Lawfare

Plus the expansion of power and side stepping of normal legal process by the executive branch became normalized under the George Bush administration which was well documented by one of his top White House lawyers, which he well documented in the book ‘The Terror Presidency’ and who later started the excellent Lawfare blog. https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0307456293 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith https://www.lawfareblog.com/ This included a big expansion of the black budget agencies and their power since it was the one thing the exec has strong control over and little public blowback because of the secret courts and classified nature.

Excellent reporting. We already knew that Jack Goldsmith, Jim Comey, and others saw John Yoo's legal analysis as flawed, which lead to the hospital room showdown -- see [1] for Comey's dramatic Senate testimony in 2007. Now it's revealed that the NSA was going beyond what was authorized, and collecting data on purely domestic calls. Bush responded by saying this collection was authorized, and in fact had been all along. Reading between the lines, it may well have been this that led to the threat of a mass resignation that caused Bush to back down. [Of course after a brief period of legal head-scratching they found theories to approve most if not all of the questionable activities. So while on the one hand the hospital confrontation was people dramatically standing up for the rule of law, on the other hand those same people are generally in favor of mass surveillance, just done in a lawful way. You can especially see this with Jim Comey, now running the FBI and spreading fear about how we need encryption back doors to keep intelligence agencies from "going dark".] BTW Jack Goldsmith blogs about national security law at Lawfare [2]. I disagree with him on several core points but his analysis is very crisp and always worth reading. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007… [2] https://lawfareblog.com/

For those who aren't Munk members, it's also available on C-SPAN[1]. I thought it was an entertaining debate, but not as good as I hoped it would be (I watched it live when it was first broadcasted). My memory is a little foggy, but as I recall, Glenn Greenwald went off on his usual 'the NSA is the epitome of evil and exists solely to invade your privacy' rants; Michael Hayden spent most of his time backtracking and focusing on where Greenwald was factually wrong rather than making his own argument; I didn't think Alan Dershowitz made a particularly convincing argument; and Alexis Ohanian made some greats points but was completely ignored by everyone else. I personally enjoyed watching Jameel Jaffer (ACLU) square off against Chris Inglis (former NSA Deputy Director) at the Brookings Institute last year[2] - both sides had good arguments. For that matter, Benjamin Wittes (the guy moderating the debate) has had some good interviews on his blog[3] and podcast[4] as well - you don't see many outlets that will have James Comey (FBI director) one week followed by Chris Soghoian (ACLU) the next week. [1] http://www.c-span.org/video/?319161-1/munk-debate-state-surveillance [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KKEh2AS6E [3] http://www.lawfareblog.com/ [4] http://www.lawfareblog.com/category/podcasts/

Exactly. On that subject, I cannot recommend enough an episode of a Lawfare-related podcast (ChinaTalk) called "Hoover, Communism, and the FBI" [1], which explore the life of J. Edgar Hoover, the zeigeist of the early twentieth century, and an revisiting the "red scare" in light of the since declassified information of Russian spying networks on US soil. Related to this is the "Venona project" [2], where US agency could break the encryption of old soviet telegraph, and learn a great deal on soviet spy network. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/chinatalk-hoover-communism-and-fbi [2] https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-project-venona

Lawfare blog my dude. They don't shy away from the raw legal source code. https://www.lawfareblog.com/

Forget Equifax ... how about the Office of Personnel Management? People may well have lost their lives as a result. We may not know for decades. https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-opm-hack-far-worse-you-imagine Oh, and the IRS has already been breached at least once. I'm not wild about waiting for the next one. Maybe government is not the best group to be holding your personal data. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/business/breach-exposes-irs-tax-ret…

I highly recommend this Lawfare podcast episode that talks about the Ukraine issue. Alex Vindman is literally an expert on the topic. The Lawfare Podcast: Alex Vindman on the Escalation in Ukraine https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-alex-vindman-escalation-uk…

>Many pardons are recommended to the President by the Justice department for various reasons Most Trump's pardons bypassed DOJ. https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-circumvention-justice-department-cl… https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/most-clemency-grants-byp…

WaPo wasn't the only recipient of the leak. The other, Lawfare, covered this as well [0]. "I&A personnel are permitted to engage in physical surveillance, the use of mail covers, and the use of monitoring devices," as long as they can justify it as 'counterintelligence'. They need to have a justification first, but LEOs are great at coming up with empty ad-hoc justifications. [0] https://www.lawfareblog.com/dhs-authorizes-domestic-surveillance-prote…

Looks like they wish to follow in the footsteps of South Korea: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lessons-america-how-south-korean-authoriti…

I’m not wrong. He didn’t file a whistleblower complaint [1]. It’s interesting that you confidently assert that I’m wrong when you admit that you don’t even know what you’re saying is true. [1]https://www.lawfareblog.com/edward-snowden-national-security-whistlebl… ” There is some dispute about the facts of Snowden’s case, but according to the National Security Agency (NSA), he did not appeal to his superiors, follow the normal whistleblower protocols or otherwise attempt to change the surveillance system from within before divulging its details to the outside world. He did not satisfy Rawls’s condition of fair notice.”

The ad hoc but exceedingly purposeful collaboration between Wikileaks, Russian military and civilian agents, the Trump campaign and other actors is documented extensively in the Mueller report. The Report[1] podcast does an excellent job of making it more accessible. Longtime US intelligence community players eg [2] have made explicit claims that Wikileaks is in part a Russian intel operation. Those claims should be taken with some salt, all is not spy novels and deep state games, but it seems clear that motivated and intelligent "transparency" actors like Assange and Snowden can- want to- cause asymmetrical chaos, so are useful to support. 1. https://www.lawfareblog.com/introducing-report-podcast-series-lawfare 2. https://www.google.com/amp/s/20committee.com/2015/08/31/wikileaks-is-a…

As requested: https://www.lawfareblog.com/precise-and-narrow-limits-us-economic-espi… For your reading convenience: "… it would be consistent with this statement for the USG to steal trade secrets on behalf of U.S. firms, or to give the stolen trade secrets to U.S. firms, for some other purpose." Not really classic what-about-ism, however classic poorly-informed-ism. Of course the USA is going to "seek to craft a nuanced rule about economic espionage that serves its interests." Its the same policy and morals - just that up to now their wasn't much tech to steal from China or Zimbabwe.

No neutrality is required, only best effort removal of illegal material https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepresenting-co…

it is also what makes this country great. not that someone like Trump understand that. For a society to function harmoniously, it must believe that their society is just, and that those who commit crimes will face justice, whether its pusher on the street, or the President of the United States, and that, not only will justice be served, but clemency granted in equitable fashion when so deserved. For those interested, here is an interesting essay that touches on some of those issues https://www.lawfareblog.com/donald-trumps-pardon-power-and-state-excep…

"A source familiar with the government's investigation" doesn't imply it's a government source. Recommended reading for understanding attribution: https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-news-story-about-investigation-ei…

2 rebuttals listed from Schneier's post mentioned in the article linked here are worth a read. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/12/en… and https://www.lawfareblog.com/thoughts-encryption-and-going-dark-part-ii… Neither are from security professionals, and both really downplay the risks associated with <insert 3 letter agency> having escrow of keys. The number of leaks and breaches across the various government orgs shows that it is near impossible to maintain the security of keys held in escrow.

I'm not German but my understanding is that AfD has walked the line. NPD on the other hand didn't but the courts said they were too insignificant to be banned, which may have increased the legal hurdle in the future which might not be great. Here's a good analysis of it [1]. [1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/renaissance-militant-democracy

This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. There was a great discussion of this on a recent Lawfare podcast: https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-oona-hathaway-and-scott-sh…

> and that they were going to use it as a precedent Directory Comey very explicitly said that "The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message" https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-…

FBI Director James Comey claimed that unlocking this phone was really really about Terrorism: "So I hope folks will remember what terrorists did to innocent Americans at a San Bernardino office gathering and why the FBI simply must do all we can under the law to investigate that." (https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-… It's possible, by some weird John Yoo-style contorted reading of the facts to say "FBI Director Comey said that, the US Government didn't say 'because terrorism'". That contorted reasoning would amount to lying by splitting hairs. Don't lie by splitting hairs.

The submitted berklett "Don't Panic" article has a "Bruce Schneier" link to his "Security or Surveillance?" article on lawfareblog.com. It's also good reading. [1] https://lawfareblog.com/security-or-surveillance

A big takeaway is in the second point: >By publishing yesterday’s Huawei story, the NYT obviously made the editorial judgment that these revelations are both newsworthy and in the public interest, should be disclosed, and will not unduly harm “American national security.” For reasons I explain below, I agree with that choice. >But if you disagree – if you want to argue that this NSA story is reckless, dangerous, treasonous or whatever – then have the courage to take it up with the people who reached the opposite conclusion: in this case, the editors and reporters of the NYT (indeed, as former DOJ official Jack Goldsmith observed[1], the NYT‘s Huawei story was “based on leaks other than the Snowden documents”). [1] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/the-nyt-on-nsas-huawei-penetration/

Some technical experts at GCHQ have publicly suggested using "ghost users" (a kind of server-forced MITM) as a way to wiretap encrypted messaging [0]. The proposal is slightly different from a traditional two-party MITM, since it involves adding additional users to group chats, but the basic idea is similar: legally compel messaging operators (e.g., WhatsApp) to participate in wiretapping. Presumably there are other clandestine agencies who might try to do something similar by illegally compromising service providers. Key transparency makes standard MITM much more detectable, and so it will significantly dissuade agencies and private actors from investing in those capabilities. It obviously doesn't solve all problems (governments will still be able to hack, and hypothetically even to mandate client changes that break the disable transparency) it removes a piece of low-hanging fruit and signals to governments that it isn't worth trying to exploit protocol weaknesses. [0] https://www.lawfareblog.com/principles-more-informed-exceptional-acces…

Critical take: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1572223690863149058.html This is of low value, because (1) it is more about playing to prevailing Twitter threads (ooooh he dissed the founders as old white men!) rather than legal analysis; and (2) the legal analysis, such as it is, starts from the presumption that social media companies are press rather than another business ("The opinion reaches this conclusion by treating the owners of companies in the biz of speech as identical to the owners of other businesses."). I don't think that presumption is well-established. Critical take: https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuits-social-media-decision-dange… This one is much better. For example, it rightfully points out that the Fifth Circuit opinion does a poor job connecting its analysis of editorial discretion to First Amendment jurisprudence ("the court never explains why public acceptance of responsibility is necessary as a matter of constitutional law, for First Amendment protection"). In my gut, I still don't agree, but I may come around after digesting this more. This critical piece is of high quality. Supportive take (summarized): https://reason.com/volokh/2022/09/23/another-commentary-on-the-fifth-c… I can't find the original source, but the pulled quotes seem insightful. "The opinion's critics argue that the First Amendment protects the act of exercising 'editorial discretion': the…

> Do you see me as one of "the crowd obsessed with Hunter's laptop"? Unfortunately, yes. > What would capitulation look like to you? To acknowledge the good/bad of each player based upon a reasonable understanding of their behavior. > (re hate/spite): Not sure what you mean by that. How many? How do you know? * I mean that people will act on emotion rather than rationale in a significant number of cases, and that hate can trump love. * How many? That's a silly question. Enough to matter. > But sure, walk me through. Ok, first try (true/false): a. Do you think Biden/Obama were materially moved by Hunter's participation with Burisma b. Do you think that the kerfluffle about Hillary's emails aided in her losing the election? c. Do you think that even that the laptop controversy itself hurt the Biden campaign? d. Are you aware of the concept of an "October Surprise"? e. If so, do you think they are real? f. If so, do you think they work? Essay question: This write-up about the affair aligns with my understandings; do you see any truth in this: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-johnson-grassley-report-biden-an… Bonus points: are you religious?

I don't know where you got the idea that Democrats think this is a witch hunt. Are you talking to Democrats who work in tech and/or the companies being hunted? House Democrats were unable to find Republicans to support a recent antitrust investigation's recommendations[1]. Prominent Democrats have been pushing reinvigorating antitrust legislation for years[2], in fact. The only partisan issue is whether the govt can or should compel social media platforms to carry speech that they don't want to carry, which is a violation of the First Amendment[3] and something Republicans support. 1. https://www.protocol.com/critics-say-what-house-democrats-got-wrong-bi… 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/breaking-from-tech-giants-dem… 3. https://www.lawfareblog.com/no-florida-cant-regulate-online-speech

>>> I don't see how this is a productive point. "Democracy is best" is 1) what the US government wants you to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote. >> I don't see how this is a productive point. "Democracy is best" is 1) what the US government wants you to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote. > Can they? The US government has very limited "hard" control over what information is published, e.g. there are no banned books in the US and it would be impractical for the government to try to impose any such ban, in stark contrast to the PRC. Yeah, the massive amount of information control in China has no parallel in the US: 1. Almost all media is state-owned, and those that aren't are required to follow state directives about what and what not to cover (https://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/directives-from-the-ministry-of-tr… 2. Huge numbers of people employed to implement social media censorship (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/29/the-great-firewall-of-chi… "A considerable amount of censorship is conducted through the manual deletion of posts, and an estimated 100,000 people are employed by both the government and private companies to do just this.") 3. Ditto for books and other publications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_China#Mainland_China: apropos quote "In 2021, the Ministry of Education of the People's…

> I can't speak for Giuliani, and I agree that his involvement in this is strange, but NYP, Daily Caller, and National Pulse have all offered to share the contents of the drive with other journalists. I don't know to what extent they have been taken up on it. They are offering to share the cherry-picked communications meant to smear someone, are you actually surprised real journalists aren't taking the bait? If you actually care, ask yourself why Giuliani hasn't shared the entire drive with anyone besides far-right media dedicated to helping Trump get reelected. > To assume that 1. Nothing from the dossier has been disproven. Many things have been corroborated. https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective 2. Buzzfeed isn't the NYT. You confuse the two, I dont know why. > Irrelevant Lol. The origins of the data was a hack of Hunter Biden's iCloud (photos) and a GRU hack of Burisma (emails), the laptop cover story is laughable, and the best you can muster is "Irrelevant". What a joke.

[EDIT: I should have watched the interview and my comments further down are inaccurate. But - oh wait - I didn't realize that Ratcliffe the guy that released dubious information about Hillary Clinton a few weeks before the election coming up. https://www.businessinsider.com/dni-ratcliffe-declassifies-russian-int… ''Andrew Weiss, a Russia specialist who is the James Family chair and vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment, described Ratcliffe's decision as "total national security malpractice,"'' Which totally violates the norms of the Intelligence Community and was done to help the President's re-election campaign: https://www.lawfareblog.com/john-ratcliffes-dangerous-declassification… Why do people trust this guy? You shouldn't. Even if what he says turns out to be true, his actions reveal him as an un-trustworthy person on this issue. ] ------------------------------------------------------- ----- Please just ignore this stuff below :-) --------- > the DNI says that they haven't passed any reports/briefings to Congress that say that. While I didn't read/watch the interview/article in question, I just want to point out that the DNI statement, as you described it, is pretty carefully worded. They "have not passed reports/briefings that say it's Russian disinformation". This leaves room for: - Documents or meetings not officially considered reports/briefings. - Documents or meetings with damning…