Month: October 2018

When U.S. voters go to the polls Nov. 6 to cast their ballots in the midterm elections, they can be confident everything will work as it should, at least for now, the secretary of homeland security said Tuesday.

Kirstjen Nielsen, speaking at The Washington Post’s 2018 Cybersecurity Summit, said the country’s election infrastructure, computer systems, networks and other hardware required to record the vote were all safe.

“We currently have no indication that a foreign advisory intends to disrupt our election infrastructure,” Nielsen said.

But she added that the Department of Homeland Security, its partners in the U.S. intelligence community, and state and local governments were taking nothing for granted.

“We’re constantly on alert,” Nielsen said. “We know they have the capability and we know they have the will.”

DHS has been working with officials in all 50 states to make sure election-related systems are protected against intrusions and potential compromises from countries like Russia, though federal officials have also expressed concerns about possible attacks from China, Iran and North Korea.

Two years ago, in the months leading up the U.S. presidential election, Russian hackers targeted election systems in 21 U.S. states, penetrating some of them while scanning others. But despite the intrusion, U.S. intelligence officials concluded the Russian cyber efforts did not physically change any votes.

U.S. officials have said they have yet to see the same type of frenzied activity this year that they saw in 2016, but that they remain concerned about attacks against the country’s election infrastructure and about disinformation campaigns, some of which involve gathering information from specific candidates, campaigns or political organizations.

According to both government officials and private technology firms, a growing number of U.S. political candidates and campaigns have come under increasingly sophisticated attacks.

“We absolutely see attempts to scan systems to spear-phish,” Nielsen said. “We haven’t seen any major compromises as of yet, but again it’s that preparatory work that should raise everybody’s shield.”

In the meantime, U.S. intelligence and security officials are warning that Russia continues to run information operations to try to change the perceptions and opinions of U.S. voters.

“The objective here is not necessarily to come up with a particular party but to generate suspicion, lack of trust and disorder in the American electorate,” former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told VOA’s Russian service.

“I fully expect we’re going to see more of that, as well as social media stories generated again to create dissension and distrust,” Chertoff said.

Experts likewise worry about China’s information campaigns, though many say that for now, Beijing’s aims appear to be different.

“They’re more focused on making sure there’s a positive portrayal of China and to downplay criticism of China,” said James Mulvenon, vice president of Defense Group Inc.’s Intelligence Division.

VOA’s Russian service contributed to this report.
…

The U.S. government says Americans should not panic when their cellphones simultaneously sound an alarm on Wednesday as the federal government tests, for the first time, its presidential wireless emergency alert system.

Authorities are assuring the public in advance this is only a test, but in a real national emergency — such as the detection of an incoming ballistic missile, a coordinated terrorist attack or even a cataclysmic volcanic eruption — the same tone would be heard.

Those with their mobile devices switched on at 2:18 p.m. EDT (18:18 GMT) will hear a unique loud tone while the device simultaneously vibrates. A message box will pop up on screens, informing: “THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.”

Two minutes later, those watching broadcast and cable television or listening to AM and FM radio stations will also likely see or hear a similar alert, interrupting programming for about 1 minute, as part of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) combined national test of the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) and Emergency Alert System. 

The exercise had been scheduled for Sept. 20, but was delayed until Oct. 3 due to the impact of Hurricane Florence in North and South Carolina.

Mobile devices targeted

It is estimated by FEMA that at least 75 percent of targeted mobile devices — about 225 million cellphones in the United States — will successfully sound the alert within a 30-minute period. The test is being conducted, in part, to determine just how expansive its reach.

“If you are engaged in a phone call and are on there for 31 minutes, the emergency alert is not going to interrupt that call,” a FEMA official said, adding that devices engaged in “active data sessions” would also not be interrupted by the alert.

Since 2012, government agencies have issued regional alerts more than 36,000 times for severe weather warnings and missing abducted children (the latter known as Amber Alerts).

Wednesday’s alert, however, will be the first national alarm sounded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications Commission under an act of Congress approved in 2006 during the George W. Bush presidential administration. The regional WEA alerts began during the administration of Barack Obama.   

On social media, many are expressing unease with the planned test of the new presidential messaging system because there is no way to opt out.

“There is no opting out of the presidential alert, which would only be used in a national emergency,” confirms a senior FEMA official. Even if there was a way to decline receiving the messages, that would not be recommended for cellphone users as “they would prevent themselves from receiving critical life-saving information.”

Others worry that President Donald Trump, an active user of Twitter, will abuse the system and force the public to receive messages from him.

“The president will not be directly triggering this alert,” the FEMA official explained on a briefing conference call Tuesday.

Only for true national emergencies

Government officials are assuring that an actual alert would only be sounded for a true national emergency or other public peril, explaining that the law, protocols and procedures are well-established to prevent any president from ordering distribution of another type of message.   

“You would not have a situation where any sitting president would just wake up one morning and attempt to send a personal message,” said the official speaking to reporters on condition of not being named. “The president would not originate this alert from his mobile device.”

Some remain unconvinced by those assurances.

A trio of New Yorkers filed a lawsuit in federal court last month to halt the nationwide test.

“I believe that for any public alert, people should be able to opt out,” said one of the plaintiffs, Kristine Rakowsky. “We have a right to privacy and not having your phone turned into a loudspeaker like in North Korea.”

The Southern District of New York court docket indicates summons were issued to Trump and FEMA Director William “Brock” Long on Sept. 26, but the case has neither been heard nor dismissed.

“We have a president who opts to use social media to address the public at large,” Rakowksy tells VOA. “And he has as a history of sending unhinged, false and biased messages on Twitter.”

Even if Trump was not the president, Rakowsky adds, she would still oppose the alert system out of concern that children could be traumatized by automatically receiving an alert they would not fully understand.

Like it or not, Rakowsky says she expects to hear Wednesday’s test alarm.

“I probably won’t have my cellphone turned off, because I have to pick up my son,” she said.

One of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, however, may be in the minority unable to receive the alert on Wednesday. Freelance photojournalist Jason B. Nicholas is hiking in the mountains of Vermont.

An email sent by VOA to him, requesting comment, generated an automatic reply: “Thanks for the email. I’m hiking somewhere out of communication range. I’ll be unavailable until Monday, Oct. 8.”
…

President Donald Trump used questionable tax dodges and outright fraud to greatly increase his fortune that started with money from his parents, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Trump likes to portray himself as a self-made man, saying he stared with a relatively modest $1 million loan from his father and built his riches through investments and deals.

But in an extensive and detailed 40,000-word story, the Times reports Trump received about $413 million from his father, Fred Trump, a New York real estate mogul.

Fred Trump began funneling money to Donald Trump and his siblings when they were young children and the newspaper said they are still getting money from the real estate empire today.

The newspaper reported that Trump helped his father build up his fortune by dodging taxes, including what the paper calls improper tax deductions.

The report alleges Donald Trump schemed to underestimate the value of Trump real estate holdings to sharply reduce the tax bill.

The Times also reports Donald Trump and his siblings set up a fake corporation to hide large cash gifts from their father.

According to the newspaper, tax records show the Trump family paid just a fraction of the taxes they were obligated to pay to the federal government under the tax code.

Late Tuesday, the White House released a statement regarding the Times’ story.

“Fred Trump has been gone for nearly twenty years and it’s sad to witness this misleading attack against the Trump family by the failing New York Times. Many decades ago the IRS reviewed and signed off on these transactions. The New York Times’ and other media outlets‘ credibility with the American people is at an all time low because they are consumed with attacking the president and his family 24/7 instead of reporting the news,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.

“… The New York Times can rarely find anything positive about the President and his tremendous record of success to report. Perhaps another apology from the New York Times, like the one they had to issue after they got the 2016 election so embarrassingly wrong, is in order,” her statement said.

The newspaper based its story on interviews with Fred Trump’s former employees and more than 100,000 pages of documents, including the elder Trump’s personal tax returns.

Apparently, none of the president’s tax returns were used to write the Times report. President Trump has broken with White House tradition and refused to release his returns.

A Trump lawyer, Charles Harder, said in a statement Tuesday that “The New York Times allegations of fraud and tax evasion are 100 percent false and highly defamatory. There was no fraud or tax evasion by anyone. The facts upon which The Times bases its false allegations are extremely inaccurate.”

A statement from President Trump’s brother, Robert, points out that Fred Trump died in June 1999 and says the Internal Revenue Service closed his estate two years later. He said the Trump family has no further comment on the allegations and appeals to everyone to let Fred and Mary Anne Trump rest in peace.

The New York Times said according to tax experts, President Trump is unlikely to face criminal prosecution for tax fraud because the alleged crimes took place too long ago.

But the experts told the Times he could still face civil penalties and fines.

White House Bureau Chief Steve Herman contributed to this report.
…

American dairy farmers get more access to the Canadian market. U.S. drug companies can fend off generic competition for a few more years. Automakers are under pressure to build more cars where workers earn decent wages.

The North American trade agreement hammered out late Sunday between the United States and Canada, following an earlier U.S.-Mexico deal, shakes up — but likely won’t revolutionize — the way businesses operate within the three-country trade bloc.

The new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement replaces the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement, which tore down trade barriers between the three countries. But NAFTA encouraged factories to move to Mexico to take advantage of low-wage labor in what President Donald Trump called a job-killing “disaster” for the United States.

Sunday’s agreement is meant to bring manufacturing back to the United States. The president, never known for understatement, said the new deal would “transform North America back into a manufacturing powerhouse.”

But America had to make some concessions, too. For example, it agreed to retain a NAFTA dispute-resolution process that it wanted to jettison but Canada insisted on keeping.

Overall, financial markets were relieved the countries reached a deal. For a time, it had looked like Trump might pull out of a regional free trade pact altogether — or strike one without Canada, America’s No. 2 trading partner. At noon Monday, the Dow Jones industrial average was up more than 240 points.

Economists, trade attorneys and businesses are still parsing the agreement. But here’s an early look at what it means for different players.

How dairy farmers are affected

Trump has raged about Canada’s tariffs on dairy imports, which can approach 300 percent. American dairy farmers have also complained about Canadian policies that priced the U.S. out of the market for some dairy powders and allowed Canada to flood world markets with its own versions.

The new agreement ends the discriminatory pricing and restricts Canadian exports of dairy powders.

It also expands U.S. access to up to 3.75 percent of the Canadian dairy market (versus 3.25 percent in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement the Obama administration negotiated but Trump nixed his first week in office). Above that level, U.S. dairy farmers will still face Canada’s punishing tariffs. And the “supply management” system Canada uses to protect its farmers is still largely in place.

Still, trade attorney Daniel Ujczo of the Dickinson Wright law firm said that “the U.S. dairy industry seems happy … for now.”

Shaking things up for automakers

NAFTA remade the North American auto market. Automakers built complicated supply chains that straddled NAFTA borders. In doing so, they took advantage of each country’s strengths — cheap labor in Mexico, and skilled workers and proximity to customers in the United States and Canada.

The new agreement changes things up. For one thing, the percentage of a car’s content that must be built within the trade bloc to qualify for duty-free status rises to 75 percent from 62.5 percent. A bolder provision requires that 40 percent to 45 percent of a car’s content be built where workers earn $16 an hour. That is meant to bring production back to the United States or Canada and away from Mexico (and perhaps to put some upward pressure on Mexican wages).

The provisions could drive up car prices for consumers.

The new deal also provides some protection to Canada and Mexico if Trump goes ahead with his threat to slap 20 percent to 25 percent taxes on imported cars, trucks and auto parts. It would exclude from the proposed tariffs 2.6 million passenger vehicles from both Canada and Mexico.

The impact on multinational companies  

Like other U.S. trade agreements, NAFTA allowed multinational companies to go to private tribunals to challenge national laws they said discriminated against them and violated the terms of the trade agreement. Critics charged the process gave companies a way to get around environmental and labor laws and regulations they didn’t like, overruling democratically elected governments in the process.

U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer, who negotiated the new deal, had another complaint: The tribunals took some of the risk out of investing in unstable or corrupt countries such as Mexico. Why, Lighthizer argued, should the United States negotiate deals that encourage investment in other countries?

The new pact scales back provisions protecting foreign investment. Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and a sharp critic of NAFTA, praised the new agreement for reining in what she called NAFTA’s “outrageous” tribunal system that had allowed big companies to launch “attacks on environmental and health policies.”

Windfall for drug companies

The new trade pact delivers a windfall to pharmaceutical companies that make biologics — ultra-expensive drugs produced in living cells. It gives them 10 years of protection from generic competition, up from eight the Obama administration had negotiated in the TPP.

But good news for the pharmaceutical industry could be bad news for users of the drugs and for government policymakers trying to hold down health-care costs.

“New monopoly privileges for pharmaceutical firms … could undermine reforms needed to make medicine more affordable here and increase prices in Mexico and Canada, limiting access to lifesaving medicines,” Wallach said.

Some retailers benefit, other do not

The United States pressured Canada and Mexico to raise the dollar amount that shipments must reach before they become subject to import duties. Canada, for instance, will allow tax- and duty-free shipments worth up to 40 Canadian dollars (about $31), up from 20 Canadian dollars ($16) under NAFTA.

The change makes U.S. products more competitive in Canada because they will be subject to less tax at the border — and delivers savings to Canadians who shop online. However, trade attorney Ujczo notes, the higher threshold poses a threat to Canadian retailers. 
…

President Donald Trump is back in Tennessee, trying to push U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s Senate bid over the finish line.

Trump headlined a high-dollar, closed-door fundraiser for Blackburn in Johnson City before appearing at a packed rally at the Freedom Hall Civic Center.

Blackburn is in a tight race against the state’s Democratic ex-Gov. Phil Bredesen, who, like other Democratic candidates across Trump country, has painted himself as a pragmatist willing to work with the president on certain issues. The Tennessee campaign is among several closely watched races expected to determine control of the Senate, and Republicans are desperate to defend a narrow two-seat majority in the face of surging Democratic enthusiasm.

And the stakes couldn’t be clearer. The rally comes as the FBI is continuing to investigate sexual misconduct allegations against Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh — an FBI investigation that was forced by a small group of undecided senators who could sink the nomination. Trump earlier Monday disputed reports that his White House has tried to narrow the scope of the investigation and limit which witnesses the FBI could interview, saying he wants them “to do a very comprehensive investigation, whatever that means.”

Trump is planning a busy week of campaign travel, with trips to a handful of states including Mississippi, Minnesota and Kansas as he tries to boost Republican turnout for the midterm elections.

Blackburn’s contest, in a state that Trump won by 26 points, has drawn especially heavy interest from the White House, with repeat visits by both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

Bredesen has tried to distance himself from the national Democratic Party, presenting himself as an independent thinker who will support Trump’s policies when they’re beneficial to the state.

“I need to make clear to everybody my independence from all of the national Democratic stuff,” the former two-term governor recently told The Associated Press.

Blackburn and Bredesen are seeking the seat of Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who is retiring.

Bredesen, who would be the first Democrat to win a Senate campaign in Tennessee since Al Gore in 1990 if he’s victorious, has run TV ads in which he says that he’s “not running against Donald Trump” and learned long ago to “separate the message from the messenger.” He was holding an event in Chattanooga on Monday night that he’d hoped would be a debate with Blackburn, and he has been needling her for not agreeing to one.

Trump, as he has in other states, is expected to argue Bredesen is not the centrist he says he is and will wind up voting with Democratic leaders including Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi if he gets to Washington.

Blackburn, meanwhile, has stressed her ties to Trump, running ads that feature footage of his last rally in the state in May.

“Phil, whatever the hell his name is, this guy will 100 percent vote against us every single time,” Trump said at the time.

Trump offered an early endorsement of Blackburn in April, tweeting that she is “a wonderful woman who has always been there when we have needed her. Great on the Military, Border Security and Crime.”
…

The image of the United States has deteriorated further among its traditional allies after a year in which President Donald Trump ratcheted up his verbal attacks on countries like Canada and Germany, a leading survey showed.

The survey of 25 nations by the Pew Research Center also showed that respondents from across the globe have less confidence in Trump’s ability to lead than they do in Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping.

Since taking office in January 2017, Trump has pulled the United States out of international agreements like the Paris climate accord and Iran nuclear deal, cozied up to authoritarian leaders like Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, and criticized his neighbors and NATO allies.

In June, after a G7 summit in Canada, Trump refused to sign a joint statement with America’s allies, deriding his host, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as “very dishonest and weak”. He has repeatedly attacked Germany for its trade surplus, low defense spending and reliance on Russian gas.

Last week, when giving a speech at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Trump drew laughter from world leaders when he claimed to have achieved more in his two years in the White House than almost any other U.S. administration in history.

The survey showed that America’s image, which took a big hit in 2017, Trump’s first year in office, continued to deteriorate in many countries in 2018, particularly in Europe.

Just 30 percent of Germans have a favorable view of the United States, down five points from last year and the lowest score in the entire survey after Russia, on 26 percent.

Only 38 percent of French and 39 percent of Canadians said they had a positive view of the United States, both down from last year. Mexico inched up slightly to 32 percent.

Faith in Merkel Highest

The countries with the most positive views of the United States were Israel, the Philippines and South Korea, all at 80 percent or above. Across all countries, the U.S. got positive marks, with 50 percent saying they had a positive view, compared to 43 percent who were negative.

Just 7 percent of Spanish, 9 percent of French and 10 percent of Germans said they had confidence in Trump’s leadership. In 20 of the 25 countries surveyed, a majority said they had no confidence in Trump.

Across all countries, an average of 27 percent of respondents said they had confidence in Trump. That compared unfavorably to Putin, on 30 percent, and Xi, on 34 percent.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was the only leader in which a majority of those surveyed, 52 percent, expressed confidence.

French President Emmanuel Macron was just behind at 46 percent.

Despite Trump’s low ratings, 63 percent of respondents said the world was better off with the United States as the leading power, compared to 19 percent who preferred China in that role.

Allies took a dim view of the Trump administration’s position on civil liberties, with majorities in Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia and Mexico saying the government did not respect the personal freedoms of its people.

Reflecting Trump’s “America First” stance, substantial majorities in 19 of the 25 countries surveyed said the United States did not take their interests into account when making international policy.

The survey was conducted between May and August, and based on interviews with over 900 people in each of the surveyed countries.
…

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the nation’s toughest net neutrality measure Sunday, requiring internet providers to maintain a level playing field online.

Advocates of net neutrality hope the move in the home of the global technology industry will have national implications, prompting Congress to enact national net neutrality rules or encouraging other states to follow suit.

It’s the latest example of the nation’s most populous state seeking to drive public policy outside its borders and rebuff President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The Federal Communications Commission last year repealed rules that prevented internet companies from exercising more control over what people watch and see on the internet.

California’s measure is likely to face a legal challenge from internet companies.

Telecommunications companies lobbied hard to kill it or water it down, saying it would lead to higher internet and cellphone bills and discourage investments in faster internet. They say it’s unrealistic to expect them to comply with internet regulations that differ from state to state.

Net neutrality advocates worry that without rules, internet providers could create fast lanes and slow lanes that favor their own sites and apps or make it harder for consumers to see content from competitors.

That could limit consumer choice or shut out upstart companies that can’t afford to buy access to the fast lane, critics say.

The measure, written by Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, prohibits internet providers from blocking or slowing data based on content or from favoring websites or video streams from companies that pay extra.

It also bans “zero rating,” in which internet providers don’t count certain content against a monthly data cap — generally video streams produced by the company’s own subsidiaries and partners.

Oregon, Washington and Vermont have approved legislation related to net neutrality, but California’s measure is seen as the most comprehensive attempt to codify the principle in a way that might survive a likely court challenge. An identical bill was introduced in New York.

 
…

The National Weather Service has announced flash flood watches for the Southwest United States and a tropical storm warning for northwest Mexico as Hurricane Rosa churns closer.

According to the National Hurricane Center, Rosa is weakening but is still expected to be a tropical storm when it hits the Baja California Peninsula and Mexico’s Sonora state on Monday.

As of Sunday afternoon, Rosa had maximum sustained winds of 120 kilometers per hour as it headed north at about 20 kph.

Weather forecasters predict heavy rains and thunderstorms for the watch areas, which include the U.S. cities of Las Vegas, Phoenix and Salt Lake City. Outer bands of the storm are also expected to bring much-needed rain to coastal Southern California.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Sergio continues to gain strength in the Atlantic but currently poses no threat to land.
…

California has become the first state in the country to mandate that women be included on the board of directors of publicly traded companies.

Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday signed into law that every California-based corporation should have at least one woman on its board of directors by the end of next year.

By the end of 2021, a board of directors with five members will be required to have at least two female members and larger boards will require three or more.

“One-fourth of California’s publicly traded companies still do not have a single woman on their board, despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive,”Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, the bill’s author, told The Wall Street Journal.

Jackson said the companies, despite being urged to add women to their boards, have done nothing to increase the numbers, making government intervention necessary.

Brown said it might be difficult to enforce the law. “Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. – and beyond – make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message,” he said.

The law mandates that companies that ignore the issue can be fined $100,000 for a first violation and $300,000 for subsequent violations. Companies also must inform the California secretary of state of the gender representation on their boards. If they fail to report, they would face another $100,000 fine.

Some European countries already mandate female representation on company boards. The European Commission is pushing for that quota to be as high as 40 percent.
…