President Trump's White House Reaching New Lows In Accountability And Transparency

from the 'man-of-the-people'-lol dept

It's still very early in the Trump presidency, but so far, things aren't looking good. Overt and implicit threats to freedom of speech continue to linger in the air. Recent comments suggest Trump will look to roll back the few measures taken over the last few years to curb asset forfeiture abuse. Wording in one of President Trump's first presidential statements suggests the administration is going to value "law and order" over citizens' rights. Then there's the travel ban, which is being contested in federal courts.

We're now seeing a rollback of the few transparency and accountability objectives the supposed-Most Transparent President Ever managed to accomplish over eight years of generally making things worse on both fronts.

This follows Trump's secrecy during his presidential campaign, where he shrugged off over four decades of precedent by refusing to release his tax returns. He's made it clear on multiple occasions -- while standing in front of a memorial to dead CIA operatives and during his Black History Month speech -- that he does not trust the media. But the actions taken during the first few weeks of his presidency suggest he also does not trust the general public.

The White House comment line is shut down. New signatures aren’t being counted on petitions posted on the White House’s website. Federal agencies are not allowed to respond to requests.

[...]

Transcripts, executive orders and news releases aren’t being posted online. Social media accounts, including Flickr, Pinterest and Tumblr, are no longer in use. Sending information to the Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government, is delayed.

Steve Bannon, Trump's top advisor, has a permanent seat at the National Security Council and seems to be eliminating any paper trail that may result from those meetings. Several agencies have been muzzled by the administration, which has informed them that everything -- including press releases, blog posts, and social media interactions -- will be "centrally-managed" and run through the White House's "digital strategist." The "We the People" petition page lives on, but no one in the administration has given any indication whether the White House will actually be responding to these petitions.

These actions appear to be a concerted effort to run a top-down White House -- one that will determine the stance of every federal agency to ensure they stay on message. While some coherence is preferable to multiple opposing viewpoints on issues of public concern, the removal of the public from the equation is distressing.

As the McClatchy article points out, it's not just social media accounts and federal register postings that have been affected. It's also the few "direct" lines of communication the public has with the administration.

Cottmeyer, a self-described moderate Republican who has called the comment line for more than a decade, wants to speak to someone at the White House about Trump’s decision to pull out of the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she thinks will hurt her state’s economy.

But when she calls 202-456-1111 she gets a recording: “Thank you for calling the White House comments line. The comment line is currently closed. But your comment is important to the president.” It then refers her to www.whitehouse.gov/contact – or Facebook, where the White House is accepting comments on its posts, but not messages.

While some of this may smooth out as the administration becomes more comfortable with the inner workings of the White House, these early steps don't do much to indicate better, more transparent/accountable days are ahead. If anything, they give the impression that the White House isn't going to act as the public's servant, but rather a podium from which orders and directives are issued. Questions and comments are not only discouraged, but they appear to be considered completely irrelevant to the political process.

Filed Under: accountability, donald trump, foia, transparency, trump administration, white house

Whether Or Not You Believe Russia Interfered In The Election, We Should All Be Worried About Escalation Based On Secret Info

from the be-concerned dept

So, we just wrote about Obama administration's tepid response to claims that Russians "interfered" with the Presidential election. In that post, we noted our concerns about the fact that we seem to be escalating a situation based on claims where we're not allowed to see any of the actual evidence. I've seen a bunch of people arguing that anyone who won't automatically accept that Russia interfered in the election should be dubbed either Putin supporters or, at the very least, "useful idiots" but we should be very, very careful about where this leads. I certainly think that there's a tremendous possibility that Russian forces did intend to interfere with our election, but I'd certainly like to see some actual evidence -- and the "evidence" provided so far shows no such thing.

And this should scare you. Not because it means that anyone is lying, but because it's setting the stage for very dangerous things. If we're setting the precedent that the US government can escalate situations based on purely secret knowledge, what's to stop them from doing so over and over again? Put another way: for those who dislike Trump, but are happy about the White House calling out and sanctioning Russia, how will you feel when President Trump makes similar claims about some other country (perhaps one blocking a new Trump hotel?), and proceeds to issue US government sanctions on that country -- but without releasing any actual evidence of wrongdoing beyond "government agencies say they did bad things." Won't that be concerning too?

Matt Taibbi, over at Rolling Stone, has an excellent article comparing this to when we started the war in Iraq -- noting the similarities, in that the government (and the press) kept insisting that because certain government agencies said something ("Iraq has WMDs"), it must be true:

This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all.

Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.

And, as he later notes:

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

And this is a big part of the problem. Because none of the evidence is public, beyond just statements of attribution, we're left with no way to know what are actually reasonable responses. There's a big spectrum of possibilities that might be described as "Russian interference" from merely helping some independent hackers release information (as some have charged) to using actual intelligence agencies to run a serious hacking operation (as others have charged), all the way up to actively tampering in voting systems (which some in the public now claim, but which no official has suggested actually happened).

The problem isn't so much a question of whether or not the Russians did something. Maybe they did. It certainly wouldn't surprise me at all if they did. At the very least, Russian officials seem to be laughing at everything going on now. The real issue is the danger of having the force and power of the US government responding to "actions" by stating things as true, without providing any evidence to back it up. In that space, a lot of mischief can and will occur. Looking back at the invasion of Iraq based on faulty reports is just one example. We should be learning from that lesson, not repeating it.

Filed Under: escalation, hacking, president obama, president trump, russia, secrecy, secrets, white house

White House Kicks Russian Diplomats Out Of The Country, Releases Preliminary Report On Russian Hacking With More To Come

from the escalation-time dept

As was widely expected, the White House officially announced its response to claims of Russian interference in our election process, and the "response" is basically kicking 35 Russian diplomats out of the country. Russia admittedly suggested it will do the same. The announcement also includes adding some entities to the official list of "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons." Somewhat incredibly, now added to that list is the FSB, which is the modern incarnation of the KGB. What's incredible about this was that it took until now for this to happen. With this, the administration also issued an executive order expanding on a previous executive order from last year, enabling it to take these actions.

Somewhat ridiculously, the new executive order just shows the full new order, and doesn't call out what changes were made from the original. So I went through and did a diff on the two executive orders myself. The first major change is an additional first line of who can be sanctioned. While the original had a description of what types of people could be sanctioned for cybersecurity violations, that same sanction has been bumped down to the 2nd item, and the new first item is:

the persons listed in the Annex to this order

Hmmm. That feels unfortunately close to an "enemies list."

The second major change is the addition of this action which can get you sanctioned to a long list of reasons:

tampering with, altering, or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions;

Yup. Remember, we noted already that interfering with "election systems" was not previously listed as a sanctionable offense. Now it is. That was to be expected.

Along with this report, Homeland Security and the FBI also (finally) released something of a "Joint Analysis Report" about the alleged Russian interference. The only major revelation in there is that the US government is referring to this hacking program as "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security.

This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens. These cyber operations have included spearphishing campaigns targeting government organizations, critical infrastructure entities, think tanks, universities, political organizations, and corporations leading to the theft of information. In foreign countries, RIS actors conducted damaging and/or disruptive cyber-attacks, including attacks on critical infrastructure networks. In some cases, RIS actors masqueraded as third parties, hiding behind false online personas designed to cause the victim to misattribute the source of the attack. This JAR provides technical indicators related to many of these operations, recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided, and information on how to report such incidents to the U.S. Government.

Other than that, the report really doesn't tell us much more than was already reported in the past by various cybersecurity outfits, about the supposed infiltration by two hacking groups -- called APT28 and APT29 (APT: Advanced Persistent Threat) that people say are connected to the Russian government. There is a nifty graphic, though: The report also posts the YARA signature of the malware that was used (and encourage security folks to check for matching YARA signatures on their systems), and highlights (as was already known) that most of the "hacking" involved spearphishing (directly targeting individuals and tricking them into giving up passwords, with fake password reset requests).

The report does not add much to prove that it was actually the Russians behind this, though everyone insists that's now the consensus view. The NY Times notes that "a more detailed report on the intelligence... will be published in the next three weeks," which certainly could reveal more details. But... of course... "much of the detail -- especially evidence collected from "implants" in Russian computer systems, tapped conversations and spies — is expected to remain classified." In other words, for those who are still skeptical that it was Russia, don't expect them to be convinced by any of this.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, when asked about all of this managed to toss off his typical word salad of nothingness:

“I think we ought to get on with our lives. I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I’m not sure we have the kind, the security we need.”

Yes, it's true that attribution in online security is difficult, but most of that statement is completely ridiculous.

And, of course, this is all kinds of a mess. You have claims of attacks that no one wants to back up with actual details, for fear that it will reveal too much about sources and methods. You have escalation of "diplomatic responses" to counter this attack that everyone tells us was done by the Russians. You have an incoming President who basically said "how do I even computer." None of this is good, and none of it should be okay from no matter where you sit. If we're going to get into a fight with Russia, it would be nice if we had more evidence that "hey, someone broke into the email systems of political parties -- because those organizations are bad at security." But that doesn't seem likely to happen.

Instead, we're left with this weird game where we're constantly being told "trust us" by one side and "computers confusing" by the other. That's not comforting.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, diplomats, election, russia, sanctions, white house

Obama Administration Looking To Expand Definition Of 'Critical Infrastructure' To Hit Back At Russians

from the oh-really-now? dept

One of the ridiculous parts of all of the discussions around "cybersecurity" concerns what should be considered "critical infrastructure." That's because, thanks to various executive orders, what the President declares as "critical infrastructure" leads to different cybersecurity requirements. There have been concerns that this will result in broadly classifying the internet as "critical infrastructure" in a manner that will lead to easier surveillance. But, as we noted nearly a decade ago, broadly classifying the internet as critical infrastructure would be silly, when the use of that designation should be narrowly focused on things like voting and banking (not to mention things like energy grids and water supplies).

Apparently, however, as the Obama administration is looking to respond to what it believes was Russian "interference" in the 2016 Presidential election, it is realizing that none of it targeted "critical infrastructure." And thus... it now wants to change the definition of what's covered. That should be concerning.

First off, at this point we should make a quick aside that there remains zero evidence released publicly that there was any actual hacking of our voting systems. None. Zip. Zero. And basically everything claiming otherwise has been partisan hackery. Before the election Trump supporters were going on and on about how voting machines could be hacked -- but have been mostly silent since the election. Instead, since the election ended, it's been Clinton supporters insisting that Russian hackers tampered with voting machines. For a decade and a half we've been warning about bad e-voting machines and how insecure they are, but so far no one has presented anything in the way of proof that electronic voting machines were hacked. Actual voting infrastructure is pretty clearly "critical infrastructure." But what about other things -- like the emails of top party leaders? Well, that's what the administration now seems to want to change into "critical infrastructure."

This is from a Washington Post article on the expected response by the White House against Russia:

The sanctions portion of the package culminates weeks of debate in the White House on how to revise a 2015 executive order that was meant to give the president authority to respond to cyberattacks from overseas but that did not cover efforts to influence the electoral system.

[....]

But officials concluded this fall that the order could not, as written, be used to punish the most significant cyber-provocation in recent memory against the United States — Russia’s hacking of Democratic organizations, targeting of state election systems and meddling in the presidential election.

With the clock ticking, the White House is working on adapting the authority to punish the Russians, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. President Obama pledged this month that there would be a response to Moscow’s interference in the U.S. elections.

The targeting of "state election systems" definitely seems a bit more like it should obviously be considered "critical infrastructure" -- though those attacks on state systems were not targeted at the actual voting infrastructure, but computer systems that contained information about voters and such. But it seems a lot more questionable to argue that political parties' computer systems should automatically be seen as "critical infrastructure." That seems to be heading down the slippery slope of declaring certain individuals email accounts critical infrastructure, and lots of mischief could be associated with such a designation.

As the article notes, even though it's believed by many that Russian hackers got into election systems, it doesn't appear they did anything in those systems, so it's tough to show that there was actual harm:

“You would (a) have to be able to say that the actual electoral infrastructure, such as state databases, was critical infrastructure, and (b) that what the Russians did actually harmed it,” said the administration official. “Those are two high bars.”

Although Russian government hackers are believed to have penetrated at least one state voter-registration database, they did not tamper with the data, officials said.

It definitely seems that voting systems should be seen as critical infrastructure, but given how declarations of critical infrastructure come with some pretty hefty requirements -- and opening up the possibility of greater surveillance -- the administration should be pretty careful about expanding the list as a reactionary move to the last election.

Filed Under: critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, e-voting, hacking, obama administration, retaliation, russia, voting, voting systems, white house

What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?

from the probably-not-good... dept

So, with basically all the big predictors predicting a fairly easy Hillary Clinton victory last night, I was planning to write a post explaining the many serious problems with her vague, confusing and mostly empty tech policy proposals -- and how there were going to be lots of things to pay attention to and fight for in the next four years. But with the surprise Donald Trump victory, it's basically even worse, in part, because he has no tech policy at all and on the issues that we care about he's bad to horrifically terrible.

Here's a quick look at some of the issues that we care about and where Trump comes down:

1. Free speech: Clinton was bad on this, but Trump is the one with the long history of bogus defamation threats and lawsuits -- and a promise to open up our libel laws and make it easier to sue for defamation. Say goodbye to any chance of a federal anti-SLAPP law, and watch out for much worse.
2. Mass Surveillance: Again, an issue where both candidates were terrible, and both seemed eager to expand mass surveillance and ignore the 4th Amendment. But again, Trump seems to care even less about the possible ramifications of this -- and has even suggested that he'd like to use the power to go after his personal enemies, rather than the enemies of the country. And, outside of the Presidential election, the 4th Amendment took a huge blow in two key Senate races as well. Senate Intelligence Committee head Richard Burr, who doesn't seem to care in the slightest about the 4th Amendment, beat his opponent, who used to run the North Carolina ACLU (an organization that cares deeply about the 4th Amendment). Burr's victory was likely, but the polls (ha!) were at least close. Up in Wisconsin, however, basically everyone was predicting a return to the Senate for Russ Feingold, the only Senator who voted against the PATRIOT Act and a strong supporter of civil liberties. But in an upset, he lost to incumbent Ron Johnson.
3. Encryption: I don't believe Trump weighed in specifically on the whole "going dark" debate, but given his comments on mass surveillance and supporting law enforcement over all else, I'm guessing that the chances of a bill banning encryption just got a hell of a lot stronger. Download some strong encryption software now and learn how to use it, folks.
4. Internet Governance/Net Neutrality: It's just bad. Trump supported a ridiculously dangerous plan based on near total confusion about how the internet works. And I'm guessing this will present a big opportunity for Congress to gut net neutrality as well. Enjoy more power for AT&T and Comcast, folks.
5. Copyright: Uh, who the hell knows? I don't think it's an issue that Trump has ever remotely weighed in on, but it seems unlikely that he'd surround himself with folks who understand the nuances of copyright policy and its free speech implications.
6. Patents: Ditto the copyright statement. Again, I fear that given his previous statements, he'll focus on using patents for much greater protectionishm, rather than greater innovation.
7. High tech immigration: Hahahahahahah.
8. Automation, Drones, Future of work, etc: Well, considering how focused Trump was on bringing back obsolete jobs, rather than ever mentioning innovation or how new technologies can change stuff... not expecting good things here either.
9. Police brutality: Yeah, another one where Trump has made himself clear that he's going to side with the police no matter what. That's not good for basic civil liberties and the rule of law. "Law and order" and due process don't always go well together.

In short, no matter who won last night, there would be lots of things to be worried about on the kinds of things that we talk about -- but with Trump it's pretty bad. On the issues he's weighed in on, he's taken really dangerous positions. On issues he hasn't, there's little suggestion that he has the understanding or even the basic intellectual curiousity to understand what's important about them. I recognize that many of these issues aren't the key ones that people are worked up about -- and they certainly have very little to do with why Trump was elected. But they do matter. Trump has talked about protecting the constitution and making America great again. To do that, it has to mean more than just protecting the 2nd Amendment -- and it has to come with supporting actual innovation. That seems a lot less likely right now and that should be a major concern.

Filed Under: donald trump, first amendment, fourth amendment, hillary clinton, president, surveillance, white house

Rights Groups, Activists Ask President To Respond To Unanswered Encryption Petition

from the running-out-of-time dept

A bunch of organizations concerned with privacy, free press, and human rights are gently reminding the outgoing president that he still hasn't fully responded to a We the People petition about encryption.

Today, 18 organizations called on U.S. President Obama to make a declarative statement in support of strong encryption. The letter comes on the one-year anniversary of the day that a joint petition (SaveCrypto.org) reached 100,000 signatures, achieving a threshold that, according to the White House, would trigger a substantive response within 60 days. That never happened.

The key word here is "substantive." The White House did issue two "responses." The first was canned PR stating the White House was absolutely dying to have a conversation about encryption, but noting that fighting terrorism would probably override citizens' wishes for full support from President Obama. It did nothing to address the specifics of the petition and was so full of fluff the authors couldn't even properly forge the typed signature of the person they claimed wrote it.

The petition itself told the White House what they thought about encryption and that's that it's important in protecting our privacy and security and undermining it is dangerous with almost no real benefit. And, indeed, almost every technology expert who has opined on this subject has said the same thing -- including Ed Felten, the White House's Deputy CTO who supposedly co-wrote this response.

Except he didn't. Because not only does it not sound like him, the letter was actually signed by "Ed Felton" not Ed Felten.

That has since been fixed. An update was added a couple of weeks later assuring petitioners that theirs calls were very important and to please stay on the line. After that, the Obama Administration appears to have shut the lights off and gone home -- at least as far as this petition goes.

The gentle reminder [PDF] points out that the petition made specific requests and the White House has completely ignored them.

On September 29, 2015, Access Now, EFF, and a coalition that grew to nearly 50 organizations and companies initiated a petition using your “We the People” platform. The petition asked you to “[p]ublicly affirm your support for strong encryption,” and to “[r]eject any law, policy, or mandate that would undermine our security” online. It also asked you to encourage other governments worldwide to do the same. The petition, also available at SaveCrypto.org, garnered more than 100,000 signatures in fewer than 30 days.

Instead of answers, the American public got reassurances that the government was listening. All well and good if the White House had followed it up by actually doing something. But it has remained silent on the issue of rejecting anti-encryption legislation. And, in the meantime, the attacks on encryption technology have increased.

In the 365 days since our petition hit the 100,000 signatory threshold to ensure a response from the administration, the FBI attempted to force Apple to build an entirely new, insecure operating system to bypass its security protocols and the U.S. Congress and legislatures in individual states have debated passing harmful anti-security legislation that would endanger the technology sector globally. Around the world, governments have capitalized on the lack of leadership in support for encryption and implemented harmful laws and policies. China specifically cited to the rhetoric in the U.S. last December when it passed a new law that likely bans end to end encryption, with no upper limit on fines for non-compliant companies. The UK is on the cusp of passing a law that could, practically, have the same impact. And from Brazil to Russia to India we are seeing other actions or proposals that could undermine the security of the global internet.

If the White House isn't willing to take a strong stance on this, then it will be that much easier for it to shrug and say "everyone else is doing it" when anti-encryption legislation lands on the Oval Office desk. If Obama doesn't tackle this now, he's leaving it for his successor. And neither of the two Presidential candidates seem all that opposed to undermining encryption for national security or law enforcement reasons.

Filed Under: encryption, going dark, white house

Obama Promises 'Proportional' Response To Russian Hacking, Ignores That We Started The Fight

from the bogus-moral-high-ground dept

We've noted several times how launching cyberwar (or real war) on Russia over the recent spike in hack attacks is a notably idiotic idea. One, the United States effectively wrote the book on hacking other countries causing all manner of harm (hello, Stuxnet), making the narrative that we're somehow defending our honor from shady international operatives foundationally incorrect. And two, any hacker worth his or her salt either doesn't leave footprints advertising their presence, or may conduct false flag operations raising the risk of attacking the wrong party.

After significant pressure from intelligence industry saber rattlers and the cybersecurity firms that profit from cyber-hysteria, President Obama this week proudly proclaimed that the U.S. government would be launching a "proportional" response to Russia's recent slate of hacking attacks:

"We obviously will ensure that a U.S. response is proportional. It is unlikely that our response would be announced in advanced. It’s certainly possible that the president could choose response options that we never announce," Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One. "The president has talked before about the significant capabilities that the U.S. government has to both defend our systems in the United States but also carry out offensive operations in other countries," he added. "There are a range of responses that are available to the president and he will consider a response that’s proportional."

Again though, the very idea that the United States would be "responding" is fundamentally incorrect. We've been engaged in nation state hacking and election fiddling for decades, happily hacking the planet for almost as long as the internet has existed. We use submarines as underwater hacking platforms, the U.S. government and its laundry list of contractors routinely hacking and fiddling with international elections and destroying reputations when and if it's convenient to our global business interests. Our behavior in 1970s South America giving tech support to Operation Condor is the dictionary definition of villainy.

Yet somehow, once countries began hacking us back, we responded with indignant and hypocritical pouting and hand-wringing. But the reality is we are not some unique, special snowflake on the moral high ground in this equation: we've historically been the bully, and nationalism all too often blinds us to this fact. Long a nation driven to war by the weakest of supporting evidence, hacking presents those in power with a wonderful, nebulous new enemy, useful in justifying awful legislation, increased domestic surveillance authority, and any other bad idea that can be shoe-horned into the "because... cybersecurity" narrative.

And as we're witnessing in great detail, hacking has played a starring role in this nightmarish election, with Donald Trump giving every indication he intends to only ramp up nation state hacking as a core tenet of his idiocracy, and Hillary Clinton lumping Russia, hackers, and WikiLeaks into one giant, amorphous and villainous amoeba to help distract us from what leaked information might actually say about the sorry state of the republic.

We're wandering into extremely dangerous territory here. As we saw with Stuxnet's impact on companies like Chevron, the United States' hacking behavior has had very real, negative repercussions for innocent third parties around the globe. Operating from the belief that we're somehow nobly defending ourselves is a falsehood the media consistently perpetuates, making this kind of dangerous digital saber rattling easier than ever for those in power. The U.S. press and public can no longer afford to be so viciously naive as 2016 stumbles drunkenly to its welcome conclusion and hacking becomes the bogeyman du jour for the next administration.

Filed Under: cybersecurity, escalation, hacking, obama, russia, white house

Obama's Last Gasp At Trade Deals: Lame Duck Push On TPP; And 'Lite' Version Of TTIP

from the this-is-not-legacy-building dept

Lots of people have expected President Obama to push for a Congressional vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) ratification in the "lame duck" session after the election, but before the new administration takes over. Last week, the President made it pretty clear that he was planning to do exactly that, and magically a bunch of "business groups" that make up the "President's Export Council" are suddenly pushing for a lame duck TPP vote, and lots of old school business lobbying groups are out talking to the press about how totally amazing the TPP is. Meanwhile, on the flip side, TPP opponents are (not surprisingly) gearing up to oppose a lame duck vote.

It's still not clear if there are enough votes in Congress, but of course, no one wants to talk about it before the election, because there's so much populist anti-TPP feelings from the public on both parties that speaking up in support of TPP now may harm election chances. Of course, after the election, when elected officials can go back to ignoring the will of the people, things may miraculously shift back to the way they were before.

Meanwhile, the other big "trade" plan that was supposed to be a part of Obama's legacy is the deal with the EU, known as the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership). That's run into lots of trouble as well, and there are serious concerns on both sides of the Atlantic about how it will work. With time running out on the clock, apparently the USTR is now pushing for a "light" version of the agreement so that something is accomplished:

The U.S. and EU countries supporting free trade are increasingly worried that the landmark Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will collapse if they do not secure a preliminary accord before U.S. President Barack Obama leaves office in January.

They now accept that a full agreement will not be possible by the end of 2016 because of an impasse over agriculture and public procurement, but they don’t want to surrender what they regard as concrete progress made in other fields over the past three years of negotiations.

So to "lock in" something, they are looking at taking the pieces they have agreed on, and coming up with a simplified deal. What's interesting here is that the agreed upon parts are the ones that are normally used as the example of why we need TTIP in the first place. In the past, we've joked about how frequently those defending TTIP point to the single example of different automobile standards, such that automakers need to build different cars for each market. And it looks like that issue might make it in TTIP-lite:

U.S. and Italian officials are now weighing the option of a “Step 1” deal to lock in elements that can be finalized by December, possibly including joint testing regimes and mutually agreed upon standards for cars, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

So, uh, that sounds good. Why do we need the rest of the crap that they're debating, around corporate sovereignty ISDS provisions -- especially since the entire basis for those kinds of agreements was supposed to be to encourage investment in developing countries. The EU and the US have perfectly decent court systems, so any dispute shouldn't need a special tribunal.

But, of course, those who have relied on shoving all sorts of pork and special interest protectionism through trade deals do not like the idea of a "lite" agreement that covers the officially discussed reasons for a trade deal. Why, that would be horrible! How could they continue to hide all the sneaky stuff they want to get in?

The idea has sparked immediate skepticism in the European Commission and in some EU member countries, which argue that any form of a downgraded deal will be very hard to sell politically, particularly after French Trade Minister Matthias Fekl and German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel turned hostile on the negotiations.

And, of course, anything that's "rushed" through may have problems on its own, so there are legitimate reasons to be wary of a "lite" deal anyway. But it is kind of amusing that they might dump all the "good" reasons for TTIP into a deal, and then have to continue to try to justify the rest of the stuff.

Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, isds, lame duck, president obama, tariffs, tpp, ttip, ttip lite, ustr, white house

ACLU Launching Campaign To Have President Obama Pardon Snowden

from the timed-to-the-movie dept

The ACLU has been hinting at this for the past few months, but with the end of President Obama's term in office coming up and coinciding with the launch of Oliver Stone's feature film about Ed Snowden, the ACLU, along with Amnesty International, are launching an official campaign to ask the President to issue a pardon for Ed Snowden. They'll be hosting a press conference Wednesday morning, where Snowden will show up via video (perhaps using Robot Snowden?) to discuss. Not surprisingly, the ACLU says they've lined up a bunch of "legal scholars, policy experts, human rights leaders, technologists and former government officials," who will all be supporting a pardon for Snowden.

There will also apparently be a sign-on form on the site PardonSnowden.org, which is currently locked up behind a password (get busy cracking that, NSA).

Not surprisingly, I think the president absolutely should pardon Snowden. I also think there's very, very, very little chance that he actually will. I wouldn't put the chance at 0% -- because it's possible. But I'd still put the likelihood in the single digits. I hope I'm wrong -- and I hope that the President recognizes why pardoning Snowden would be such a good thing, and an important part of his legacy. And I hope that the movie (which I have not seen) properly puts Snowden's actions in context (though I'm not entirely convinced Oliver Stone will do so). So, perhaps I'm wrong. But I just find it super unlikely that President Obama would stick his neck out and take a stand like that.

Filed Under: ed snowden, pardon, president obama, whistleblowing, white house
Companies: aclu

US Government Now Has An Official Open Source Software Policy

from the about-time dept

Earlier this year, we noted that the federal government was looking to further embrace open source software in its process of contracting out for (or creating in house) code. It released a draft policy which was good, though we hoped the final product would be much stronger (for example, it pushed for a portion of any code to be released under an open source license, but didn't consider that to be the default. I was also concerned about it allowing software developed by federal government employees to be locked up by a license -- something that I'm pretty sure is not allowed, since works created by federal government employees are automatically in the public domain.

On Monday, the White House's Chief Information Officer, Tony Scott, revealed the finalized official "Federal Source Code" policy, and you can read the whole thing. Because the original was posted to GitHub, you can also easily see what's changed. On top of that, as part of this, the government also launched a new site at code.gov, which will act as a repository for open source code from the government.

Much of the focus of the policy, understandably, is on enabling reuse of code within the government, so that different agencies and departments aren't reinventing the wheel (and paying hundreds of millions of dollars) for projects that others are already working on. Lots of people and agencies weighed in on the draft proposal, including some interesting/surprising ones. Homeland Security, of all organizations, worried that simply pushing government agencies to release 20% of their software as open source, without understanding how that might be most useful to the wider community, would be a waste. It preferred pushing government agencies to refactor code into reusable modules, with a focus on what would be the most reusable. Others, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau favored (as I suggested) a default open source policy, rather than the 20% solution.

Unfortunately, the plan sticks with this "pilot program" of only having to open source 20% of code, and how well that works will be evaluated over time. It appears to have "fixed" the problem of lumping in-house developed code into the policy (since that code is public domain) by now focusing the policy solely on custom developed code by third parties (at least that's my read on the new policy). While it's still disappointing that the policy didn't move to a "default to open source absent a compelling interest" standard, at least it didn't go in the other direction either. And that's in the face of complaints from the likes of the Software Alliance (a major Microsoft lobbying group) that whined about the need for such a policy in the first place.

In the end, this looks like a good step forward. It could have gone much farther, but it's still a step in the right direction. Hopefully the pilot program will lead to even bigger steps towards embracing more open source (and public domain!) software.

Filed Under: federal government, open source policy, software, software prodcurement, white house