own podcast? Some candid advice here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-start-podcast-3-step-gono-go-beginners-guide-derek-russell Learn more about the Data Binge Podcast at www.thedatabinge.comConnect with Derek: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/derekwesleyrussell/Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN1c5mzapLZ55ciPgngqRMg/featuredInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/drussnetwork/Twitter: https://twitter.com/drussnetworkMedium: https://medium.com/@derekwesleyrussellEmail: derek@thedatabinge.com

On this episode of the UFO podcast UNKNOWN, Jason McClellan discusses the recently "leaked" UFO photo that allegedly comes from the United States Intelligence Community, and specifically from an intelligence report from the Pentagon's newly formed UAP Task Force.

Everyone who uses Facebook, Google, and Twitter has probably noticed the disappearance of posts and the appearance of labels, especially during the 2020 election season. In this episode, hear the highlights from six recent House and Senate hearings where executives from the social media giants and experts on social media testified about the recent changes. The incoming 117th Congress is promising to make new laws that will affect our social media experiences; these conversations are where the new laws are being conceived.  Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Episodes CD196: The Mueller Report CD186: National Endowment for Democracy Articles/Documents Article: President Trump’s latest claims about Wis. absentee ballots debunked by election officials WTMJ-TV Milwaukee, November 24, 2020 Article: Don’t Blame Section 230 for Big Tech’s Failures. Blame Big Tech. By Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 16, 2020 Article: Biden, the Media and CIA Labeled the Hunter Biden Emails "Russian Disinformation." There is Still No Evidence. By Glenn Greenwald, November 12, 2020 Article: Ad Library - Spending Tracker: US 2020 Presidential Race Facebook, November 3, 2020 Article: What’s the deal with the Hunter Biden email controversy? By Kaelyn Forde and Patricia Sabga, Aljazeera, October 30, 2020 Article: Congress Fails to Ask Tech CEOs the Hard Questions By Elliot Harmon and Joe Mullin, Electronic Frontier Foundation, October 29, 2020 Article: With the Hunter Biden Expose, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than The Actual Story, by Matt Taibbi, TK News, October 24, 2020 Article: Read the FBI's letter to Sen. Ron Johnson The Washington Post, October 20, 2020 Article: DNI Ratcliffe: Russia disinformation not behind published emails targeting Biden; FBI reviewing, by Kevin Johnson, USA Today, October 19, 2020 Article: Twitter changes its hacked materials policy in wake of New York Post controversy By Natasha Lomas, Tech Crunch, October 16, 2020 Article: Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad By Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, New York Post, October 14, 2020 Article: The Decline of Organic Facebook Reach & How to Adjust to the Algorithm By Sophia Bernazzani, HubSpot, May 3, 2020 Article: Facebook launches searchable transparency library of all active ads By Josh Constine, TechCrunch, March 28, 2019 Article: MAERES Alumna Nina Jankowicz Awarded Fulbright-Clinton Fellowship to Ukraine SFS, Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, June 21, 2016 Article: Organic Reach on Facebook: Your Questions Answered By Brian Boland, Facebook for Business, June 5, 2014 Article: NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program The Washington Post, October 4, 2013 Additional Resources General Guidelines and policies: Distribution of hacked materials policy, Twitter, October 2020 Business Help Center: Fact-Checking on Facebook Facebook Business Business Help Center: Rating Options for Fact-Checkers Facebook Business Commit to transparency — sign up for the International Fact-Checking Network's code of principles, IFCN Code of Principles Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Electronic Frontier Foundation Mission Statement: OUR MISSION Open Markets About News Media Alliance Leadership News Corp Clint Watts Foreign Policy Research Institute About FPRI Foreign Policy Research Institute Nina Jankowicz Wicszipedia Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Breaking the News: Censorship, Suppression and the 2020 Election, Senate Judiciary Committee, November 17, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: [30:50] Jack Dorsey: We were called here today because of an enforcement decision we made against New York Post, based on a policy we created in 2018. To prevent Twitter from being used to spread hacked materials. This resulted in us blocking people from sharing a New York Post article, publicly or privately. We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread. Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong and corrected it within 24 hours. We informed the New York Post of our air and policy update and how to unlock their account by deleting the original violating tweet, which freed them to tweet the exact same content and news article again. They chose not to, instead insisting we reverse our enforcement action. We do not have a practice around retro actively overturning prior enforcement's, since then it demonstrated that we needed one and so we created one we believe is fair and appropriate. [35:13] Mark Zuckerberg: At Facebook, we took our responsibility to protect the integrity of this election very seriously. In 2016, we began to face new kinds of threats and after years of preparation, we were ready to defend against them. We built sophisticated systems to protect against election interference, that combined artificial intelligence, significant human review, and partnerships with the intelligence community, law enforcement and other tech platforms. We've taken down more than 100 networks of bad actors, we're trying to coordinate and interfere globally, we established a network of independent fact checkers that covers more than 60 languages. We made political advertising more transparent on Facebook than anywhere else, and including TV, radio and email. And we introduced new policies to combat voter suppression and misinformation. Still, the pandemic created new challenges, how to handle misinformation about COVID and voting by mail, how to prepare people for the reality, the results would take time, and how to handle if someone prematurely declared victory or refused to accept the result. So in September, we updated our policies again to reflect these realities of voting in 2020. And make sure that we were taking precautions given these unique circumstances. We worked with local election officials to remove false claims about polling conditions that might lead to voter suppression. We partnered with Reuters and the national election pool to provide reliable information about results. We attach voting information to posts by candidates on both sides and additional contexts to posts trying to de legitimize the outcome. We lock down new political ads and the week before the election to prevent misleading claims from spreading when they couldn't be rebutted. We strengthened our enforcement against militias and conspiracy networks like QAnon to prevent them from using our platforms to organize violence or civil unrest altogether. I believe this was the largest election integrity effort by any private company in recent times. [40:50] Jack Dorsey: We have transparency around our policies, we do not have transparency around how we operate content moderation, the rationale behind it, the reasoning. And as we look forward, we have more and more of our decisions of our operations moving to algorithms, which are, have a difficult time explaining why they make decisions, bringing transparency around those decisions. And that is why we believe that we should have more choice in how these algorithms are applied to our content, whether we use them at all so we can turn them on or off and have clarity around the outcomes that they're projecting and how they affect our experience. [45:39] Mark Zuckerberg: We work with a number of independent organizations that are accredited by the Poynter Institute. And they include Reuters, the Associated Press. AJans France presse, United States, USA Today, factcheck.org, Science Feedback, PolitiFact, Check Your Fact, Leadstories and the Dispatch in the United States. [48:54] Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Do both of you support change to 230? Reform of Section 230? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator I do. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: Yes. Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC): Thank you. [54:10] Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): How many times is Steve Bannon allowed to call for the murder of government officials before Facebook suspends his account? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as you say, the content in question did violate our policies and we took it down. Having a content violation does not automatically mean your account gets taken down. And the number of strikes varies depending on the amount and type of offense. So if people are posting terrorist content or child exploitation content, then the first time they do it, then we will take down their account. For other things. It's multiple, I'd be happy to follow up afterwards. We try not to disclose these... Sorry, I didn't hear that. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Will you commit to taking down that account? Steve Bannon? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, no, that's not what our policies would suggest that we should do in this case. [1:07:05] Jack Dorsey: What we saw and what the market told us was that people would not put up with abuse, harassment and misleading information that would cause offline harm, and they would leave our service because of it. So our intention is to create clear policy, clear enforcement that enables people to feel that they can express themselves on our service, and ultimately trust it. Sen. John Cornyn (TX): So it was a business decision. Jack Dorsey: It was a business decision. [2:56:34] Mark Zuckerberg: We do coordinate on and share signals on security related topics. So for example, if there is signal around a terrorist attack or around child exploitation imagery or around a foreign government, creating an influence operation, that is an area where the companies do share signals about what they see. But I think it's important to be very clear that that is distinct from the content moderation policies that we or the other companies have, where once we share intelligence or signals between the companies, each company makes its own assessment of the right way to address and deal with that information. [3:59:10] Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): I don't know what it what are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump's use of your platforms after he stops being president it? Will he still be deemed newsworthy? And will he still get to use your platform to spread this misinformation? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, let me clarify my last answer. We are also having academic study, the effective of all of our election measures and they'll be publishing those results publicly. In terms of President Trump and moving forward. There are a small number of policies where we have exceptions for politicians under the principle that people should be able to hear what their elected officials are saying and candidates for office. But by and large, the vast majority of our policies have no newsworthiness or political exception. So if the President or anyone else is spreading hate speech, or inciting violence, or posting content, that delegitimizes the election or valid forms of voting, those will receive the same treatment is anyone else saying those things, and that will continue to be the case Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): Remains to be seen. Jack Dorsey: So we do have a policy around public interest, where for global leaders, we do make exceptions in terms of whether if a tweet violates our terms of service, we leave it up behind an interstitial, and people are not allowed to share that more broadly. So a lot of the sharing is disabled with the exception of quoting it so that you can add your own conversation on top of it. So if an account suddenly becomes, is not a world leader anymore, that particular policy goes away. [4:29:35] Sen. Marsha Blackburn (TN): Do you believe it's Facebook's duty to comply with state sponsored censorship so it can keep operating doing business and selling ads in that country? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator in general, we try to comply with the laws in every country where we operate and do business. Hearing: BIG TECH AND SECTION 230 IMMUNITY, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, October 28, 2020 Witnesses: Jack Dorsey, Twitter, Inc. Sundar Pichai, Alphabet Inc. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. Transcript: [10:10] Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): In policing, conservative sites, then its own YouTube platform or the same types of offensive and outrageous claims. [45:50] Jack Dorsey: The goal of our labeling is to provide more context to connect the dots so that people can have more information so they can make decisions for themselves. [46:20] Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): I have a tweet here from Mr. Ajit Pai. Mr. Ajit Pai is the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. And he recounts some four tweets by the Iranian dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which Twitter did not place a public label on. They all four of them glorify violence. The first tweet says this and I quote each time 'the Zionist regime is a deadly cancerous growth and a detriment to the region, it will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.' That's the first tweet. The second tweet 'The only remedy until the removal of the Zionist regime is firm armed resistance,' again, left up without comment by Twitter. The third 'the struggle to free Palestine is jihad in the way of God.' I quote that in part for the sake of time, and number four, 'we will support and assist any nation or any group anywhere who opposes and fights the Zionist regime.' I would simply point out that these tweets are still up, Mr. Dorsey. And how is it that they are acceptable to be to be there? Alan, I'll ask unanimous consent to enter this tweet from Ajit Pai in the record at this point that'll be done. Without objection. How Mr. Dorsey, is that acceptable based on your policies at Twitter? Jack Dorsey: We believe it's important for everyone to hear from global leaders and we have policies around world leaders. We want to make sure that we are respecting their right to speak and to publish what they need. But if there's a violation of our terms of service, we want to label it and... Sen. Roger Wicker (MS): They're still up, did they violate your terms of service? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We did not find those two violate our terms of service because we consider them saber rattling, which is, is part of the speech of world leaders in concert with other countries. Speech against our own people, or a country's own citizens we believe is different and can cause more immediate harm. [59:20] Jack Dorsey: We don't have a policy against misinformation. We have a policy against misinformation in three categories, which are manipulated media, public health, specifically COVID and civic integrity, election interference and voter suppression. [1:39:05] Sen. Brian Schatz (HI): What we are seeing today is an attempt to bully the CEOs of private companies into carrying out a hit job on a presidential candidate, by making sure that they push out foreign and domestic misinformation meant to influence the election. To our witnesses today, you and other tech leaders need to stand up to this immoral behavior. The truth is that because some of my colleagues accuse you, your companies and your employees of being biased or liberal, you have institutionally bent over backwards and over compensated, you've hired republican operatives, hosted private dinners with Republican leaders, and in contravention of your Terms of Service, given special dispensation to right wing voices, and even throttled progressive journalism. Simply put, the republicans have been successful in this play. [1:47:15] Jack Dorsey: This one is a tough one to actually bring transparency to. Explainability in AI is a field of research but is far out. And I think a better opportunity is giving people more choice around the algorithms they use, including to turn off the algorithms completely which is what we're attempting to do. [2:15:00] Sen. Jerry Moran (KS): Whatever the numbers are you indicate that they are significant. It's a enormous amount of money and an enormous amount of employee time, contract labor time in dealing with modification of content. These efforts are expensive. And I would highlight for my colleagues on the committee that they will not be any less expensive, perhaps less than scale, but not less in cost for startups and small businesses. And as we develop our policies in regard to this topic, I want to make certain that entrepreneurship, startup businesses and small business are considered in what it would cost in their efforts to meet the kind of standards to operate in a sphere. [2:20:40] Sen. Ed Markey (MA): The issue is not that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they're leaving too many dangerous posts up. In fact, they're amplifying harmful content so that it spreads like wildfire and torches our democracy. [3:04:00] Sen. Mike Lee (UT): Between the censorship of conservative and liberal points of view, and it's an enormous disparity. Now you have the right, I want to be very clear about this, you have every single right to set your own terms of service and to interpret them and to make decisions about violations. But given the disparate impact of who gets censored on your platforms, it seems that you're either one not enforcing your Terms of Service equally, or alternatively, to that you're writing your standards to target conservative viewpoints. [3:15:30] Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Okay for both Mr. Zuckerberg and Dorsey who censored New York Post stories, or throttled them back, did either one of you have any evidence that the New York Post story is part of Russian disinformation? Or that those emails aren't authentic? Did anybody have any information whatsoever? They're not authentic more than they are Russian disinformation? Mr. Dorsey? Jack Dorsey: We don't. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): So why would you censor it? Why did you prevent that from being disseminated on your platform that is supposed to be for the free expression of ideas, and particularly true ideas... Jack Dorsey: we believe to fell afoul of our hacking materials policy, we judged... Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): They weren't hacked. Jack Dorsey: We we judge them moment that it looked like it was hacked material. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): You were wrong. Jack Dorsey: And we updated our policy and our enforcement within 24 hours. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Mr. Zuckerberg? Mark Zuckerberg: Senator, as I testified before, we relied heavily on the FBI, his intelligence and alert status both through their public testimony and private briefings. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Did the FBI contact you, sir, than your co star? It was false. Mark Zuckerberg: Senator not about that story specifically. Sen. Ron Johnson (MA): Why did you throttle it back. Mark Zuckerberg: They alerted us to be on heightened alert around a risk of hack and leak operations around a release and probe of information. And to be clear on this, we didn't censor the content. We flagged it for fact checkers to review. And pending that review, we temporarily constrained its distribution to make sure that it didn't spread wildly while it was being reviewed. But it's not up to us either to determine whether it's Russian interference, nor whether it's true. We rely on the fact checkers to do that. [3:29:30] Sen. Rick Scott (FL): That's becoming obvious that your that your companies are unfairly targeting conservatives. That's clearly the perception today, Facebook is actively targeting as by conservative groups ahead of the election, either removing the ads completely or adding their own disclosure if they claim that didn't pass their fact check system. [3:32:40] Sen. Rick Scott (FL): You can't just pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed on your platform an expect to keep immunity granted by Section 230. News Clip: Adam Schiff on CNN, CNN, Twitter, October 16, 2020 Hearing: MISINFORMATION, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND `INFODEMICS': STOPPING THE SPREAD ONLINE, Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, October 15, 2020 Watch on Youtube Hearing Transcript Witnesses: Dr. Joan Donovan: Research Director at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School Nina Jankowicz: Disinformation Fellow at the Wilson Center Cindy Otis: Vice President of the Althea Group Melanie Smith: Head of Analysis, Graphika Inc Transcript: 41:30 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): And I should acknowledge that we're pretty careful. We understand that we shouldn't be in the business of fighting misinformation that's probably inconsistent with the First Amendment. So what do we do? We ask that it be outsourced to people that we otherwise are pretty critical of like Mark Zuckerberg, and Jack Dorsey, we say you do it, which strikes me as a pretty lame way to address what may or may not be a problem. 42:00 Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Miss Jankowicz said that misinformation is dismantling democracy. I'm skeptical of that. And that will be my question. What evidence is that is out there that this is dismantling democracy, I don't mean that millions of people see QAnon I actually want to see the evidence that people are seeing this information, and are in a meaningful way, in a material way, dismantling our democracy through violence or through political organizations, because if we're going to go down that path, I need something more than eyeballs. So I need some evidence for how this is dismantling our democracy. And secondly, if you persuade me that we're dismantling our democracy, how do we get in the business of figuring out who should define what misinformation or disinformation is? Nina Jankowicz: To address your first question related to evidence of the dismantling of democracy. There's two news stories that I think point to this from the last couple of weeks alone. The first is related to the kidnapping plot against Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. And the social media platforms played a huge role in allowing that group to organize. It allowed, that group to, it ceded the information that led them to organize and frankly, as a woman online who has been getting harassed a lot lately, lately, with sexualized and gender disinformation, I am very acutely aware of how those threats that are online can transfer on to real world violence. And that make no mistake is meant to keep women and minorities from not only participating in the democratic process by exercising our votes, but also keeping us from public life. So that's one big example. But there was another example just recently from a channel for in the UK documentary that looked at how the Trump campaign used Cambridge Analytica data to selectively target black voters with voter suppression ads during the 2016 election. Again, this is it's affecting people's participation. It's not just about fake news, stories on the internet. In fact, a lot of the best disinformation is grounded in a kernel of truth. And in my written testimony, I go through a couple of other examples of how online action has led to real world action. And this isn't something that is just staying on the internet, it is increasingly in real life. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I don't have a lot of time. Do you think that both examples that you offered up Gov the plot to kidnap governor, the governor of Michigan, and your other example passed the but for test? I mean, this country probably got into the Spanish American War over 130 years ago because of the good works of William Randolph Hearst. So how do we, we've had misinformation and yellow journalism and terrible media and voter suppression forever. And I understand that these media platforms have scale that William Randolph Hearst didn't have. But are you sure that both of those examples pass the buck for they wouldn't have happened without the social media misinformation? Nina Jankowicz: I believe they do, because they allow the organization of these groups without any oversight, and they allow the targeting the targeting of these messages to the groups and people that are going to find the most vulnerable and are most likely to take action against them. And that's what our foreign adversaries do. And increasingly, it's what people within our own country are using to organize violence against the democratic participation of many of our fellow citizens. Rep. Jim Himes (CT): Okay, well, I'm out of time I would love to continue this conversation and pursue what you mean by groups being formed quote, without oversight, that's language I'd like to better understand but I'm out of time, but I would like to continue this conversation into, well, if this is the problem that you say it is, what do we actually do about it? Hearing: ONLINE PLATFORMS AND MARKET POWER, PART 2: INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, July 16, 2020 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Adam Cohen: Director of Economic Policy at Google Matt Perault: Head of Global Policy Development at Facebook Nate Sutton: Associate General Counsel for Competition at Amazon Kyle Andeer: Vice President for Corporate Law at Apple Timothy Wu: Julius Silver Professor of Law at Columbia Law School Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at Yale School of Management Stacy Mitchell: Co-Director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance Maureen Ohlhausen: Partner at Baker Botts LLP Carl Szabo: Vice President and Gneral Counsel at NetChoice Morgan Reed: Executive Director at the App Association Transcript: [55:15] Adam Cohen: Congresswoman we use a combination of automated tools, we can recognize copyrighted material that creators upload and instantaneously discover it and keep it from being seen on our platforms. [1:16:00] Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Do you use consumer data to favor Amazon products? Because before you answer that, analysts estimate that between 80 and 90% of sales go to the Amazon buy box. So you collect all this data about the most popular products where they're selling. And you're saying you don't use that in any way to change an algorithm to support the sale of Amazon branded products? Nate Sutton: Our algorithms such as the buy box is aimed to predict what customers want to buy, apply the same criteria whether you're a third party seller, or Amazon to that because we want customers to make the right purchase, regardless of whether it's a seller or Amazon. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): But the best purchase to you as an Amazon product. Nate Sutton: No, that's not true. Rep. David Cicilline (RI): So you're telling us you're under oath, Amazon does not use any of that data collected with respect to what is selling, where it's on what products to inform the decisions you make, or to change algorithms to direct people to Amazon products and prioritize Amazon and D prioritize competitors. Nate Sutton: The algorithms are optimized to predict what customers want to buy regardless of the seller. We provide this same criteria and with respect to popularity, that's public data on each product page. We provide the ranking of each product. [3:22:50] Dr. Fiona Scott Morton: As is detailed in the report that I submitted as my testimony, there are a number of characteristics of platforms that tend to drive them toward concentrated markets, very large economies of scale, consumers exacerbate this with their behavioral biases, we don't scroll down to the second page, we don't. We accept default, we follow the framing the platform gives us and instead of searching independently, and what that does is it makes it very hard for small companies to grow and for new ones to get traction against the dominant platform. And without the threat of entry from entrepreneurs and growth from existing competitors, the dominant platform doesn't have to compete as hard. If it's not competing as hard, then there are several harms that follow from that. One is higher prices for advertisers, many of these platforms are advertising supported, then there's higher prices to consumers who may think that they're getting a good deal by paying a price of zero. But the competitive price might well be negative, the consumers might well be able to be paid for using these platforms in a competitive market. Other harms include low quality in the form of less privacy, more advertising and more exploitative content that consumers can't avoid. Because, as Tim just said, there isn't anywhere else to go. And lastly, without competitive pressure, innovation is lessened. And in particular, it's channeled in the direction the dominant firm prefers, rather than being creatively spread across directions chosen by entrance. And this is what we learned both from at&t and IBM and Microsoft, is that when the dominant firm ceases to control innovation, there's a flowering and it's very creative and market driven. So the solution to this problem of insufficient competition is complimentary steps forward in both antitrust and regulation. Antitrust must recalibrate the balance it strikes between the risk of over enforcement and under enforcement. The evidence now shows we've been under enforcing for years and consumers have been harmed. [3:22:50] Stacy Mitchell: I hope the committee will consider several policy tools as part of this investigation. In particular, we very much endorse the approach that Congress took with regard to the railroads, that if you operate essential infrastructure, you can't also compete with the businesses that rely on that infrastructure. [3:45:00] Morgan Reed: Here on the table, I have a copy of Omni page Pro. This was a software you bought, if you needed to scan documents. If you wanted to turn it into a processor and you could look at it in a word processor. I've also got this great review from PC World, they loved it back in 2005. But the important fact here in this review is that it says the street price of this software in 2005 was $450. Now, right here, I've got an app from a company called Readdle, that is nearly the same product level has a bunch of features that this one doesn't, it's $6. Basically now consumers pay less than 1% of what they used to pay for some of the same capability. And what's even better about that, even though I love the product from Readdle, there are dozens of competitors in the app space. So when you look at it from that perspective, consumers are getting a huge win. How have platforms made this radical drop in price possible? Simply put, they've provided three things a trusted space, reduced overhead, and given my developers nearly instant access to a global marketplace with billions of customers, before the platforms to get your software onto a retail store shelf. companies had to spend years and thousands of dollars to get to the point where a distributor would handle their product, then you'd agree agree to a cut of sales revenue, write a check for upfront marketing, agree to refund the distributor the cost of any unsold boxes and then spend 10s of thousands of dollars to buy an end cap. Digging a little bit on this, I don't know how many of you know or aware that the products you see on your store shelf or in the Sunday flyer aren't there because the manager thought it was a cool product. Those products are displayed at the end of an aisle or end cap because the software developer or consumer goods company literally pays for the shelf space. In fact, for many retailers the sale of floor the sale of floor space and flyers makes a huge chunk of their profitability for their store. And none of this takes into consideration printing boxes, manuals, CDs, dealing with credit cards if you go direct translation services, customs authorities if you want to sell abroad in the 1990s it cost a million dollars to start up a software company. Now it's $100,000 in sweat equity. And thanks to these changes, the average cost for consumer software has dropped from $50 to three. For developers. Our cost to market has dropped enormously and the size of our market has expanded globally. [3:48:55] Stacy Mitchell: I've spent a lot of time interviewing and talking with independent retailers, manufacturers of all sizes. Many of them are very much afraid of speaking out publicly because they fear retaliation. But what we consistently hear is that Amazon is the biggest threat to their businesses. We just did a survey of about 550 independent retailers nationally, Amazon ranked number one in terms of being what they said was the biggest threat to their business above, rising healthcare costs, access to capital, government, red tape, anything else you can name. Among those who are actually selling on the platform, only 7% reported that it was actually helping their bottom line. Amazon has a kind of godlike view of a growing share of our commerce and it uses the data that it gathers to advantage its own business and its own business interests in lots of ways. A lot of this, as I said, comes from the kind of leverage its ability to sort of leverage the interplay between these different business lines to maximize its advantage, whether it's promoting its own product because that's lucrative or whether it's using the manufacturer of a product to actually squeeze a seller or vendor into giving it bigger discounts. [3:53:15] Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND): When we recognize, I come from very rural area, the closest, what you would consider a big box store is Minneapolis or Denver. So and so when we're talking about competition, all of this I also think we've got to remember, at no point in time from my house in Dickinson, North Dakota have I had more access to more diverse and cheap consumer products. I mean, things that often would require a plane ticket or a nine hour car ride to buy can now be brought to our house. So I think when we're talking about consumers, we need to remember that side of it, too. Hearing: EMERGING TRENDS IN ONLINE FOREIGN INFLUENCE OPERATIONS: SOCIAL MEDIA, COVID–19, AND ELECTION SECURITY, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 18, 2020 Watch on Youtube Hearing transcript Witnesses: Nathaniel Gleicher: Head of Security Policy at Facebook Nick Pickles: Director of Global Public Policy Strategy and Development at Twitter Richard Salgado: Director for Law Enforcement and Information Security at Google Transcript: [19:16] Nathaniel Gleicher: Facebook has made significant investments to help protect the integrity of elections. We now have more than 35,000 people working on safety and security across the company, with nearly 40 teams focused specifically on elections and election integrity. We're also partnering with federal and state governments, other tech companies, researchers and civil society groups to share information and stop malicious actors. Over the past three years, we've worked to protect more than 200 elections around the world. We've learned lessons from each of these, and we're applying these lessons to protect the 2020 election in November. [21:58] Nathaniel Gleicher: We've also been proactively hunting for bad actors trying to interfere with the important discussions about injustice and inequality happening around our nation. As part of this effort, we've removed isolated accounts seeking to impersonate activists, and two networks of accounts tied to organize hate groups that we've previously banned from our platforms. [26:05] Nick Pickles: Firstly, Twitter shouldn't determine the truthfulness of tweets. And secondly, Twitter should provide context to help people make up their own minds in cases where the substance of a tweet is disputed. [26:15] Nick Pickles: We prioritize interventions regarding misinformation based on the highest potential for harm. And the currently focused on three main areas of content, synthetic & manipulated media, elections and civic integrity and COVID-19. [26:30] Nick Pickles: Where content does not break our rules and warrant removal. In these three areas, we may label tweets to help people come to their own views by providing additional context. These labels may link to a curated set of tweets posted by people on Twitter. This include factual statements, counterpoint opinions and perspectives, and ongoing public conversation around the issue. To date, we've applied these labels to thousands of tweets around the world across these three policy areas. [31:10] Richard Salgado: In search, ranking algorithms are an important tool in our fight against disinformation. Ranking elevates information that our algorithms determine is the most authoritative, above information that may be less reliable. Similarly, our work on YouTube focuses on identifying and removing content that violates our policies and elevating authoritative content when users search for breaking news. At the same time, we find and limit the spread of borderline content that comes close but just stops short of violating our policies. [53:28] Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): Mr. Gliecher, you may or may not know that Facebook is headquartered in my congressional district. I've had many conversations with Sheryl Sandberg. And I'm still puzzled by the fact that Facebook does not consider itself a media platform. Are you still espousing that kind of position? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, we're first and foremost a technology company. We may be a technology company, but it's your technology company is being used as a media platform. Do you not recognize that? Congresswoman, we're a place for ideas across the spectrum. We know that there are people who use our platforms to engage and in fact that is the goal of the platform's to encourage and enable people to discuss the key issues of the day and to talk to family and friends. [54:30] Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): How long or or maybe I should ask this when there was a video of Speaker Pelosi that had been tampered with - slowed down to make her look like she was drunk. YouTube took it down almost immediately. What did Facebook do and what went into your thinking to keep it up? Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman for a piece of content like that, we work with a network of third party fact checkers, more than 60 3rd party fact checkers around the world. If one of them determines that a piece of content like that is false, and we will down rank it, and we will put an interstitial on it so that anyone who would look at it would first see a label over it saying that there's additional information and that it's false. That's what we did in this context. When we down rank, something like that, we see the shares of that video, radically drop. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But you won't take it down when you know it's false. Nathaniel Gleicher: Congresswoman, you're highlighting a really difficult balance. And we've talked about this amongst ourselves quite a bit. And what I would say is, if we simply take a piece of content like this down, it doesn't go away. It will exist elsewhere on the internet. People who weren't looking for it will still find it. Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): But it you know, there will always be bad actors in the world. That doesn't mean that you don't do your level best to show the greatest deal of credibility. I mean, if YouTube took it down, I don't understand how you couldn't have taken down but I'll leave that where it lays. [1:40:10] Nathaniel Gleicher: Congressman, the collaboration within industry and with government is much, much better than it was in 2016. I think we have found the FBI, for example, to be forward leaning and ready to share information with us when they see it. We share information with them whenever we see indications of foreign interference targeting our election. The best case study for this was the 2018 midterms, where you saw industry, government and civil society all come together, sharing information to tackle these threats. We had a case on literally the eve of the vote, where the FBI gave us a tip about a network of accounts where they identified subtle links to Russian actors. Were able to investigate those and take action on them within a matter of hours. [1:43:10] Rep. Jim Himes (CT): I tend to be kind of a First Amendment absolutist. I really don't want Facebook telling me what's true and what's not true mainly because most statements are some combination of both. [1:44:20] Nathaniel Gleicher: Certainly people are drawn to clickbait. They're drawn to explosive content. I mean, it is the nature of clickbait, to make people want to click on it, but what we found is that if you separate it out from the particular content, people don't want a platform or experience, just clickbait, they will click it, if they see it, they don't want it prioritized, they don't want their time to be drawn into that and all emotional frailty. And so we are trying to build an environment where that isn't the focus, where they have the conversations they want to have, but I agree with you. A core piece of this challenge is people seek out that type of content wherever it is. I should note that as we're thinking about how we prioritize this, one of the key factors is who your friends are the pages and accounts that you follow and the assets that you engage with. That's the most important factor in sort of what you see. And so people have direct control over that because they are choosing the people they want to engage. Hearing: ONLINE PLATFORMS AND MARKET POWER, PART 1: THE FREE AND DIVERSE PRESS, Committee on the Judiciary: Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, June 11, 2020 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: David Chavern: President of the News Media Alliance Gene Kimmelman: President of Public Knowledge Sally Hubbard: Director of Enforcement Strategy at the Open Markets Institute Matthew Schrurers: Vice President of Law and Policy at the Computer and Communications Industry Association David Pitofsky: General Counsel at News Corp Kevin Riley: Editor at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Transcript: [55:30] David Chavern: Platforms and news organizations mutual reliance would not be a problem, if not for the fact that the concentration among the platforms means a small number of companies now exercise an extreme level of control over the news. And in fact, a couple of dominant firms act as regulators of the news industry. Only these regulators are not constrained by legislative or democratic oversight. The result has been to siphon revenue away from news publishers. This trend is clear if you compare the growth in Google's total advertising revenue to the decline in the news industry's ad revenue. In 2000, Google's US revenue was 2.1 billion, while the newspaper industry accounted for 48 billion in advertising revenue. In 2017, in contrast, Google's US revenue had increased over 25 times to 52.4 billion, the newspaper industry's ad revenue had fallen 65% to 16.4 billion. [56:26] David Chavern: The effect of this revenue decline in publishers has been terrible, and they've been forced to cut back on their investments in journalism. That is a reason why newsroom employment has fallen nearly a quarter over the last decade. One question might be asked is if the platforms are unbalanced, having such a negative impact on the news media, then why don't publishers do something about it? The answer is they cannot, at least under the existing antitrust laws, news publishers face a collective action problem. No publisher on its own can stand up to the tech giants. The risk of demotion or exclusion from the platform is simply too great. And the antitrust laws prevent news organizations from acting collectively. So the result is that publishers are forced to accept whatever terms or restrictions are imposed on them. [1:06:20] Sally Hubbard: Facebook has repeatedly acquired rivals, including Instagram and WhatsApp. And Google's acquisition cemented its market power throughout the ad ecosystem as it bought up the digital ad market spoke by spoke, including applied semantics AdMob and Double Click. Together Facebook and Google have bought 150 companies in just the last six years. Google alone has bought nearly 250 companies. [1:14:17] David Pitofsky: Unfortunately, in the news business, free riding by dominant online platforms, which aggregate and then reserve our content has led to the lion's share of online advertising dollars generated off the back of news going to the platforms. Many in Silicon Valley dismissed the press as old media failing to evolve in the face of online competition. But this is wrong. We're not losing business to an innovator who has found a better or more efficient way to report and investigate the news. We're losing business because the dominant platforms deploy our news content, to target our audiences to then turn around and sell that audience to the same advertisers we're trying to serve. [1:15:04] David Pitofsky: The erosion of advertising revenue undercuts our ability to invest in high quality journalism. Meanwhile, the platforms have little if any commitment to accuracy or reliability. For them, a news article is valuable if viral, not if verified. [1:16:12] David Pitofsky: News publishers have no good options to respond to these challenges. Any publisher that tried to withhold its content from a platform as part of a negotiating strategy would starve itself of reader traffic. In contrast, losing one publisher would not harm the platform's at all since they would have ample alternative sources for news content. [1:36:56] Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): So Miss Hubbard, let me start with you. You were an Assistant Attorney General for New York State's antitrust division. You've also worked as a journalist, which online platforms would you say are most impacting the public's access to trustworthy sources of journalism? And why? Sally Hubbard: Thank you for the question. Congresswoman, I think in terms of disinformation, the platforms that are having the most impact are Facebook and YouTube. And that's because of their business models, which are to prioritize engagement, engaging content because of the human nature that you know survival instinct, we tend to tune into things that make us fearful or angry. And so by prioritizing engagement, these platforms are actually prioritizing disinformation as well. It serves their profit motives to keep people on the platforms as long as possible to show them ads and collect their data. And because they don't have any competition, they're free to pursue these destructive business models without having any competitive constraint. They've also lacked regulation. Normally, corporations are not permitted to just pursue profits without regard to the consequences. [1:38:10] Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA): The Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly declined to interfere, as Facebook and Google have acquired would be competitors. Since 2007, Google has acquired Applied Semantics, Double Click and AdMob. And since 2011, Facebook has acquired Instagram and WhatsApp. What do these acquisitions mean for consumers of news and information? I think sometimes antitrust is seen and regulation is seen as something that's out there. But this has very direct impact for consumers. Can you explain what that means as these companies have acquired more and more? Sally Hubbard: Sure, so in my view, those, of all of the acquisitions that you just mentioned, were illegal under the Clayton Act, which prohibits mergers that may lessen competition. Looking back, it's clear that all of those mergers did lessen competition. And when you lessen competition, the harms to consumers are not just high prices, which was which are harder to see when in the digital age. But its loss of innovation is loss of choice, and loss of control. So when we approve anti competitive mergers, consumers are harmed. [1:55:48] Rep. Matt Gaetz (FL): Section 230, as I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected by others, would say that if a technology platform is a neutral public platform, that they enjoy certain liability protections that newspapers don't enjoy, that Newscorp doesn't enjoy with its assets. And so does it make the anti competitive posture of technology platforms more pronounced, that they have access to this special liability protection that the people you represent don't have access to? David Chavern: Oh, absolutely. There's a huge disparity. Frankly, when our contents delivered through these platforms, we get the liability and they get the money. So that's a good deal from that end. We are responsible for what we publish, we publishers can and do get sued. On the other hand, the platforms are allowed to deliver and monetize this content with complete lack of responsibility. Hearing: Election Interference: Ensuring Law Enforcement is Equipped to Target Those Seeking to Do Harm, Senate Judiciary Committee, June 12, 2018 Watch on C-SPAN Witnesses: Adam Hickey - Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Kenneth Wainstein - Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP Prof. Ryan Goodman - New York University School of Law Nina Jankowicz - Global Fellow at the Wilson Center Transcript: [9:00] Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): We know that Russia orchestrated a sustained and coordinated attack that interfered in our last presidential election. And we also know that there’s a serious threat of more attacks in our future elections, including this November. As the United States Intelligence Community unanimously concluded, the Russian government’s interference in our election—and I quote—“blended covert intelligence operations, such as cyber activity, with overt efforts by the Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social-media users or trolls.” Over the course of the past year and a half, we’ve come to better understand how pernicious these attacks were. Particularly unsettling is that we were so unaware. We were unaware that Russia was sowing division through mass propaganda, cyber warfare, and working with malicious actors to tip scales of the election. Thirteen Russian nationals and three organizations, including the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency, have now been indicted for their role in Russia’s vast conspiracy to defraud the United States. Hearing: Facebook, Google and Twitter Executives on Russian Disinformation, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, October 31, 2017 Watch on Youtube Witnesses: Colin Stretch - Facebook Vice President and General Counsel Sean Edgett - Twitter Acting General Counsel Richard Salgado - Google Law Enforcement & Information Security Director Clint Watts - Foreign Policy Research Institute, National Security Program Senior Fellow Michael Smith -New America, International Security Fellow Transcript: [2:33:07] Clint Watts: Lastly, I admire those social-media companies that have begun working to fact-check news articles in the wake of last year’s elections. These efforts should continue but will be completely inadequate. Stopping false information—the artillery barrage landing on social-media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced. Silence the guns, and the barrage will end. I propose the equivalent of nutrition labels for information outlets, a rating icon for news-producing outlets displayed next to their news links and social-media feeds and search engines. The icon provides users an assessment of the news outlet’s ratio of fact versus fiction and opinion versus reporting. The rating system would be opt-in. It would not infringe on freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Should not be part of the U.S. government, should sit separate from the social-media companies but be utilized by them. Users wanting to consume information from outlets with a poor rating wouldn’t be prohibited. If they are misled about the truth, they have only themselves to blame. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Ira Pastor, ideaXme life sciences ambassador interviews Dr Brian Holmes Ph.D., Dean of The National Intelligence University, Anthony G. Oettinger School of Science and Technology Intelligence. Ira Pastor comments: The National Intelligence University (NIU), is a federally chartered research university which serves as the United States Intelligence Community's institution for higher learning in fields of study central to the profession of intelligence and national security. National Intelligence University's interdisciplinary programs emphasize education through scholarly and applied research designed to help U.S. intelligence officers better understand the diverse range of geopolitical, strategic, and technological threats and opportunities affecting intelligence and national security. The university is organized into two separate academic units: the College of Strategic Intelligence and the Oettinger School of Science and Technology Intelligence. Combined, the colleges cover a diverse and evolving range of international affairs issues and adversarial threats and capabilities, from cultural and religious conflicts, to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation, cybersecurity threats, terrorism, transnational crime, and more. NIU is the only university in the United States where students can study and complete research at the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information level. The School of Science and Technology Intelligence within the National Intelligence University is focused on science and technical analytic education, research and external engagement across the intelligence and national security communities. Dr. Holmes served as an all-source intelligence analyst and Branch Chief in the Defense Intelligence Agencies’ (DIA) Counter-proliferation Support Office from 2006-2010 before accepting a managerial position in the Directorate for Analysis’ Staff Operations Division. He was a Direct Commission intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, serving from 2007-2011 and reached the rank of Lieutenant. For three years he supported the Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force as an all-source intelligence analyst in DIA’s Directorate for Intelligence. From 2012-2016, Dr. Holmes chaired the Emerging and Disruptive Technology, Geostrategic Resources and Environment, and Weapons of Mass Destruction concentrations in the National Intelligence University. He serves as an executive representative to the Scientific and Technical Intelligence Committee (STIC) under the auspices of the National Intelligence Council, and directly supports U.S. National Intelligence Priorities Framework. He primarily focuses his research on "dual use" technologies, and the translation of emerging research and development into advanced materials for military systems. From 2016-2017, Dr. Holmes served as the Associate Dean of the School of Science and Technology Intelligence and then became Dean in Sept 2017 Dr. Holmes holds patents with the U.S. Navy, has published numerous peer reviewed scientific papers, and received the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis Distinguished Analysis Award in addition to a National Intelligence Meritorious Unit Citation. On August 07, 2017, Dr. Holmes qualified for the academic title of Professor of Intelligence. Disclaimer - The views expressed on this ideaXme episode are Dr. Holmes alone and do not represent the official policy or position of the National Intelligence University, the Department of Defense or any of its components, or the U.S. Government. Dr. Holmes talks of: - His background - how he developed an interest in science, in chemistry, and a little bit of his journey through the worlds of academia, the military, and into the intelligence domain - An introductory walk through the National Intelligence University, it's history, where it sits within the U.S. intelligence community - His job as Dean of the National Intelligence University, some of the different academic programs (with a focus on his domain of Science and Technology Intelligence), and a bit of the profile of typical applicants / admission criteria of NIU - How NIU stays "ahead of the curve" in teaching about both about novel threats, and novel innovations / interventions, in the intelligence space - Some of these "dual use" opportunities he sees emerging from the Science and Technology Intelligence domain which may offer for future benefits in the civilian sector, for areas like global warming and environmental contamination / oils spills This interview text is in American English. Credits: Ira Pastor interview video, text, and audio. Visit ideaXme: www.radioideaxme.com Contact the founder of ideaXme: andrea@ideaxme.com Follow Ira Pastor on Twitter:@IraSamuelPastor Follow ideaXme on Twitter:@ideaxm On Instagram:@ideaxme Find ideaXme across the internet. ideaXme is a global podcast, creator series and mentor programme. Our mission: Move the human story forward!™ ideaXme Ltd.

Welcome to the Iron Butterfly Podcast, co-produced by the National Security Institute and the Amazing Women of the IC, better known as AWIC. Iron Butterfly is the first podcast by and for women in the US Intelligence Community which brings you real stories from women in intelligence.Eighty years ago, Eloise Page joined the Office of Strategic Services, or the OSS, a predecessor for what we recognize today as the United States Intelligence Community. Page started as a secretary, but worked her way to becoming a case officer and later, she became the first female Chief of Station at CIA. Along the way, she earned the nickname “Iron Butterfly,” known for being a fierce fighter with a core of steel. Each Tuesday Megan Jaffer will interview America’s unsung heroines to reveal their journey in the world of spies and trailblazing new paths for women in national security.Join us every week for exciting stories, helpful tips, and meaningful conversation with women in intelligence. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Why Listen: In 344 other episodes we spend so much time talking about WHAT sort of work people do - the industry they choose, the functional role they take on, the size of company, even the part of the world in which they work - but we hardly ever devote time to HOW they work. Well, today’s interview is all about the HOW. Mike is an Army Veteran and acclaimed expert on how the workplace affects employee engagement. We talk about remote working and other flexibility options, and why listeners may want to pursue this in their next career move.    I loved my conversation with Mika - she is energetic, knowledgeable, passionate and generous. She is also extending a discount for her company - Flexjobs - to all Veterans, and there’s additional info in the show notes for this episode at BeyondTheUniform.org   About Mika:   "Mika J. Cross is a widely acclaimed workplace expert, speaker, strategist and innovator specializing in interdisciplinary expertise in the areas of innovative global workplace initiatives, culture change, strategic communications, knowledge management, next generation/future workplace predictions, performance and talent management, and employee engagement. Her 20+ year career in public service includes assignments throughout the United States Intelligence Community and across the Federal government. She is a veteran of the United States Army, having served as both an enlisted soldier and commissioned officer."

We continue our conversation with Shana Cosgrove, Founder and CEO of Nyla Technology Solutions. On this episode, Shana shares with us the importance of philanthropy and volunteerism as a key component of Nyla’s culture. We also chat about the challenges of attracting top tier talent in a highly competitive technical marketplace. Shana offers insights and inspo about being a business owner and the pros and cons of working in a business with your significant other.A little more info about Shana:Shana Cosgrove is founder, owner, and CEO of Nyla Technology Solutions, Inc., (“Nyla”) a HUBZone-certified and Economically Disadvantaged Woman-Owned small business (EDWOSB) founded in Baltimore City, Maryland in 2013 and focused on providing mission-focused software systems development services to the United States Intelligence Community and Department of Defense. Shana - a principal engineer, enterprise architect, and product strategist—combines over 20 years of experience in the computer science and systems engineering fields with a creative, proactive, and focused approach to projects that address all aspects of the software systems lifecycle. She brings a strong understanding of a broad range of technologies and techniques used to develop software-intensive systems.Shana started Nyla as the sole employee/owner and has grown it to over twenty-five full-time employees and overseen the authoring of 3 proposals that lead to 3 successful prime contracts with government. Nyla has an exceptional reputation for software engineering, data science, and cyber security capability development services. Nyla builds enterprise-scale, cloud-based software systems that “just work” and “end-users love” and Nyla thought leaders are often requested by name for helping solve some of the community’s hardest problems.Shana is also focused on giving back to the local community and drives Nyla’s philanthropy program. Nyla employees receive 8 hours a year to use for volunteering and are offered a variety of opportunities spaced throughout the year in which they can give back. In November 2018, Nyla’s charity efforts culminated Nyla’s First Annual Charity Chili Cookoff which raised over $6,000 for the charity, K9 for Warriors. Links:Nyla Technology SolutionsBamboo SLACK Google Hangouts

Shana Cosgrove, Founder and CEO of Nyla Technology Solutions, shares her journey to entrepreneurship along with insight into the challenges that come along with starting your own business. Shana chats with us about her inspiration for starting Nyla Technology Solutions. We have a deep dive discussion about the ins and outs of creating a culture that is employee focused and community oriented. Shana discusses how intentional she has been in fostering culture through her Culture Manifesto for Nyla and tips for maintaining employee engagement with a distributed workforce.A little more info about Shana:Shana Cosgrove is founder, owner, and CEO of Nyla Technology Solutions, Inc., (“Nyla”) a HUBZone-certified and Economically Disadvantaged Woman-Owned small business (EDWOSB) founded in Baltimore City, Maryland in 2013 and focused on providing mission-focused software systems development services to the United States Intelligence Community and Department of Defense. Shana - a principal engineer, enterprise architect, and product strategist—combines over 20 years of experience in the computer science and systems engineering fields with a creative, proactive, and focused approach to projects that address all aspects of the software systems lifecycle. She brings a strong understanding of a broad range of technologies and techniques used to develop software-intensive systems.Shana started Nyla as the sole employee/owner and has grown it to over twenty-five full-time employees and overseen the authoring of 3 proposals that lead to 3 successful prime contracts with government. Nyla has an exceptional reputation for software engineering, data science, and cyber security capability development services. Nyla builds enterprise-scale, cloud-based software systems that “just work” and “end-users love” and Nyla thought leaders are often requested by name for helping solve some of the community’s hardest problems.Shana is also focused on giving back to the local community and drives Nyla’s philanthropy program. Nyla employees receive 8 hours a year to use for volunteering and are offered a variety of opportunities spaced throughout the year in which they can give back. In November 2018, Nyla’s charity efforts culminated Nyla’s First Annual Charity Chili Cookoff which raised over $6,000 for the charity, K9 for Warriors. Links:Nyla Technology Solutions Bamboo SLACK Google Hangouts

Hour #2 Guests: - Derek LeBlanc - the founder and president of the Kids S.A.F.E. Foundation, with the goal to educate children and families on firearm safety and accident prevention. - Karen Hunter - is a Freelance Writer/Senior Editor / Firearms Instructor, Senior Range Officer at Force Options Tactical Training and Security. - Drew Berquist - the Editor-in-Chief for OpsLens.com and the host of CRTV‘s Experience Matters with Drew Berquist. Previously, he served as a counterterrorism officer for the United States Intelligence Community, where he performed more than thirty deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Responsibly Armed Citizen Report Dan’s Calm-mentary

Why is President Trump espousing his love for dictators? How will new technologies and citizen investigations change the way intelligence collection is carried out? Are conspiracy theories a bit of fun or are they a serious challenge for trust in government? Does James Clapper watch spy movies? On this episode of the National Security Podcast Chris Farnham has a wide ranging discussion with the former US Director of National Intelligence and visiting Vice-Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor, hosted by the ANU National Security College. James Clapper was the US Director of National Intelligence from 2010 to January 2017. In this position, he led the United States Intelligence Community and served as the principal intelligence advisor to President Barak Obama. Chris Farnham is the presenter of the National Security Podcast. He joined the National Security College in June 2015 as Policy and Events Officer. His career focus has been on geopolitics with experience working in and out of China for a number of years as well as operating in Australia and Southeast Asia. Show notes | The following were referred to in this episode: Bellingcat – A platform for citizen and journalist investigations Cameroon atrocity: Finding the soldiers who killed this woman – BBC News We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us at @APPSPolicyForum or find us on Facebook. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Since the 2016 election, our country has been questioning whether our elections are secure, fair, and accurate. In this episode, we examine the threats to our election administration, both real and overblown. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD175: State of War CD172: The Illegal Bombing of Syria CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD108: Regime Change CD041: Why Attack Syria? Additional Reading Report: Dramatic increase in voters purged from voter rolls between 2014 and 2016 by Adia Robinson, ABC News, July 24, 2018. Article: Mueller's latest indictment suggests Russia's infiltration of U.S. election systems could get worse by Lawrence Norden, Slate, July 26, 2018. Article: State election officials didn't know about Russian hacking threat until the read it in the news, emails show by Sam Biddle, The Intercept, June 20, 2018. Article: Supreme court upholds Ohio's purge of voting rolls by Adam Liptak, The New York Times, June 11, 2018. Article: What we know and don't know about election hacking by Clare Malone, FiveThirtyEight, April 10, 2018. Report: America's voting machines at risk - An update by Lawrence Norden and Wilfred U. Codrington III, Brennan Center for Justice, March 8, 2018. Article: The dark roots of AIPAC: America's Pro-Israel Lobby by Doug Rossinow, The Washington Post, March 6, 2018. Article: Wyden presses leading US voting machine manufacturer on potential hacking vulnerabilities by Olivia Beavers, The Hill, March 6, 2018. Article: They myth of the hacker-proof voting machine by Kim Zetter, The New York Times, February 21, 2018. Article: No instant profits in US electronic voting machines, Financial Times, 2018. Article: Virginia is replacing some of its electronic voting machines over security concerns by Andrew Liptak, The Verge, September 10, 2017. Report: It took DEF CON hackers minutes to pwn these US voting machines by Iain Thomson, The Register, July 29, 2017. Article: Russian hackers broke into elections company used in Miami-Dade, Broward by Tim Elfrink, Miami New Times, June 6, 2017. Report: Exclusive: Trump says Clinton policy on Syria would lead to world war three by Steve Holland, Reuters, October 25, 2016. Article: The best Congress AIPAC can buy by L. Michael Hager, Foreign Policy Journal, March 22, 2016. Article: AIPAC-linked group launches $5 million ad campaign against nuke deal by Adam Kredo, The Washington Free Beacon, July 17, 2015. Article: The non-pliticians who profit from Election Day by Megan McCarthy, Fortune, November 4, 2014. Report: Diebold indicted: Its spectre still haunts Ohio election by Bob Fitrakis, Columbus Free Press, October 31, 2013. Article: The mysterious case of Ohio's voting machines by Kim Zetter, Wired, March 26, 2008. Letter: Elections: Federal efforts to improve security and reliability of electronic voting systems are under way, but key activities need to be completed, GAO, September 2005. Article: Ohio's odd numbers by Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair, March 2005. Article: Diebold's political machine by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, Mother Jones, March 5, 2004. Resources Brennan Center for Justice: The Help America Vote Act Congress.gov: S.2261 - Secure Elections Act GovTrack: H.R. 3295 (107th): Help America Vote Act of 2002 Internet Research Agency Indictment: Mueller John Husted, Secretary of State of Ohio Report: President/Vice President Voting Report: November 2, 2004 Justice.gov: New Indictment of Mueller Source Watch: Ashcroft Group Info Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Election Security Preparedness, Senate Rules and Administration Committee, C-SPAN, June 20, 2018. Witnesses: Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Jim Condos - Vermont Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft - Missouri Secretary of State Steve Simon - Minnesota Secretary of State Connie Lawson - Indiana Secretary of State Shane Schoeller - Clerk for Greene County, Missouri Noah Praetz - Director of Elections for Cook County, Illinois 2:40 Senator Roy Blunt (MO): January of 2017, the Department of Homeland Security designated our country’s election infrastructure to be critical infrastructure. This designation began the formalization of information sharing and collaboration among state, local, and federal governments through the creation of a Government Coordinating Council, some of our witness this day are already sitting on that newly formed council. More recently, in the 2018 omnibus, Congress appropriated right at $380 million to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to help states enhance their election infrastructure. As of this week, 38 states have requested $250 million of that money, and about 150 million of it has already been disbursed to the states. 6:45 Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN): So, we have a bill, Senator Lankford and I along with Senator Harris and Graham and Warner and Burr, Heinrich, and Collins. It’s a bipartisan bill called the Secure Elections Act, and we have been working to make changes to it along the way and introduce it as amendment, but it really does four things. First of all, improves information sharing between local election officials, cyber-security experts, and national-security personnel. Second, providing for development and maintenance of cyber-security best practices. We all know, I think there’s five states that don’t have backup paper ballots, and then there's something like nine more that have partial backup paper ballots. And while we’re not mandating what each state does, and we do not want each state to have the exact same election equipment—we think that would be a problem and could potentially lend itself to more break-ins—we think it’s really important that we have some floor and standards that we set that given what we know, I don’t think we’d be doing our democracy any good if we didn’t share that and we didn’t put in some floors. Third, the bill will promote better auditing our election’s use of paper backup systems, which I mentioned, and finally, it’s focused on providing election officials with much-needed resources. As you all know, we were able to get $380 million to be immediately distributed to the state, not play money, money that’s going out right now to states across the country, based on populations. We didn’t have some complicated grant process that would have slowed things down. The money went directly to state election officials as long as the state legislature authorizes it to get accepted and get to work to update their systems. 11:50 Jay Ashcroft: But before we move forward, we should briefly look back to the impetus of why we are all here today: allegations that outside actors threaten the integrity of our elections during the 2016 election cycle. While these are serious allegations, it is vitally important to understand that after two years of investigation, there is no credible—and I could strike “credible” and just put “evidence”—there is no evidence that these incidents caused a single vote or a single voter registration to be improperly altered during the 2016 election cycle. It was not our votes or our election systems that were hacked; it was the people’s perception of our elections. 30:50 Matthew Masterson: For those voters who have questions or concerns regarding the security or integrity of the process, I implore you to get involved. Become a poll worker; watch pre-election testing of the systems, or post-election audits; check your registration information before elections; engage with your state- and local-election officials; and most importantly, go vote. The best response to those who wish to undermine faith in our democracy is to participate and to vote. 1:08:00 Senator Roy Blunt (MO): Should the federal government make an audit trail, a paper audit trail, a requirement to have federal assistance? Jay Ashcroft: I don’t think so. Jim Condos: I do think so. Steve Simon: I think there is a federal interest in making sure that there's some audit process. Sen. Blunt: Well, now, what I’m asking about is, should there be a way to recreate the actual election itself? And I don’t know quite how to do that without paper, even if you had a machine that was not accessible to the web. Jay Ashcroft: I believe states are moving to do that, without federal legislation. So that’s why I don’t think that federal legislation needs to be done to that. 1:23:30 Shane Schoeller: I do want to address one area that concerns Secure Elections Act, that is on page 23, lines three, four, and five. It says, “Each election result is determined by tabulating marked ballots, hand or device.” I strongly recommend for post-election auditing purposes that a state-marked paper ballots, because I believe the opportunity for fraud in electronic ballot-casting system that does not have a paper trail’s too great. *1:32:00 Shane Schoeller: Even if you do a post audit with the machine, how would you know if something’s been compromised if you can’t at least compare the results of the paper ballot. And I think that’s the assurance it gives. Clearly, the machine, when you have an accurate election, does do a better job of counting the ballots. I’m talking about in the case where clearly fraud has occurred, then the paper ballot is going to be the evidence you need in terms of if your system inside that machine is compromised. 1:32:30 Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN): I think for a while people were talking about, well, why doesn’t everyone just vote from home, which is great when you can mail in a ballot, we know that, but vote from home just from your computer, and that would mean no paper records of anything. Could you comment about that? Noah Praetz: I think that’s 100% inappropriate for civil elections. Sen. Klobuchar: Got it. Shane Schoeller: I find it ironic because this is my first term, although I ran for this office in 2014, that was actually a common theme that I heard. Sen. Klobuchar: Right. I was hearing it, and I was—I kept thinking— Schoeller: Mm-hmm. Sen. Klobuchar: —about our state with, they’re not going to keep dwelling on it, with that high voter turnout. But, you know, that involved a paper ballot— voice off-mic: incredible integrity. Sen. Klobuchar: —and incredible integrity. But it involved people—they could vote by mail, and we’ve made that even easier, but they had actual paper ballots that they did, and then they were fed into this machine to count, with auditing. But you’re right. That’s what people were talking about. Why can’t you just do it from your home computer and have no backup, right? Schoeller: Right. And that was one of the things I actually had to disagree when that viewpoint was put forth, particularly in one city that I remember. And even after I became elected, I went to a conference of other elected officials, and there was a group of speakers, and they all were talking about this, and there was actually one speaker— Sen. Klobuchar: Like voting from Facebook. Schoeller: Correct. Sen. Klobuchar: Just kidding... Schoeller: But they actually disagreed, and I went up, and I think I was the only election official that day—this was prior to 2016—that didn’t think that it was a good idea. But I think we have evidence now from 2016 that clearly—that’s a convenience that we just can’t afford. 1:35:05 Noah Praetz: We’ve got a piece of paper that every voter looked at. Senator Amy Klobuchar: Mm-hmm. Praetz: So worst-case scenario, a Sony-type attack with full meltdown of all systems, we can recreate an election that’s trusted and true. Hearing: Election Security, Senate Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN, June 12, 2018. Witnesses: Adam Hickey - Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at the Department of Justice Matthew Masterson - National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security Kenneth Wainstein - Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP Prof. Ryan Goodman - New York University School of Law Nina Jankowicz - Global Fellow at the Wilson Center 9:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): We know that Russia orchestrated a sustained and coordinated attack that interfered in our last presidential election. And we also know that there’s a serious threat of more attacks in our future elections, including this November. As the United States Intelligence Community unanimously concluded, the Russian government’s interference in our election—and I quote—“blended covert intelligence operations, such as cyber activity, with overt efforts by the Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social-media users or trolls.” Over the course of the past year and a half, we’ve come to better understand how pernicious these attacks were. Particularly unsettling is that we were so unaware. We were unaware that Russia was sowing division through mass propaganda, cyber warfare, and working with malicious actors to tip scales of the election. Thirteen Russian nationals and three organizations, including the Russian-backed Internet Research Agency, have now been indicted for their role in Russia’s vast conspiracy to defraud the United States. 39:40 Senator Mike Lee (UT): First, let’s talk a little bit about the integrity of our election infrastructure. We’ll start with you, Mr. Masterson. Were there any known breaches of our election infrastructure in the 2016 election? Matthew Masterson: Thank you, Senator. Yes, there was some publicly discussed known breaches of election infrastructure specifically involving voter-registration databases. Sen. Lee: Are there any confirmed instances of votes being changed from one candidate to another? Masterson: There are no confirmed instances of that. Sen. Lee: And were any individual voting machines hacked? Masterson: No, not that I know of. 42:55 ** Senator Mike Lee**: One approach to some of this, to the threat, the possibility of election infrastructure or voting machines being hacked from the outside is to go low-tech. Some states have gravitated toward that. For example, some states have started making moves back toward paper ballots so that they can’t be hacked. Is this something that’s helpful? Is it something that’s necessary that you think more states ought to consider? Matthew Masterson: Yeah. Senator, the auditability and having an auditable voting system, in this case, auditable paper records, is critical to the security of the systems. In those states that have moved in that direction have implemented means by which to audit the vote in order to give confidence to the public on the results of the election. In those states that have non-paper systems have indicated a desire—for instance, Pennsylvania—to more to auditable systems. And so at this point, resources are necessary to help them move that direction. Sen. Lee: By that, you mean either a paper-ballot system or a system that simultaneously creates a paper trail. Masterson: An auditable paper record. Correct, sir. 1:22:08 Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Will you talk a bit about what you have seen in terms of the risk assessments you’ve been doing around the country? I believe 14 states have been completed. Is that correct, 14? Matthew Masterson: I believe it’s 17 states have been completed— Sen. Harris: Right. Masterson: —thus far, as well as 10 localities. Sen. Harris: And what generally have you seen as being the vulnerabilities— Masterson: Sure. Sen. Harris: —in those assessments? Masterson: Thank you, Senator. Generally speaking, within the election’s infrastructure sector, we’re seeing the same typical vulnerabilities you’d see across IT systems, so managing software updates, outdated equipment or hardware, as well as general upgrades that need to take place as far as what configuration management within systems to limit the damage that could be done if something were to take place. And so— Sen. Harris: Resilience. Masterson: What’s that? Sen. Harris: Their resilience. Masterson: Yeah, their resilience. Sen. Harris: Mm-hmm. Masterson: Exactly. Thank you, Senator. And so this sector is no different in what we see in the work we’re doing with them. 2:15:00 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): But what I want to talk about in my time is the problem of shell corporations, because for all of the emphasis that the witnesses have put on policing and prosecuting foreign influence in our elections, you can neither police or prosecute what you cannot find. And at the moment, we have both a shell-corporation problem, which was emphasized by Mark Zuckerberg in his testimony when he said their political advertisement-authentication program would only go to the first shell corporation and not seek any information about who was actually behind it. I don’t think Putin is stupid enough to call it Boris and Natasha, LLC. It’s going to sound more like Americans for Puppies and Peace and Prosperity. But it’s a front group, and it’s got Putin or whomever else behind it, and until we can know that, we cannot enforce effectively, period, end of story. Similarly, when our election system has these colossal channels for dark money, anonymized funding, if you can’t find out what special interest is behind anonymous money, you can’t find out if there’s a foreign interest behind that money. Darkness is darkness is darkness, and it hides malign activity, both foreign and domestic. And I’d like to ask each of you to comment on that. We’re concerned about trolling. Obviously, that’s facilitated by shell corporations. You talked about general propaganda campaigns. Obviously, facilitated by shell corporations. Campaign finance laws, you’ve called out for a need for effective disclosure. You can’t have effective disclosure if the only thing you’re disclosing is a front corporation and you don’t know who’s really behind it. So, if I could ask each of you three on that, then that’ll be the end of my time. Kenneth Wainstein: Sure, I’ll go first, Senator Whitehouse. And thank you for kind words, and good to work with you again. Always is. Sen. Whitehouse: We were good adversaries. Wainstein: We were. Adversaries who were working for the same goal. Sen. Whitehouse: Yes. Wainstein: Look, as a prosecutor, former prosecutor, looking at this issue, of course you want to know more about the corporations than less. There are obviously First Amendment issues and other concerns out there in the election context, but absolutely, there’s no way to sort of resist your logic, which is we’ve seen the use of corporations in a variety of contexts, whether it’s money laundering or otherwise, but we’ve seen here in the election interference and disinformation context, and a lot of that— Sen. Whitehouse: In fact, they’re widely used in the criminal context for money-laundering purposes and to hide the proceeds of criminal activities, correct? Wainstein: Absolutely. Sen. Whitehouse: So to the extent that what Putin is running is essentially a criminal enterprise of himself and his oligarchs. Why would they not look to what criminal enterprises do as a model? Wainstein: Yeah, it’s meat-and-potatoes criminal conduct. Sen. Whitehouse: Yeah. Wainstein: No question. And all intended to hide the fact of the source of this malign activity. Hearing: Election Security, Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, C-SPAN, February 13, 2018. Witnesses: Robert Butler - Co-Founder and Managing Director, Cyber Strategies LLC Heather Conley - Director of the Europe Program Center for Strategic and International Studies Former Dep. Asst. Sec. of State for EU & Eurasian Affairs in GWB admin, 2001-2005 Richard Harknett - Professor of Political Science and Head of Political Science Department, University of Cincinnati Michael Sulmeyer - Director, Cyber Security Project, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University 7:15 Senator Ben Nelson: First, the department has cyber forces designed and trained to thwart attacks on our country through cyberspace, and that’s why we created the Cyber Command’s National Mission Teams. A member of this subcommittee, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Shaheen, we all wrote the secretary of defense last week that they, the department, ought to be assigned to identify Russian operators responsible for the hacking, stealing information, planting misinformation, and spreading it through all the botnets and fake accounts on social media. They ought to do that. That’s—the Cyber Command knows who that is. And then, we ought to use our cyber forces to disrupt this activity. We aren’t. We should also be informing the social-media companies of Russia’s fake accounts and other activities that violate those companies’ terms of service so that they can be shut down. 18:20 Heather Conley: You asked us what role DOD could play to protect the U.S. elections, and I think, simply, DOD working with Congress has got to demand a hold of government strategy to fight against this enduring disinformation and influence operation. We don’t have a national strategy. Unfortunately, modernizing our nuclear forces will not stop a Russian influence operation. That’s where we are missing a grave threat that exists in the American people’s palm of their hand and on their computer screens. 19:05 Heather Conley: As one of the most trusted institutions in the United States, the Department of Defense must leverage that trust with the American people to mitigate Russian influence. Simply put, the Department of Defense has to model the bipartisan and fact-based action, behavior, and awareness that will help reduce societal division. This is about leadership, it’s about protecting the United States, and as far as I can see, that is in the Department of Defense job description. Hearing: Cybersecurity of Voting Machines, House Oversight Subcommittee and Government Reform Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, C-SPAN, November 29, 2017. Witnesses: Christopher Krebs - Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary National Protection & Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security Tom Schedler - Secretary of State of Louisiana Edgardo Cortes - Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections Matthew Blaze - Associate Professor, Computer and Information Science at the University of Pennsylvania 4:24 Representative Robin Kelly (IL): In September of this year, DHS notified 21 states that hackers affiliated with the Russian government breached or attempted to breach their election infrastructure. In my home state of Illinois, the hackers illegally downloaded the personal information of 90,000 voters and attempted to change and delete data. Fortunately, they were unsuccessful. 5:05 Representative Robin Kelly (IL): Earlier this year, researchers at the DEF CON conference successfully hacked five different direct-recording electronic voting machines, or DREs, in a day. The first vulnerabilities were discovered in just 90 minutes. Even voting machines not connected to the Internet still contained physical vulnerabilities like USB ports that can be used to upload malware. Alarmingly, many DREs lack the ability to allow experts to determine that they have been hacked. Despite these flaws, DREs are still commonly used. In 2016, 42 states used them. They were more than a decade old, with some running outdate software that is no longer supported by the manufacturer. 20:30 Tom Schedler: In terms of voting-machine security, remember that with the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, states were required to purchase at least one piece of accessible voting equipment for each polling place. 23:55 Edgardo Cortes: Virginia has twice has been put in the unfortunate position of having to decertify voting equipment and transition to new equipment in a condensed timeframe, based on security concerns of previously used DREs. These steps outlined in detail in my written testimony were not taken lightly. They place a financial and administrative stress on the electoral system. They were, however, essential to maintain the public’s trust and the integrity of Virginia elections. The November 2017 general election was effectively administered without any reported voting-equipment issues. Thanks to the ongoing partnership between the state, our hardworking local election officials, and our dedicated voting-equipment vendors, the transition to paper-based voting systems on a truncated time line was incredibly successful and significantly increased the security of the election. 25:45 Edgardo Cortes: To ensure the use of secure voting equipment in the future, Congress should require federal certification of all voting systems used in federal elections. This is currently a voluntary process. Federal certification should also be required for electronic poll books, which currently are not subject to any federal guidelines. 28:20 Matthew Blaze: Virtually every aspect of our election process, from voter registration to ballot creation to casting ballots and then to counting and reporting election results, is today controlled in some way by software. And unfortunately, software is notoriously difficult to secure, especially in large-scale systems such as those used in voting. And the software used in elections is really no exception to this. It’s difficult to overstate how vulnerable our voting infrastructure that’s in use in many states today is, particularly to compromise by a determined and well-funded adversary. For example, in 2007 our teams discovered exploitable vulnerabilities in virtually every voting-system component that we examined, including backend election-management software as well as particularly DRE voting terminals themselves. At this year’s DEF CON event, we saw that many of the weaknesses discovered in 2007, and known since then, not only are still present in these systems but can be exploited quickly and easily by non-specialists who lack access to proprietary information such as source code. 38:40 Matthew Blaze: The design of DRE systems makes their security dependent not just on the software in the systems but the hardware’s ability to run that software correctly and to protect against malicious software being loaded. So an unfortunate property of the design of DRE systems is that we’ve basically given them the hardest possible security task. Any flaw in a DRE machine’s software or hardware can become an avenue of attack that potentially can be exploited. And this is a very difficult thing to protect. Representative Gary Palmer: Do we need to go to, even if we have some electronic components to back it up with paper ballots because your fallback position is always to open the machine and count the ballots? Blaze: That’s right. So, precinct-counted optical-scan systems also depend on software, but they have the particular safeguard, but there is a paper artifact of the voter’s true vote that can be used to determine the true election results. DRE, paperless DRE systems don’t have that property, and so we’re completely at the mercy of the software and hardware. 47:00 Christopher Krebs: When you characterize these things as attacks, I think that is perhaps overstating what may have happened in the 21 states, as was mentioned, over the course of the summer. The majority of the activity was simple scanning. Scanning happens all the time. It’s happening right now to a number of probably your websites. Scanning is a regular activity across the web. I would not characterize that as an attack. It’s a preparatory step. 58:15 Matthew Blaze: There is no fully reliable way to audit these kinds of systems. We may get lucky and detect some forensic evidence, but ultimately the design of these systems precludes our ability to do a conclusive audit of the voter’s true intent. That’s why paperless systems really need to be phased out in favor of things like optical-scan paper ballots that are counted at the precinct but backed by an artifact of the voter’s true intent. 1:02:42 Tom Schedler: The system that we’re looking at, we’re not out for bid yet, would be one that would produce, even though you would vote on an electronic machine, it would produce an actual paper ballot that you could hold in your hand—Representative Paul Mitchell (MI): My concern with that— Schedler: —and then cast ballot only with that point when you put it into a secure box. Rep. Mitchell: My concern with that, and Dr. Blaze makes the point, is that if you produce a paper result after you put something into the machine, if in fact the machine is tampered with, you could in fact end up with just confirming the tampered information. Schedler: Yes, sir. Speech: Hillary Clinton on National Security and the Islamic State, Council on Foreign Relations, November 19, 2015. 12:35 Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air.   Hearing: Electronic Voting Machines, House Administration Committee, C-SPAN, September 28, 2006. Witnesses: Edward Felton - Computer Science Professor at Princeton University Keith Cunningham - Board of Elections Director of Allen County, Ohio Barbara Simons - Association for Computer Machinery, Public Policy Committee Co-Chair 19:54 Edward Felten: Two weeks ago my colleagues, Ari Feldman and Alex Halderman, and I released a detailed security analysis of this machine, the Diebold AccuVote-TS, which is used in Maryland, Georgia, and elsewhere. My written testimony summarizes the findings of our study. One main finding is that the machines are susceptible to computer viruses that spread from machine to machine and silently transfer votes from one candidate to another. Such a virus requires moderate computer-programming skills to construct. Launching it requires access to a single voting machine for as little as one minute. 1:45:23 Keith Cunningham: Can they be improved? Absolutely, and I think throughout my comments I was very definite to say that these machines, as they currently sit, are not reliable. My question back to you, though, in that regard is, who’s going to pay to fix it, because one of the problems we have right now is in the last 24 months every election jurisdiction in this country has spent the $3 billion we spoke about earlier on new election equipment, and that’s what’s in place. So without somebody stepping forward to fund that enterprise, I don’t know how we’re going to improve them ourselves. 1:51:00 Barbara Simons: I wanted to remind the panelists of what happened in Carteret County, North Carolina, in, I believe it was, ’04, where paperless DREs were used and over 4,000 votes were lost. I mean, there's this concern about being able to reprint paper ballots or paper VVPATs. When you lose votes in a DRE, which has no paper, there is nothing you can do, and in fact, there was an election for—the statewide election—for agricultural commissioner, where the separation between the two candidates was such that the results could have been reversed by those missing votes. And it went to court, it went to two different courts, where they first tried to hold a recount just for the county itself. That was thrown out. Then it went for a statewide recount, and that was thrown out because we had no laws to deal with what happens when DREs fail. And finally, there were a number of people who submitted subpoenas or petitions say they had voted for one of the candidates, and based on those submissions, it looked like the judge was going to declare that candidate the winner, and so that was how the election was decided. This is not a way to hold elections in this country. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

Drew Berquist is the founder and editor-in-chief for OpsLens. Drew served as a counterterrorism officer for the United States Intelligence Community. His skills and experience have taught him to see things that others might not recognize. They start by covering a few issues that our society faces today, and Drew brings a unique perspective. Chuck and Mark continue discussing how few people are aware of their surroundings in everyday situations. Drew covers some of the basic methods for noticing your surroundings and offers some of the best thing to do to be prepared in a dangerous situation. As Chuck and Mark describe some common situations people find themselves in, Drew gives you the mindset you should have in each situation. They break down these scenarios from a political and social viewpoint, which gives you a different a sense of why each situation is happening. More about Drew: Drew Berquist is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief for OpsLens. Drew served as a counterterrorism officer for the United States Intelligence Community, where he performed more than thirty deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan to conduct intelligence operations against the Taliban, al-Qai'da and, more recently, ISIS. Drew has commented on national security matters on Fox and Friends, Lou Dobbs, Dennis Miller and a number of other shows throughout the country. Connect with Drew: Twitter: https://twitter.com/opslens and https://twitter.com/drewberquist Facebook: facebook.com/OpsLens Website: https://www.opslens.com/

Watergate and Trump, is a fascinating show comparing Russian hacking to Watergate. This show points out the weak sources that fringe media is using to refute the United States Intelligence Community allegations of Russian hacking. The show contains an audio clip of Sam Ervin chair of the Senate Watergate Committee explaining the dangers of interference in a Presidential election.

More details on Police State tactics of surveillance. The FBI (and the court system) has determined that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy once a citizen has left his or her home.  So, if you are outside of your house, you will be monitored.  How?  Two of the new surveillance weapons used by the United States Intelligence Community are the DRT Box and the StingRay.  They both work in similar ways.  They are "cell-site simulators" or "ISMI catchers".  From the ACLU website:"Stingrays, also known as "cell site simulators" or "IMSI catchers," are invasive cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell phone towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information. When used to track a suspects cell phone, they also gather information about the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby.Law enforcement agencies all over the country possess Stingrays, though their use is often shrouded in secrecy. The ACLU has uncovered evidence that federal and local law enforcement agencies are actively trying to conceal their use from public scrutiny, and we are continuing to push for transparency and reform."The DRT Boxes are now being used in the air (plane, drone, helicopter, etc.) to sweep up even more information from cell phone users.  It doesn't seem like there is even an expectation of privacy within the walls of your home anymore.[Click to Listen]

More than a decade after 9/11, the least reformed part of the US intelligence system is not the CIA or the FBI but Congress. This book examines why. Headlines have focused on the extent to which Bush administration officials withheld information from Congress about interrogations, wiretapping, and other controversial intelligence programs. But executive branch secrecy is not the entire story. In Eyes on Spies, Amy Zegart finds that many of Congress's oversight troubles lie with Congress -- and two institutional deficiencies in particular: limited expertise and weak budgetary power over the intelligence community. This is no accident. In both areas, electoral incentives and turf protection have led Congress to tie its own hands and block oversight reforms, even when the problems are known and the stakes are high. Examining more than 10,000 hearings over thirty years, Zegart finds that poor intelligence oversight crosses party lines, presidential administrations, individual congressional leaders, and eras. She concludes that the U.S. intelligence oversight system is well designed to serve the reelection interests of individual legislators and protect congressional committee power but poorly designed to serve the national interest. Biography: Amy Zegart is a Senior Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. She is also a faculty affiliate at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation and a Professor of Political Economy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business (by courtesy), where she co-teaches a course on managing political risk with Condoleezza Rice. Previously, she was a Professor of Public Policy at UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs, worked at McKinsey & Company, and served on the NSC staff. National Journal featured Zegart as one of the ten most influential experts in intelligence reform. Her academic writing includes two award-winning books: Spying Blind (Princeton University Press, 2007), which examines intelligence adaptation failures before 9/11; and Flawed by Design (Stanford University Press, 1999), which chronicles the evolution of America's national security architecture. She is currently working on a popular book about intelligence in the post-9/11 world. Zegart writes a regular intelligence column at foreignpolicy.com and has published pieces in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times. A former Fulbright Scholar, she received an A.B. in East Asian Studies from Harvard University and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University.

Since 9/11, the United States Intelligence Community has expanded into an $80 billion behemoth and taken on many new tasks, for instance spying on terrorists in cyberspace and even becoming a combat organization in its own right. Are we getting value for our money? To what extent did the invasion of Iraq divert important intelligence resources from Afghanistan? And why is the FBI flying reconnaissance flights over northwest D.C.? Intelligence historian, Matthew Aid, the author of the new book Intel Wars: The Secret History of the Fight Against Terror, grapples with these and other questions in a discussion with SPY Historian Mark Stout.