Category Archives: Industry Jobs Oil Economics

Russian Trolls, DAVOS and President Trump

Posted on by

So, while President Trump has again changed his schedule to attend the DAVOS World Economic Forum, there are some key items on the agenda.

With cybersecurity a top concern at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Yahoo Finance asked experts: What is the topic or topics that business and government leaders should be focusing on when it comes to cybersecurity and policy in 2018?

Jason Glassberg, co-founder of Casaba Security, responded that currently the most pressing topics are “cryptocurrency ecosystems, election security, ‘DevSecOps’ (this may sound dull, but think: IoT, cars, airline computer systems, smart homes, smart cities, Intel chips, Juniper routers, Huawei, the Internet, basically everything digital under the sun), increased regulation, cyber warfare, and attribution.”

Glassberg broke down each of these six issues:

“Cryptocurrency is obviously a major financial story these days. Everybody and their brother is looking into how to capitalize on it. These markets are notoriously murky, however – fraud and scams are rampant, as are the cyber attacks. So how do you make it safe? How do you take a Wild West gunslinging town, and turn it into the suburbs? It’s a tough issue, and I think we’ll have to look at the gambling industry as an example. The key to this is establishing better security within this ecosystem for the real players. The next step is finding a way to guarantee losses due to theft, similar to the FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] or SIPC [Securities Investor Protection Corporation].

Election security needs no introduction. But while everybody has been freaking out about voter suppression via phony Facebook ads, the reality is that the 2016 election interference was just a sample. It was a nation-state gently dipping its toe in the water, but deciding not to go all the way in. If a country wanted to get serious about election attacks, it could go much further. This is what we need to be prepared for.

It would be possible for a serious player to delete or alter voter registration databases, DDoS the servers used to run those database or the actual voting machines; not to mention, hack the voting machines themselves. The latter would definitely cross a red line, if for instance we found out that Russia had re-tabulated voting machines to directly affect the outcome of an election. But what if the attack was a little less black-and-white? For instance, what if the machines were just infected with random malware that didn’t actually do anything, other than make itself known to the IT team? That would send shockwaves through the system and call into question the voting results, even though the votes weren’t actually affected. This is what we need to be thinking about.

DevSecOps is one of those terms that causes people’s eyes to glaze over when they hear it (if they ever do), but it’s actually very relevant to our lives today. What it refers to is incorporating security into the software or hardware development process. This is hugely significant today because as we’re seeing with the Internet of Things devices that are flooding the market, and the connected cars that are rolling out onto our public streets, software security is usually not the first priority of these manufacturers.

But not to just pick on those two markets, the reality is that DevSecOps is a problem for every industry on the planet, even the security field. Businesses aren’t doing enough to bake in rigorous security into the DNA of their products from the very beginning. Too often they are relying on software updates and patches to fix the problem after the fact, and that is never an ideal solution. This will continue to become a bigger issue in the months and years ahead.

Increased regulation is another issue that businesses could face, as governments try to contend with the growing risk of data breaches and attacks on key infrastructure, whether it’s the GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation] in Europe or the Singapore Cybersecurity Bill. In my own opinion, I think that companies that store consumer data (whether it’s credit card numbers or credit reports), as well as private infrastructure entities like telecom and power companies, are probably most at risk of higher costs due to regulation.

Cyber warfare is another pressing issue today, as more countries are investing in offensive cyber operations. This often puts businesses in the crosshairs and it sticks government in a tough position too because there is no easy solution for preventing or responding to these incidents. A key question when it comes to cyber warfare is do we engage in “active defense”?

That is more commonly referred to as hack-back, but it’s a more complex concept than simply tit-for-tat cyber retaliation. Active defense can mean anything from advanced investigative techniques to disabling the servers behind an attack or turning a city’s lights off for 30 minutes in order to send a message to a rival nation. How we deter and respond to cyber warfare tactics will be a key question for policymakers and businesses over the next five to 10 years.

Attribution is another ongoing issue for governments and businesses, and it’s related directly to the cyber warfare question, although it also encompasses cybercrime as well. What’s also key with attribution is that the pressure to solve these cases could lead to encroachments on digital privacy. In fact, I’d be very surprised if that did not happen. Potential targets here include Tor, VPNs, and encryption tools in general.”

Over 500 criminal ‘dreamers’ ordered deported are still in U.S.

Posted on by

WE: In the latest blow to the pure image portrayed by their supporters in Congress, newly released statistics show that over 500 illegals stripped of their “dreamer” status due to crime and gang charges remain on the streets.

A new analysis of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services statistics found that 2,127 individuals had their amnesty status terminated for criminal activity and/or gang activity as of November 22, 2017.

Of those booted from the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival amnesty program, 562 were deported.

But, said the analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, a near equal amount — 535 — were released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“While it is reassuring that USCIS is revoking DACA benefits for criminal gang members it identifies, it is concerning that almost as many criminal alien DACA beneficiaries have been released as have been removed to their home country,” said the report’s author and CIS Policy Studies Director Jessica M. Vaughan.

Her report reviewed USCIS data provided to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley.

While a tiny portion of the overall DACA population of nearly 700,000, the report and other portraying the illegals as more prone to crime and low-pay employment challenge that painted by liberals that most are high-achievers.

The fate of DACA is at the center of the current budget crisis. Democrats want a deal to preserve their amnesty as part of a budget deal, while Republicans want them included in a larger immigration bill that would grant a path to citizenship in exchange for President Trump’s key demands, including funding to build a southern border wall.

Her numbers:

  • Removed from the United States: 562
  • In ICE Custody: 90
  • Released from ICE Custody: 535
  • No Record of Removal, Detention or Release by ICE: 940
  • Total: 2,127

Trump has put a focus on deporting gang members and Vaughan highlighted what USCIS had to say about those criminal organizations. She wrote:

USCIS also provided a list of more than 45 gang affiliations of the ex-DACA criminals. It includes some of the most violent and dangerous gangs in the United States, such as MS-13, 18th Street, the Latin Kings, and the Trinitarios. It includes some lesser-known gangs as well, with names like Last Generation Korean Killers and Maniac Latin Disciples.

USCIS has not released information on where these gang members were living, but the gang names sometimes identify their location: Oakland 30 Nortenos, Orange County, Angelino Heights Surenos, East San Diego, Inland Empire, Pacoima Van Nuys Boys, and West Merced Nortenos, all of which are presumably in California.

*** Dreamers versus DACA

Image result for daca photo

Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act or the Dream Act was originally introduced in 2001 by Dick Durbin and Orin Hatch. The proposed bill failed several times. Members of Congress have introduced several forms of this bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Members in the House passed one such bill on December 8, 2010 by a vote of 216–198;[13] Senators debated a version of the DREAM Act on September 21, 2010. A previous version of the bill, S. 2205, which required 60 votes to gain cloture, failed on a 52–44 vote in 2007, eight votes short of overcoming a filibuster by senators opposed to the bill.

In 2011, California passed their own version of the Dream Act. Continued edits and iterations of the Dream Act have been introduced in both houses of Congress, yet no version has advanced. So, Barack Obama used his executive authority to declare the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, DACA.

Both issues must be debated in together and they have been for at least 17 years. What is rarely discussed is those under DACA protections do drop off monthly for various reasons. So we are still challenged with what the real numbers include.

Trump has urged Congress to pass legislation by March 2018 that would give legal status to unauthorized immigrants enrolled in DACA, and some members of Congress have said they plan to propose legislation along those lines. (DACA enrollees whose benefits expire after March 5, 2018, will be the first to be dropped from the program.)

Although roughly 800,000 unauthorized immigrants have ever received benefits through DACA, about 110,000 of this group are no longer enrolled in the program. About 70,000 former DACA participants did not renew their benefits or had their renewal applications denied. Another 40,000 have adjusted their legal status and obtained green cards, which grant lawful permanent residence. (Some unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. can obtain legal status by marrying an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, obtaining asylum, or receiving certain types of visas such as those given to victims of a crime, among other ways.)

To qualify for DACA, enrollees must meet certain conditions, such as being enrolled in high school or having a high school diploma or GED equivalent, and not being convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors. For more key facts and details, go here.

There are some real unanswered questions which include monthly costs to the taxpayer, enforcement of those conditions, reporting of crimes versus those protected under DACA and most of all, how long does ‘deferred’ last?

Image result for daca photo

The Obama White House stated:

Today, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will begin accepting requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals. Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. Under this process, USCIS will consider requests on a case-by-case basis. While this process does not provide lawful status or a pathway to permanent residence or citizenship, individuals whose cases are deferred will not be removed from the United States for a two year period, subject to renewal, and may also receive employment authorization. 

There are key words in that text. They include: accept, requests, consideration, discretionary, defer, case by case, subject to renewal. None of the actions under DACA is rubber-stamped with approval something all the Democrats and many Republicans have overlooked as well as the media.

Highlights of DHS Report to Judiciary Cmte on Immigration

Posted on by

Image result for secretary of dhs photo

Primer:

The Justice Department on Tuesday announced plans to appeal a judge’s ruling that blocked President Donald Trump from shuttering a program that gave protections and work permits to some people who entered the U.S. illegally as children.

In a ruling last week, San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ordered the administration to resume accepting renewal applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, better known as DACA. More here from Politico.

In part, highlights:

The Department has also implemented historic efforts to step up international cooperation. For the first time ever, DHS established a clear baseline for what countries must do to help the United States confidently screen travelers and immigrants from their territory. Every country in the world is now required to meet high security standards and to help us understand who is coming into our country.
As required under President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (EO 13780), all foreign governments have been notified of the new standards, which include the sharing of terrorist identities, criminal
history information, and other data needed to ensure public safety and national security, as well as the requirement that countries issue secure biometric passports, report lost and stolen travel documents to INTERPOL, and take other essential actions to prevent identity fraud.
***
Visa Waiver Program
We are also looking at ways to further strengthen the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). First and foremost, the VWP is a security partnership program. It mandates high and consistent standards from partner countries in the areas of national security, law enfor
cement, and immigration enforcement to detect and prevent terrorists, criminals, and other potentially dangerous individuals from traveling to the United States —
while still facilitating legitimate travel and tourism.
Currently, 38 countries participate in the VWP, which allows their citizens to travel to the United States for business or tourism for stays of up to 90 days after applying and being approved through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). In return, these countries must comply with program requirements to enter into information
-sharing protocols that enable the relay of information concerning known and suspected terrorists and criminals; consistent and timely lost and stolen passport information reporting; and robust border and travel document
screening. As a result of these program requirements, countries have adopted new laws, policies, and practices that strengthen our mutual security.
The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015,
combined with Secretarial action, have strengthened the VWP’s security provisions over the past two years.
VWP countries are now required to issue high -security electronic passports (e-
passports); implement information sharing arrangements to exchange terrorist identity information; establish mechanisms to validate e-passports at each key port of entry; report all lost and stolen passports to INTERPOL or directly to the United States no later than 24 hours after the country becomes aware of the loss or theft; and screen international travelers against the INTERPOL Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database and notices. As with other operational activities of DHS, a full discussion of the privacy impact of these initiatives and how we mitigate the risk to personal privacy is available on our website.
Since enactment of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, DHS has realized an increase in the sharing of terrorist identity information. Several countries have increased the frequency of their reporting of lost and stolen passports —VWP countries account for over 70 percent of the almost 73 million lost and stolen travel documents reported to INTERPOL. All VWP countries are now issuing and using for travel to the United States fraud-resistant e-passports that meet or exceed the ICAO standards. Over 70,000 ESTA applicationshave been denied, cancelled or revoked under enforcement of the VWP Improvement Act’seligibility restrictions for VWP travel.
Border Security
In compliance with Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvements, DHS has conducted a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border that addresses all of the elements that provide an integrated solution for the Nation. Our first priority is to expand on our existing southern border wall system and close legal loopholes that encourage and enable illegal immigration and create a corresponding backlog in the courts. We currently have an immigration court backlog of more than 650,000 cases pending before the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. We also have a massive asylum backlog with more than 270,000 pending cases before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
Recognizing the unsustainability of the asylum case backlog, USCIS has implemented efficiency measures designed to reduce adjudication times. Similarly, the Department of Justice has taken action to reduce unwarranted case continuances in immigration courts, which helps reduce the backlog while affording aliens full and fair hearings. To further

reduce the “pull factors” and restore integrity to our immigration benefits adjudication process, we must tighten case processing standards, including the “credible
-fear” standard, impose and enforce penalties for fraud, and ensure applicants are fully vetted before they are allowed access to the United States.
In addition, visa-overstays account for roughly 40 percent of all illegal immigration in the
United States. In FY 2016, more than 628,000 aliens overstayed their visas. By increasing
overstay penalties and expanding ICE’s enforcement tools, we can help ensure that foreign
workers, students, and visitors respect the terms of their temporary visas. We need Congress to authorize the Department to raise and collect fees from immigration benefit applications to fund additional enhancements to our immigration system called for by the President’s Executive Orders.
Enforcing Immigration Laws
We are also prioritizing the enforcement of our immigration laws in the interior of our country.
There are nearly one million aliens with final orders of removal across the country
—meaning these removable aliens were afforded due process of law, had their
day in court, and were ultimately ordered removed by a judge — yet they remain in our nation and ICE only has 6,000 Deportation Officers to arrest and remove them. The Administration looks to strengthen law enforcement by hiring 10,000 more ICE officers and agents, and supports the request from the Department of Justice to hire 300 more federal prosecutors.
To further protect our communities, we must end so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Hundreds of state and local jurisdictions across the country that do not honor requests from ICE to hold criminal aliens who are already in state and local custody. Instead, they allow them back into their communities, where they are allowed to commit more crimes. This also poses a greater risk of harm to ICE officers, who must locate and arrest these criminals in public places, and increases the likelihood that the criminal aliens can resist arrest or flee. Rather than enhancing public safety, sanctuary jurisdictions undermine it.
The only “sanctuary” these jurisdictions create is a safe haven for criminals. States and localities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities should be ineligible for funding from certain grants and cooperative agreements.
Authorizing and incentivizing states and localities to enforce immigration laws would further help ICE with its mission and make all communities safer.
In FY 2017, 1,761 criminal illegal aliens were released from ICE custody because of a 2001
Supreme Court decision that generally requires ICE to release certain removable aliens with final orders of removal—including violent criminals—
within 180 days, if they have not been removed and there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Legally insupportable judicial interpretations of the law regarding the detention and removability of criminal aliens have eroded ICE’s authority to keep aliens in custody pending removal.
Pursuant to this Executive Order, USCIS announced it will take a more targeted approach to combatting fraud and abuse in the employment -based visa programs, including the H-1B program. To help end H-1B petitioner fraud and abuse, USCIS has established a Targeted Site Visit and Verification Program (TSVVP). Targeted site visits allow USCIS to focus its resources where fraud and abuse of certain programs are more likely to occur. TSVVP initially focused on H-1B petitions filed by companies that are H-1B dependent (as defined by statute), employers petitioning for H-1B workers who will be placed off -site at another company’s location, or cases where USCIS cannot validate the H-1B petitioner’s business information through commercially -available data.
USCIS has also taken great strides to improve transparency with the public about employment -based immigration programs. The agency has published new data on its website to give the public more information regarding the use of nonimmigrant workers in the H-1B, H-2B, and L nonimmigrant programs. Information about the use and legal authority for employment authorization documents has also been published.
Most low-skilled immigration into the United States occurs legally through our
immigrant-visa system, which, unlike many other countries’ systems, prioritizes family
-based chain-migration. Each year, the United States grants lawful permanent resident status (greencards) to more than one million people; two-thirds of that total is based on a person having a sponsoring relative in the United States, regardless of the new immigrant’s skills, education, English language proficiency, or ability to successfully assimilate. This system of chain-migration has accounted for more than 60 percent of immigration into the United States over the past 35 years. We must end chain-migration, and limit family -based green cards to spouses and the minor children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
We must also eliminate the “diversity visa” lottery. Every year, through this lottery, 50,000
green cards are awarded at random to foreign nationals. Many of these lottery beneficiaries have absolutely no ties to the United States, no special skills, and limited education. The random lottery program has not been adopted by other countries and does not adequately serve our national interest. Full opening summary here.

Google Worked for Democrats Against Republicans

Posted on by

3. Throughout the Class Periods, and in violation of California law, Google employees
who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects
raised in the workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as “diversity” hiring policies, “bias sensitivity,” or “ social justice,” were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights.
4. Google’s open hostility for conservative thought is paired with invidious
discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred by law. Google’s management goes to extreme—and illegal—lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race and /or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and male employees and potential employees at Google.
5. Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were most racized, belittled, and punished
for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being
Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination —Google formed opinions about and
then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups
with assumed characteristics.
***
Sounds precisely like the Obama IRS when it did the same thing. It is yet another kind of cyber war.
If there is any doubt about Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Obama and Hillary –>

Clinton Status Memo Mentioning Google’s Eric Schmidt by Joe Schoffstall on Scribd

  More here.

Yup that commie phrase we have come to know well…white privilege…in the case of Google it was ‘white male privilege’.
Google Punished Gudeman for His Views on Racism and Discrimination
88. After being reported to Google, Google HR spoke with Gudeman in or around
September 2015 regarding his posts.
89. Google HR discussed Gudeman’s viewpoints on race and/or gender equality, and his
political viewpoints. Google HR chastised him for attempting to stand up for Caucasian males and his conservative views.
90. At the end of the HR meeting, Gudeman was issued a verbal warning.
91. Gudeman complained to his colleagues about the lack of fairness that conservatives
received at Google, and the leeway Google provided for liberals to express their thoughts and opinions without repercussions.
92. After the 2016 presidential election, many employees at Google began to panic, having
expected a different outcome fully in line with their political views.
The Corporate Internal Blacklist
131. Google’s management-sanctioned blacklists were directed at specific Google
employees who tactfully expressed conservative viewpoints in politically-
charged debates. In one case, Jay Gengelbach, a L6 SWE Manager, publicly bragged about blacklisting an intern for failing to change his conservative views.
133. Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), a L7 SWE Manager, proposed creating an online
companywide blacklist of political conservatives inside Google. She was kind enough to suggest to her readership that they might deserve “something resembling a trial” before being added.
134. On August 7, 2015, another manager, Collin Winter, posted threats directed at a Google employee as a result of raising concerns of harassment and discrimination
to Urs Holzle. Winter stated: “I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.”
135.
Also on August 7, 2015, another manager, Paul Cowan, reshared Collin Winter’s threat
to express his agreement with it and to indicate that he had also blacklisted Google employees with perceived conservative views. Cowan stated: “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly) [a blacklist]. If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit.”
Heck you can read the 161 page lawsuit here complete with screen captures of internal employee chats with each other. Swell place eh?

UN Declaration, Regular, Constant Global Migration = Insurgency

Posted on by

Berlin – A new series launched by the Global Migration Data Analysis Centre (GMDAC) of IOM, the UN Migration Agency, aims to summarize the existing evidence on migration in an accurate and accessible fashion, to support discussions and any follow-up activities of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

Note the words orderly and regular….if the United Nations and peacekeeping operations as well as the aid, education, construction and protection campaigns were successful, migration would not be required especially in non-war torn countries. Right? Or how about all these other global human interest organizations….they failing too? Those like the Clinton Foundation or hey how about the Gates Foundation, which is a private foundation founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It was launched in 2000 and is said to be the largest private foundation in the US, holding $38 billion in assets, improving lives from Seattle to South Africa….ahem.

Image result for global migration

Check here for the largest 10 organizations…. if all this work and money and resources were effective, then why the migration at all?

More here.

The New York Declaration

For the first time on 19 September 2016 Heads of State and Government came together to discuss, at the global level within the UN General Assembly, issues related to migration and refugees. This sent an important political message that migration and refugee matters have become major issues in the international agenda. In adopting the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, the 193 UN Member States recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to human mobility and enhanced cooperation at the global level.

What are the aims of the global compact for migration?

The global compact is framed consistent with target 10.7 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in which member States committed to cooperate internationally to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration and its scope is defined in Annex II of the New York Declaration. It is intended to:

  • address all aspects of international migration, including the humanitarian, developmental, human rights-related and other aspects;
  • make an important contribution to global governance and enhance coordination on international migration;
  • present a framework for comprehensive international cooperation on migrants and human mobility;
  • set out a range of actionable commitments, means of implementation and a framework for follow-up and review among Member States regarding international migration in all its dimensions;
  • be guided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda; and
  • be informed by the Declaration of the 2013 High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development.

The development of the global compact for migration – an open, transparent and inclusive process

The Modalities Resolution for the intergovernmental negotiations of the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration outline the key elements and timeline of the process. The global compact will be developed through an open, transparent and inclusive process of consultations and negotiations and the effective participation of all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, academic institutions, parliaments, diaspora communities, and migrant organizations in both the intergovernmental conference and its preparatory process.