Monthly Archives: March 2017

When is it Enough for Putin and Russia?

Posted on by

Image result for russian hacking NBC

FBI: Russian Citizen Pleads Guilty For Involvement In Global Botnet Conspiracy

The summary below for the most part echoes the same testimony delivered by 6 panel members in two separate hearings before the Senate on March 30, 2017.

Two particular panel witness members were Clint Watts and Thomas Rid. (videos included)

There are several experts and those in media commentary that say there is no evidence of Russian intrusions. But there IS in fact evidence and attribution does required a long time to investigate, collaborate and convey, which is why the FBI has taken so long to provide. There are countless private corporations in the cyber industry, not tied to government in any form. They are hired to protect systems, investigate intrusions and research hacks and variations of interference both nationally and globally.

The United States is hardly the only victim of Russian intrusion, as Europe and the Baltic States are having the exact issues. But Americans rarely pay attention to anything outside the United States.

So, when is enough…enough for Putin? No one knows and due to the constant successes listed so far, there is very little reason for ‘active measures’ of asymmetric warfare tactics to cease….it is cheap ad effective and for the most part anonymous. The mission objective by the Kremlin is division, chaos, leaked propaganda and repeat….works doesn’t it.

Image result for russian hacking  DailyMail

Related reading: America Is Ill-Prepared to Counter Russia’s Information Warfare

Propaganda is nothing new. But Moscow is frighteningly effective—and worse is on the way.

***

What the Russians want: How Russia uses cyber attacks and hybrid warfare to advance its interests

What, exactly, do the Russians want? Their very active cyber operations obviously serve state goals, but what are those goals, and how can they inform a Western response?

ITSEF’s second day opened with a panel on Russian hybrid warfare—a combination of cyberattack and  information operations with both conventional and irregular military operations. Larry Hanauer, of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, chaired a discussion among the Hoover Institution’s Herb Lin, Lookout’s Mike Murray, and LIFARS CEO Ondrej Krehel.

Policy driven by resentment.

Hanauer’s opening question was open-ended: what are Russia’s policy goals, and how does it use hybrid warfare to advance them? The panel was in agreement that the key to understanding Russian actions in cyberspace is to recognize them as driven by resentment. Lin called that resentment “longstanding.” It stems from the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and Russia’s treatment internationally since then. Russian leaders and a substantial set of the Russian population views that treatment as disrespectful, contemptuous.

Russia has a very long tradition of using deception and propaganda, Lin said, and he added that the country doesn’t draw clear lines between peace and war. “It’s always war, even below the level of armed conflict.” The long-term goal is restoration of Russia’s place in the world. Creation of chaos through the dissemination of fake news and other information operations is simply battlespace preparation. Cyber, he added, gives you low-cost tools you didn’t have before. “It’s an attack on brainspace, and we’re all in the attack surface.”

Murray agreed, noting one current success of Russian information operations. We’ve been distracted from their intervention in Syria by news and fake news surrounding the US elections.

One of the more prominent features of the Russian way of cyber warfare is their willingness and ability to use criminal organizations for operational purposes. During the Cold War, Krehel explained, “if you did harm to the US, you were a hero.” Among other possibilities, that harm could be reputational or it could be economic, and criminals are well-adapted to inflicting those kinds of harm. There’s a view now, among Russian leaders, that they can expose personal information of essentially all Americans, and that this will yield a comprehensive picture of American finances down to the individual level. It’s very important to the Russian government, Krehel observed, to understand what the US can afford, and what capabilities we’re investing in, and all manner of data go into building up that picture. Lin: agreed that Russian espionage aggregates data in ways that render those data more valuable than the simple loss would impose on any single victim.

As a side note on the Russian President, the panel appeared to agree, as one member put it, that we now see one man, President Putin, who is able to use the resources of a modern nation-state to redress a deeply held personal grievance.

Chaos as statecraft.

This general orientation, according to Murray, can be encapsulated by noting that all war, to Russia, is about political ends. There’s no separation of politics from the economy or business. The increase in chaos we see in Western news, information, and political culture is, from a Russian point of view, a desirable thing.

And chaos serves tactical as well as strategic ends. Krehel expanded on this by asserting that Russia wants chaos because it doesn’t have the funding, the financial resources, of, say, the US. Thus Russian security services hand intelligence over to criminal groups. “A normal government doesn’t hand over its political agenda to criminal groups,” he said, but Russia’s does.

Murray offered an evocative story: “The number two guy in Russia has two pictures on his desk: one of Putin, and the other of Tupac Shakur.” So there’s a kind of gangster ethos at the highest levels. And whie using criminal gangs as cutouts also affords an obvious form of deniability, we shouldn’t be deceived.

In response to Hanauer’s question about who might be the leading cyber actors in the Russian government, Krehel said that they were the organizations one would expect, with the FSB and GRU occupying prominent positions. Different units within the government do cooperate—resource and manpower constraints make this inevitable—and in those services “loyalty is high, and rated very highly.”

You cheated them. Expect payback.

There’s also a common motivation, and Russian information operations play into it, especially domestically. “Russia believes all of you in this room cheated them,” Krehel said, and this theme is consciously exploited to the population as a whole, but particularly to the security services. “So the GRU’s big objective is to cripple you financially. And then they want to make you look ridiculous.”

Lin agreed. “That’s an accurate picture of how it works on the ground. Russia is a thugocracy, a state of organized crime.” He has seen reports (unconfirmed reports, he stressed, but he also clearly thought them plausible) that there are formal memoranda of understanding from the FSB to criminal gangs, outlining what the gangs can expect in return for services. “Other governments have done this, but it’s a way of life in Russia. The line between intelligence services and gangs is very vague.”

There’s no such thing as a win-win, Lin said, in the Russian worldview. “To Russia, it’s always win-lose.” Hanauer noted that this seemed a point of difference between Russia and China, and Lin agreed. Where there have been agreements of a sort between the US and China moderate conduct in cyberspace, Lin thinks there’s little evidence that such deterrent or confidence building agreements will have much effect in US-Russian relations.

Protect what’s important? Everything’s important (to the Russians).

Asked about defensive measures, Lin said that, “while there’s a logic to saying, ‘protect what’s important,’ to a good intelligence agency there’s never too much data.”

There are preferences for certain kinds of targets, which Krehel enumerated: first, oil, second, pharma, and a distant third, tech. Tech was less actively prospected because of Russian confidence that “they’re so much better at tech than we are.” Lin agreed, and said there was some basis for that confidence. “In the physics community, for example, we’ve long noted the sophistication of Russian physicists. They have great theoretical insight.”

Humiliation as statecraft, and the commodity tools used to do it.

Murray said he’d recently heard someone lamenting that he missed the Chinese, who just stole without embarrassing you. “That says a lot about Russian operations.”

Turning to the embarrassment inflicted during the US elections, Hanauer asked what kinds of tools the Russians were using for their attacks? Lin answered that the most consequential hack—Democratic Party operative John Podesta’s email—was phishing, a very basic approach.

Krehel said that, during the run-up to the election, he observed the Democratic and Republican National Committee networks being equally pressured by the Russians, the former more successfully than the latter. The approach in both cases focused on human engineering.

The Russian services, Murray explained, focus on engineering end-to-end systems. “‘PowerShell’ is the magic word for Russian coding.” There’s an emphasis on the least common denominator—phishing, PowerShell, darkside commodity tools—in effect a startup mentality. “All their tools are malleable and in motion, all the time.”

Critical infrastructure and acts of war.

Hanauer asked about the much-feared prospect of an attack on US critical infrastructure. Are we seeing, he asked, Russian attacks on US critical infrastructure? And if and when we do, would these be acts of war? “If they’re not trying [to hit US critical infrastructure]” Lin said, “then someone over there should be fired.” In Murray’s view, “Everyone’s trying to figure out the act-of-war line.” He reviewed briefly the history of Russian attacks (a coordinated mix of criminal and intelligence service attacks) on the Ukrainian power grid. He thought Russia would be more circumspect about doing such things to the US grid because, of course, the US is potentially a more dangerous adversary than Ukraine. But he also thought that if the Russians came to believe such attacks would be useful, they wouldn’t hesitate to undertake them.

– See more at: https://thecyberwire.com/events/sinet-itsef-2017/what-the-russians-want-how-russia-uses-cyber-attacks-and-hybrid-warfare-to-advance-its-interests.html#sthash.FnUREpYT.dpuf

U.S. Israel Facing Down Iran in Syria, Golan, Yemen

Posted on by

Over the past six years, Iran has played a key role in propping up the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, by sending Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (I.R.G.C.) military personnel as well as recruiting, funding, training and leading an extensive network of Iraqi, Lebanese, Pakistani and Afghan Shiite militia forces. Now that Iran’s ally in Damascus is in control of Syria’s key population centers, the Islamic Republic and its regional proxies are already planning to consolidate their presence in Syria for the long haul to secure Tehran’s geopolitical interests in the broader region. This has alarmed the United States and regional countries – particularly Israel, which is increasingly worried about the presence and influence of the Lebanese Hezbollah and other Iran-backed forces along its northern border with Syria. One prominent Iran-controlled militia group, for example, announced earlier this month that it had created a new brigade of well-trained combatants to fight Israel and reclaim the strategic Golan Heights from the Jewish state.

Israel, the real enemy 

On March 29, Harakat al-Nujaba, an Iraqi militia group that fights under the I.R.G.C.’s leadership in both Iraq and Syria, said that Israel, not Sunni militants, is the real enemy and sought Damascus’s permission to fight Israeli forces stationed in the Golan region. “The Golan Liberation Brigade will fight shoulder to shoulder with its brothers in the Syrian Army. The axis of resistance is working on the main goal, which is the Palestinian issue. And these efforts have a great impact on reshaping the regional map by annihilating the occupying Zionist regime,” Nasr al-Shammari, the Nujaba’s deputy military chief said in an interview with Iran’s Mehr News Agency. “The weapons of the resistance and Islamic and Arab armies should target this regime. With this in mind, the Harakat al-Nujaba announced that a brigade should be set up to liberate Golan,” he added. “If this regime is destroyed, regional problems will be resolved completely.”

Shammari also claimed that Shiite militia groups forced the “occupying” U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq and are able to replicate that success against Israel. “We are waiting to confront the Zionist regime instead of combating Takfiri groups in the region and their evil arms.”

Golan Liberation Brigade 

The Nujaba movement announced three weeks ago that it had established a new brigade to seize the Golan Heights – claiming that “latest victories” against the Islamic State and Sunni rebels in Iraq and Syria have allowed the group and its allies to focus on Israel. Leaders of the group claimed that members of the new brigade are highly-trained, well-equipped and capable of fighting the Jewish state. “Israel is weaker than a spider web. Islamic resistance is capable of confronting the axis of evil and annihilating the occupying Zionist regime,” Nujaba’s Secretary-General Akram al-Kaabi told Lebanon-based Arabic-language al-Mayadeen news network.

Image result for Golan Liberation Brigade

The creation of the Golan Liberation Brigade further alarmed Israeli leaders about the increasing presence and influence of the Lebanese Hezbollah and other I.R.G.C.-supported groups in southwestern Syria. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent trip to Moscow sought assurances from Russian President Vladimir Putin to prevent Iran from taking advantage of the conflict in Syria to station its proxies permanently on Israel’s northern border. “I made it clear to President Putin our resolute opposition to the consolidation of Iran and its proxies in Syria,” he told reporters after the meeting. “We see Iran trying to build a military force, military infrastructure, with the intention to be based in Syria, including the attempt by Iran to build a seaport. All this has serious implications in terms of Israel’s security.”

Given Israel’s military superiority in the region, Iranian proxies cannot seize the strategic Golan region. Also, the regime of Bashar al-Assad is still fighting for its survival against a wide range of Sunni rebel groups and is unlikely to engage in a self-defeating war with Israel. But Israeli leaders are worried that Iran and its proxies are expanding the Southern Lebanon front to the Golan Heights – threatening Israel’s security and stability. The fact that Iranian-sponsored Iraqi militia groups and the Afghan Fatemiyoun Division fighting in Syria have close operational links with Hezbollah, has added to Israeli concerns. Moreover, senior I.R.G.C. commanders have recently visited the Syrian-controlled regions of the Golan Heights on military and reconnaissance missions.

I.R.G.C. commanders have talked about helping Damascus reclaim the Golan region from Israel for almost three decades. Last year, Brigadier General Ali Asghar Gorjizadeh, a senior I.R.G.C. commander and a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, claimed that the Syrian government had refused Tehran’s offer in the 1980s to send an I.R.G.C. battalion to help the Syrian Army to “liberate” the Golan Heights. But he explained that the I.R.G.C. has, over the past decades, used the Syrian territory to train anti-Israel “resistance forces,” particularly the Lebanese Hezbollah. And now that the six-year Syrian civil war has allowed the I.R.G.C. to gain a significant military footprint inside Syria, it is no surprise that the I.R.G.C. will seek to use its powerful Shiite proxies such as the Nujaba group to threaten the Israeli security.

Regional Threat 

The remarks by Nujaba leaders also indicate that the mission of Iran-sponsored Shiite militia groups will not remain limited to Iraq and Syria. Nor will the group only threaten the security of Israel in the future. I.R.G.C.-affiliated militia commanders in Iraq, for example, have already turned attention to their Iraqi rivals as the Islamic State is on the verge of collapse in Mosul. They have also made threats against regional Sunni states, particularly Saudi Arabia. Recent reports also suggest that the I.R.G.C. and Hezbollah are increasingly training and deploying Afghan and Arab Shiite militiamen to support Houthi rebels in Yemen. Iraqi Popular Mobilization (P.M.F) units with close ties with Iran have also stepped up anti-American propaganda in Mosul and across Iraq – posing threat to the safety of American military advisers that are helping the Iraqi security forces on the ground.

Image result for Harakat al-Nujaba SouthFront

Harakat al-Nujaba 

Harakat al-Nujaba – also known as Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba – is a prominent Iraqi sectarian group that operates under the leadership of I.R.G.C. Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. It has been fighting in Syria since 2013. The leader of the group, Akram al-Kaabi, makes no secret of his allegiance to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or his close relationship with Soleimani. The I.R.G.C. uses the Nujaba group and other powerful Shiite units within Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (P.M.F.) not just to fight the Islamic State, but also as a pressure tool against the Baghdad government, regional Sunni states, and the United States. Kaabi once famously stated that his forces would topple the Baghdad government if ordered by Khamenei. Unlike some other P.M.F. units that receive their political and religious guidance from Iraq’s top cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Kaabi has repeatedly made it clear that he only emulates Khamenei. Kaabi has recently declared that he will deploy more forces Syria to fight alongside the I.R.G.C. forces and Syrian Army once the Islamic State is defeated in Mosul.

Anti-American, anti-Israeli propaganda 

Recently, the I.R.G.C.-affiliated media outlets have raised the profile of the Nujaba group, and senior Iranian leaders have held meetings with its top commanders. Indeed, the press conference in which Nujaba announced the creation of  the Golan Liberation Brigade was organized by the Tasnim News Agency, which is a prominent I.R.G.C. media outlet. By focusing their propaganda against the U.S. and describing Israel as the “real enemy,” Iranian leaders are trying to justify their involvement in foreign conflicts and to convince the Iranian people and Muslims around the world that the Islamic Republic is the standard-bearer and true defender of Islam. But such claims ring hollow when most victims of the I.R.G.C.’s military adventurism and proxy wars are Muslims.

***

‘Al-Sharq Al-Awsat’ Report Specifies Locations Of Foreign Military Bases In Syria, Says Syria Is Turning Into Brittle Federation That Can Fall Apart At Any Moment

MEMRI: On March 14, 2017, the London-based daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat published a report giving the location of military bases of various foreign forces in Syria, including the U.S., Russian and Turkish forces. According to the report, the locations of the bases reflect the influence-zone of each country, and that Syria is gradually becoming a loose federation of ethnic states that can fall apart at any moment.

The following are excerpts from the report:

Source: infopls.com

“In the lost time between the Geneva and Astana conferences, the superpowers turned to expand their influence-zones in Syria by establishing numerous military bases which, according to experts, effectively pave the way towards a political solution based on a federation and the division [of Syria]. Until now Moscow and Washington were the major players in this theatre alongside Iran, but recently Ankara decided to establish many military bases of its own in the region known as the Shield of the Euphrates, in order to ensure itself a front-row seat at the international negotiation table…

“Russia is the only [country] that has [openly] announced more than once that it has two bases [in Syria]: an airbase in Khmeimim in the Latakia area and a naval base in Tartus, which is its only [base] on the Mediterranean and is planned to be its biggest naval base… According to various sources, Moscow  recently expanded its presence in Damascus, in the rural area east of Homs and in the rural area [near] Aleppo, and there are [also] Russian headquarters in the Kurdish-held areas in northern Syria that are part of the American influence-zone.

“Washington is keeping mum about the location of [its forces] in Syria [that number] over 900 troops. Last week it announced it was dispatching 400 Marines to Syria in order to support local forces in the battle for Al-Raqqa, the stronghold of the ISIS organization. According to reports, the [U.S.] troops that arrived began establishing a military base from which artillery attacks will be made on ISIS positions 32 km away. The U.S. has established its military bases in northern Syria, mostly in the areas controlled by their allies, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units. The most prominent of these bases are Rmeilan Base in the northeastern tip [of the country], near the Iraqi border, and a base that has been established in the city of ‘Ain Al-Arab (Kobane). According to Kurdish sources, the Americans have other bases in Syria, one of them in Hassakah.

“The single British base in Syria is in near Al-Tanf on Syria’s border with Jordan and Iraq, in the Al-Hamad desert region in the southeast of Homs district, 240 km from Palmyra.

“Iran has two military bases [in Syria], one in the Damascus international airport, which is the headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary  Guards Corps (IRGC) [in Syria], and another in the Azzan Mountain [area] near Aleppo.”

Top U.S. Universities Challenge Free Speech, Get Big Dollars

Posted on by

FNC: Controversial author Charles Murray is scheduled to speak at the University of Notre Dame on Tuesday and despite growing calls for protests from some students and faculty, organizers are standing behind the invitation.

The event comes weeks after violent protests broke out at Middlebury College where Murray was set to speak.

The 74-year-old author of “Coming Apart: The State of White America” was invited to the Catholic university as part of a lecture series for a constitutional law and politics class.

CHARLES MURRAY: ‘INTO THE MIDDLE OF A MOB’ — WHAT HAPPENED WHEN I TRIED TO SPEAK AT MIDDLEBURY

*** When domestic universities go global due to foreign money, do we really know what is being taught and why?

FNC: During the past 20 years, eight British universities — among them Oxford and Cambridge — have taken more than $292 million from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic governments. These contributions represent “the largest source of external funding to UK universities,” according to the director of Brunel University’s Center for Intelligence and Security Studies.

This phenomenon is also not isolated to the United Kingdom: Harvard alone has received more than $30 million from the Saudi government.

Image result for harvard

Stop and think about this.

Money used to fund professorships, scholarships and centers of study is coming from regimes with long histories of violating religious freedoms. As well-intentioned as the contributors might be, it is clear these contributions are not arriving without strings attached.  A cynic might say that they are buying off professors and universities in order to advance their own agenda, even while forbidding similar activities within their own countries. They are happy to exploit Western freedoms in order to strengthen their own theocracies.

They’re not just doing it via the academy, either.

Saudi Arabia also plays a significant role in the establishment of mosques — the centerpieces of Muslim communities — across the world. According to a hearing conducted before the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security in 2003, the vast majority of mosques in the United States were then under Saudi influence. In all, it is estimated that Saudi Arabia has spent more than $100 billion to spread the country’s worldview. More here from FNC.

What about our own government dollars going to universities? What influence does that have? Glad you asked…

FNC: Over a six-year period, Ivy League schools have received tens of billions in tax dollars, bringing in more money from taxpayers than from undergraduate student tuition. In fact, they received more federal cash than 16 state governments.

The stunning numbers are all part of a new report, first seen by Fox News, released Wednesday by Open the Books — a non-profit group whose stated mission is to capture and post online all disclosed spending at every level of government.

The 43-page report shows the massive amount of money flowing into not-for-profit Ivy League schools, including payments and entitlements, costing taxpayers more than $41 billion from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015.

The spending is controversial because these eight schools — Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University and Yale University — have enormous resources at their fingertips, including endowment funds (money raised from donors) in 2015 exceeding $119 billion. Take that total and split it up among Ivy League undergrads and it comes out to $2 million each.

The study says another federal perk — the schools pay no tax on investment gains on their endowment — a tax break is estimated at $9.6 billion over the six years of the study.

In a statement, Princeton, suggested the study was flawed because it didn’t take into account all the money the college receives and then reinvests. Robert Durkee, a Princeton vice president and secretary, said most of the tax incentives the college receives goes toward libraries, laboratories, classrooms, research and financial aid.

“The tax exemption for endowment earnings allows these institutions to use all of those earnings to support their missions of teaching and research, for this generation and for future generations,” Durkee said in a statement. “This means
that the universities spend earnings now, but they also reinvest a portion so they can continue to support their programs of teaching and research well into the future.”

Yale said that rather than being a drain on taxpayers — as the study suggests — the college is a huge financial boon to the towns that surround it.

“Since 2000, over 50 startups based on Yale inventions and located in New Haven have attracted over $5 billion in investment to New Haven and surrounding towns,” Tom Conroy, a Yale spokesman, told Fox News. “Alexion, which employs 1,200 people in New Haven, is a prime example of Yale’s impact.”

Conroy also pointed out that Yale funds a large portion of its research.

Some question if these schools should receive any federal funding…much less, such a large amount.

Here’s a reality check list:

  • With continued donations at the present rate, the money could provide free tuition to the entire student body in perpetuity,
  • Without new donations, the endowment could provide a full-ride scholarship for all Ivy League undergraduate students for 51 years

The report also shows that in fiscal year 2014, the balance sheet for all eight Ivy League schools combined showed accumulated gross assets of more than $194 billion, or the equivalent of $3.35 million per undergraduate student.

“The Ivy League needs to pay its own way…The taxpayer gravy train needs to end,” Adam Andrzejewski, founder of Open the Books, told Fox News.

His report does say that Americans should be proud of the schools and “applaud the many contributions of Ivy League colleges and graduates.” But he told Fox News he feels that “they don’t need taxpayer help, they don’t need taxpayer assistance.”

Some of the federal spending makes sense, like the study of AIDs. But, he said, some are less defensible.

One grant was given to Cornell for nearly $1 million to study whale presence in the Virginia offshore wind energy area. Other grants to Ivy League schools were to study college binge drinking, ethics in Tanzania and sex chromosomes in turtles.

“They have got an endowment, right?” Andrzejewski said. “They can use their endowed funds – they don’t need public funds – to fund studies.”

He went on to compare what he calls Ivy League, Inc. to “a hedge fund with classes.”

Finally, the report dives into some of the big bucks being paid out to Ivy League employees. It shows more than $62 billion in salaries, benefits and reportable compensation to faculty, staff and other employees from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2014 and names four employees who made more than $20 million and three more who made more than $13 million.

Fox News reached out to every Ivy League school for comment Wednesday morning. Princeton and Yale replied, Dartmouth declined to comment, and the others have not responded.

The entire report can be read here.

Please Don’t Sign it Mr. Trump, You Cant Sign it…

Posted on by

(CNN)FBI Director James Comey warned Wednesday that Americans should not have expectations of “absolute privacy,” adding that he planned to finish his term leading the FBI.

“There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of judicial reach,” Comey said at a Boston College conference on cybersecurity. He made the remark as he discussed the rise of encryption since 2013 disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden revealed sensitive US spy practices.
“Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America,” Comey added. “In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications.”
Did you get that? What? Keep reading, it gets worse….

Here’s the Data Republicans Just Allowed ISPs to Sell Without Your Consent

Privacy watchdogs blasted the vote as a brazen GOP giveaway to the broadband industry.

Motherboard: Financial and medical information. Social Security numbers. Web browsing history. Mobile app usage. Even the content of your emails and online chats.

These are among the types of private consumer information that House Republicans voted on Tuesday to allow your internet service provider (ISP) to sell to the highest bidder without your permission, prompting outrage from privacy watchdogs.

The House action, which was rammed through by a vote of 215 – 205 on a largely partisan basis by the GOP majority, represents another nail in the coffin of landmark Federal Communications Commission consumer privacy rules that were passed in 2016. The rules, which were set to go into effect later this year, would have required broadband providers to obtain “opt-in” consent before using, sharing, or selling private consumer data.

“Ignoring calls from thousands of their constituents, House Republicans just joined their colleagues in the Senate in violating internet users’ privacy rights,” Craig Aaron, CEO of DC-based public interest group Free Press Action Fund, said in a statement. “They voted to take away the privacy rights of hundreds of millions of Americans just so a few giant companies could pad their already considerable profits.”

Last week, the Senate passed its version of the legislation. President Trump, who “strongly” supports the FCC privacy rollback, is expected to sign the measure soon, as part of the widening Republican campaign to reverse federal safeguards across broad swaths of the economy, including rules protecting the environment, public health, and consumer interests.

Privacy watchdogs say the FCC’s policy is necessary because ISPs can see everything that consumers do online. Unless you use a Virtual Private Network (VPN), every website you visit, every mobile app you use, every online search you conduct, is visible on their networks. Needless to say, this data is immensely valuable because it can be used to create detailed profiles for marketing and tracking purposes.

Related reading: Is Your Favorite Website Spying on You?

Corporate giants like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon already rake in billions of dollars annually from internet, cable, and mobile subscriptions. Now, these broadband firms will be able to make even more money by selling your private data to third party marketers without your permission.

“What the heck are you thinking? What is in your mind?”

Last year, the FCC detailed the data covered by its privacy policy. Thanks to Capitol Hill Republicans, ISPs will no longer be required to obtain “opt-in” consent before using, sharing, or selling this data.

Image: FCC

“What the heck are you thinking?” Rep. Michael Capuano, the Massachusetts Democrat, demanded of his GOP colleagues during floor debate earlier Tuesday. “What is in your mind? Why would you want to give out any of your personal information to a faceless corporation for the sole purpose of them selling it?”

Privacy advocates are particularly outraged because Republican lawmakers are nuking the FCC privacy policy using a controversial legislative tool called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to nullify recently-approved federal regulations. “Resolutions of disapproval” passed under the CRA cannot be filibustered, and prohibit the agency in question, in this case the FCC, from adopting “substantially similar” privacy rules in the future.

“Once President Trump signs this resolution, there will be no effective federal cop on the beat to proactively protect consumer information collected by ISPs,” Dallas Harris, Policy Fellow at DC-based digital rights group Public Knowledge, said in a statement. “Without the FCC’s broadband privacy rules, Americans go from being internet users to marketing data—from people to the product.”

It should come as no surprise that many of the Republicans leading the charge to roll back the FCC’s privacy rules, including Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, have received vast sums of campaign cash from the broadband industry.

Over the course of Blackburn’s 14-year career in the House, she has received $75,750 from AT&T and $72,650 from Verizon, her second and third largest corporate donors, respectively, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Blackburn has also received $66,000 from NCTA, the broadband industry trade group, and $49,500 from Comcast.

For the last year, the broadband industry has complained that the FCC’s privacy policy is unfair because it doesn’t apply to so-called “edge providers” like Google and Facebook, which are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). But instead of fighting to bolster the FTC’s privacy policy to create a level playing field, Republican lawmakers instead chose to eliminate the FCC’s more robust protections. Now the measure moves to Trump’s desk.

“If President Trump was serious about his campaign promises to stand up for the rights of the individual over the powerful special interests in Washington DC, then he would veto this bill,” Nathan White, Senior Legislative Manager at Access Now, said in a statement.

Lobbyists Back in Key Government Roles

Posted on by

Two months after launching his campaign last year, Trump boasted on CBS’ “Face the Nation”: “I don’t want lobbyists. I don’t want special interests,” adding that he “turned down $5 million last week from a very important lobbyist, because there are total strings attached to a thing like that. He’s going to come to me in a year or two years and he’s going to want something for a country that he represents or for a company that he represents.” More here as explained, lobbyists were on the team before and during the RNC convention.

Trump’s “beachhead” teams host dozens of former lobbyists

by

President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price arrive on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 21, 2017, to rally support for the Republican health care overhaul. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has at least eight former lobbyists serving on the beachhead team in his agency. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

OpenSecrets: Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has been mired in questions about his investments in the healthcare industry. As it turns out, some of the people helping him get grounded at the department are also prompting questions about their ties with the industry.

Lance Leggitt, a lobbyist at Baker Donelson since 2006, was named Price’s chief of staff earlier this month. In 2016 alone, he lobbied for 10 organizations — all related to health care. Alere Inc, for example, manufactures diagnostic tests and spent nearly $900,000 lobbying last year. Other clients included hospitals and a medical trade group.

Leggitt deregistered as a lobbyist in January, because he was on his way to HHS even before being made chief of staff. In the early days of the administration, Leggitt was a member of President Trump’s “beachhead” force, a temporary cast of characters brought in to keep the government running and lay the groundwork for Trump’s agenda. With key jobs in the administration being filled at a slower-than-average pace, these individuals can have a big impact on their agencies.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by ProPublica, the names of 400 of the more than 520 members of beachhead teams were released by the Office of Personnel Management — including several dozen individuals who have been federally registered lobbyists, a review by OpenSecrets confirmed.

Their positions can last 90 to 120 days, depending on the level, with one contract extension permitted — although many expect to be later hired on to full-time positions. That’s what happened with Leggitt, for example, and with Jack Kalavritinos, who was brought in on a beachhead assignment to help run FDA; that agency’s commissioner wasn’t named by Trump for close to two months. Kalavritinos worked at HHS in the mid 2000’s but more recently spent eight years lobbying for Covidien Ltd, an Ireland-based pharmaceutical and health products company. This week, Kalavritinos was named associate commissioner for external affairs at FDA.

While past administrations have used some temporary personnel, they didn’t seem to do so at the same scale as Trump’s, said Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, which helps advise new administrations. Most pushed to have officials in place much more quickly.

“There wasn’t a notion of a group of people that were only there for a limited period of time, but more of an expectation that the secretary and team would get in and be using the career folks,” Stier said. “The beachhead team creates another step in the process.” (The term “beachhead” was first used by Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign; he didn’t get the chance to implement the concept.)

It also creates “minders” of a sort who aren’t always appreciated by agency chiefs or civil service employees trying to do their work. According to the Washington Post, these temporary figures often act as eyes and ears for the White House, making sure the agencies are loyally hewing to the administration’s agenda.

Now, some of the beachheaders with lobbying backgrounds did that work many years ago and went on to other careers. But even for more recent practitioners, Trump’s executive order on ethics, unlike President Obama’s, allows lobbyists to join the administration, even in the agencies they previously lobbied, though they are not supposed to work on specific issues on which they lobbied in the last two years. There are also restrictions on the lobbying that administration employees can do after they leave the public payroll, but there are a number of loopholes in the rules.

It’s unclear if all the beachhead employees are bound by the Trump policy. Still, even if they are, there are a number of ways that former lobbyists can flourish in the administration. For instance, Trump could waive the executive order’s requirements for certain appointees, and now doesn’t even need to make those waivers public, like Obama did. (There is a section of the White House site that says “Ethics pledge waivers will be published as they become available,” but there weren’t any waivers posted when we published.)

The placement of all these lobbyists as de facto — or actual — high-level agency staffers “raises the appearance that you could be attempting to influence public policy in favor of your former client,” said Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs and strategy at Issue One. “This isn’t saying that lobbyists are bad or evil, it’s simply saying the reason that you should have rules governing lobbyists in government is because they have been paid by private interests to promote the interests of their employer.”

It makes a difference whether an individual lobbied last year of 10 years ago, McGehee said. Revolving door restrictions are written with time limits, because it’s understood your relationships with clients and freshness of information cool over time.

One former for-profit college lobbyist has already resigned from his beachhead position at the Department of Education, where he worked for about a month. Taylor Hansen lobbied for Career Education Colleges and Universities until July 2016, where he focused on trying to weaken the “gainful employment” rule that puts for-profit schools’ federal funding at risk if their graduates don’t earn enough to pay back their student loans.

ProPublica reported that soon after Hansen started working at Education, the agency began delaying deadlines for the gainful employment rule and is reviewing the implementation of the rule. Hansen told ProPublica he didn’t work on gainful employment while at the department.

OpenSecrets Blog contacted the federal agencies with former lobbyist beachhead members about their ethics policies. The Department of Homeland Security was the only one to get back to us, and its response was vague:

“Ethics training, consistent with U.S. Office of Government Ethics regulations, is provided to all political appointees,” said DHS spokesman David Lapan in an email. “DHS ethics attorneys conduct reviews for potential conflicts of interest and provide guidance to employees.”

Nine beachhead members were registered lobbyists as recently as last year; eight of them have filed forms with the Senate deregistering from that work. General Mills has not filed paperwork that shows Erika Baum ending her lobbying gig at the food company, although she is now an executive assistant to the Secretary of Transportation, according to ProPublica‘s data and lobbying records.

OpenSecrets Blog contacted all nine firms, and confirmed at least four beachheaders had formally resigned from their lobbying jobs, as opposed to taking temporary leaves of absence. Two firms said they could not divulge personnel information, and two did not reply by publication. (The ninth was General Mills.)

Among the former cohorts on K Street:

John Barsa, who is installed at DHS, has lobbied for the Aerospace Industries Association of America, a trade group for the aerospace and defense industry. He’s also represented MRIGlobal, a research organization that touts its security and defense program and runs facilities for the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense. He deregistered in 2013, though he stayed at his lobbying firm until 2015.

Pete Giambastiani, in his role as special assistant at the office of the secretary of defense, might visit one of those facilities. He, too, has a history of lobbying on behalf of defense interests. His past clients, through 2014, include the Defense Venture Group, Finmeccanica SpA and the Navy League of the US. Giambastiani also served in the Department of the Navy and the offices of Reps. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) and, most recently, Tom Rooney (R-Fla.).

Mark Maddox‘s clients as a lobbyist included General Synfuels International, Calcasieu Refinery Co. and Cline Resource and Development. Now, fittingly, he’s a key beachhead figure at the Energy Department. He deregistered in 2015, though he continued working at The Livingston Group/Maddox Strategies.

Then there’s Geoff Burr, who is at the Department of Labor. Until 2015, he was the top lobbyist for the Associated Builders and Contractors, which is always fighting wage standards in federal contracts and is on the other side of labor unions when it comes to exposure to hazardous materials. He then went on to run the lobbying shop at Cablevision. Burr previously put in time at Labor, from 2006 to 2008.

Other departments have smatterings of staff who have lobbied on behalf of issues that are intensely political. Julie Kirchner, a Homeland Security adviser, represented the Federation for Amer Immigration Reform, a nonprofit that seeks to reduce immigration levels. (She deregistered in 2015.) At the Department of Agriculture, special assistant George Dunlop brings with him his experience lobbying for the Tobacco Quota Warehouse Alliance, which advocated in support of tobacco producers from 1999 to 2001.

So far, the links between lobbying and the beachhead team have been pretty direct: Health care lobbyists at HHS, defense lobbyists at Homeland Security, and so on. But what about the Department of Commerce, which is tasked with the broad goal of expanding economic growth? Earl Comstock, director of the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning at Commerce, has demonstrated the flexibility befitting the nation’s multifaceted economy. In his 18 years of lobbying until 2015, he represented firms from Swiss International Air Lines to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission to the Teamsters Union. He can now apply that diverse experience as he makes his way back to government — he was a staffer on the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee from 1988-1991.

In some cases, the revolving door made a complete 360 swivel: At least 14 of the beachheads have previously worked in the same agency where Trump has now placed them.

One of them is Marcus Peacock, now adviser for Office of Management & Budget, who worked in that office for eight years under GOP Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (R). Peacock worked for Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly as a program manager in the early 1990’s. Most recently he was the environment & energy consultant for dark-money nonprofit Right to Rise Policy Solutions, which supported Jeb Bush.

Here are the rest of the former lobbyists on Trump’s beachhead team: