2016 A Tidal Wave of New Regulations

Posted on December 30, 2015December 30, 2015 by Denise Simon

What’s Next on Gun Control: Obama and the Loophole

The White House will likely go around Congress and require background checks for all “in the business” of selling firearms.

Bloomberg: The next shoe to drop on gun control may come by mid-January, when President Barack Obama is expected to issue an executive order requiring everyone “in the business” of selling firearms to perform background checks.

Wait a second, you might be saying. Doesn’t federal law already oblige gun retailers to do computerized criminal checks via the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s data base? Yes and no.

Yes, when it comes to federally licensed dealers. But no, when you’re talking about people who lack federal licenses and sell guns from their personal collections.

The problem is that an awful lot of firearms are sold in the latter fashion by individuals who aren’t technically gun retailers but who sell weapons at weekend gun shows or from their homes. Forthcoming research by the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that 40 percent of all gun transfers occur without background checks (that’s the so-called gun show loophole). Presumably the background-check gap permits some criminals and mentally disabled people to buy guns who otherwise might be stopped.

Following another a year of shooting massacres of Americans, Obama has let it be known from his holiday retreat in Hawaii, through unidentified advisers, that soon after New Years Day he plans to follow through on plans to expand the definition of who’s “in the business” of selling firearms—and who’s thus required to perform background checks. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, among others, has strongly backed this idea, and now Obama appears ready to make its implementation one of the first major acts of his final year in office.

Another fan of expanded background checks: Michael Bloomberg, owner of Bloomberg LP and founder of Everytown for Gun Safety, the nation’s leading nonprofit advocating tougher regulation of firearms. Bloomberg visited Obama at the White House last week to discuss gun-safety strategies.

The timing of the expected Obama move on background checks guarantees it will receive a hostile reaction from gun-rights advocates, thousands of whom will gather next month in Las Vegas for the firearm industry’s annual Shooting, Hunting & Outdoor Trade Show, known as SHOT.

An ironic twist is that many of the attendees at SHOT each year are federally licensed bricks-and-mortar gun dealers who sometimes concede privately that they have no real problem with all gun sellers being forced to do background checks. These full-time retailers resent competition from casual unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

But the National Rifle Association’s orthodoxy—that any additional gun control is merely a first step toward bans and confiscation—holds sway in the firearms world, making outward expressions of support among gun sellers for Obama’s proposal unlikely. While the enormous gathering in Las Vegas isn’t technically an NRA event, the group’s strong anti-Obama stance will almost certainly be evident there, and a fresh proposal to stiffen regulation may have the effect of pouring gasoline on a fire already burning hot.

There will probably be calls to challenge Obama’s authority to broaden the background check mandate without congressional involvement. Lawsuits and objections from pro-gun Republicans on Capitol Hill will likely follow, as has happened with other efforts by the administration to use executive authority in the environmental arena.

Another sure thing: Texas Senator Ted Cruz and other Republican presidential candidates will condemn the Obama proposal. In other words, the Great American Gun Debate will continue in 2016.

The Hill: President Obama is preparing to unleash a wave of new regulations in 2016 as he looks to shore up his legacy on public protection issues during his final year in office.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Labor are all expected to finalize major federal rules that critics say are long overdue. The regulations include a final rule from the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law that will force companies to compare the paychecks of their top executives with company performance, final rules for cigars and electronic cigarettes proposed well over a year ago, and a final regulation to protect constructions workers from deadly silica dust.

Here’s a look at the top regulations expected to come from the administration in 2016.

Pay for performance

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to finalize its “pay for performance” rule that will require publicly traded corporations to disclose how much their top executives are paid and compare that to the companies’ overall financial performance.

The agency, which first proposed the rule in May, set an October 2016 deadline for the final rule last month. The SEC contends it will allow shareholders to make more informed decisions when electing directors.

Arbitration

Regulatory experts are expecting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to propose new rules in 2016 to protect consumers’ right to file or join a class-action lawsuit against a financial company.

More and more companies are adding arbitration clauses to contracts that prevent consumers from resolving a dispute through the court system. Instead, the language, which can often be found in credit card and cellphone contracts, typically states that disputes about a product can only be resolved by privately appointed individuals or arbitrators.

Dodd-Frank directed the CFPB to do a study of arbitration agreements and issue a report of its findings to Congress. After the agency completed the report in March, it announced plans to proceed with a rulemaking.

E-cigarettes

Industry and health groups may not agree on the rules, but both are exasperated by the delay in first-ever regulations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cigars and electronic cigarettes.

Health groups were frantic in the days leading up to the release of the $1.1 trillion government spending deal earlier this month, fearing that industry had successfully lobbied for a change that would have exempted many e-cigarette and cigar products from the restrictions.

Industry groups, however, came up empty-handed and will now wait to see if attempts to lobby the White House for last-minute changes paid off. Those organizations are most concerned about a provision in the proposed rule that would require all products that hit store shelves after Feb. 15, 2007, to apply retroactively for approval, a process that companies say would put them out of business.

The FDA originally said the final rules would be out last summer but changed the deadline to November. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is reviewing the final rule, was still meeting with industry and health groups last week.

Silica dust

The Department of Labor is in the process of finalizing a years-in-the-making rule to protect workers from silica dust.

Peg Seminario, the AFL-CIO’s safety and health director, said the labor group has been awaiting the rule since 1997. Exposure to silica dust, common at construction worksites and shipyards, can cause an irreversible lung disease known as silicosis.

The Labor Department sent the final rule to the OMB last week for final review, a process that can take up to 90 days.

“I’m sure they will give it a thorough review and it’ll be issued sometime, we hope, in the first quarter of the year,” Seminario said.

Workplace injuries

The DOL is gearing up for a busy year, with plans to also finalize a rule that will require employers to report and keep records of workplace injuries and illnesses. Seminario said the draft of the final rule went to OMB in October. Labor groups are hoping to see a final rule in the first quarter.

Overtime pay

Perhaps the most sweeping action to in the new year will be a final rule to extend overtime pay to nearly 5 millions white-collar workers. The Labor Department proposed the rule in June as a result of an executive order President Obama issued in May. Under the rule, any worker earning up to $50,000 annually would be eligible for overtime.

Department spokesman Jason Surbey said the agency is reviewing the more than 270,000 comments it received.

“We’re on track to issue a final rule by July 2016, with an effective date sometime after that,” he said.

Predatory lending

The CFPB is planning a February rollout of its proposed rules to crack down on predatory payday lenders.

The agency released a framework for the rules in March that considered forcing lenders to ensure a borrower’s ability to repay a loan, limiting short-term credits to 45 days or less and establishing a 60-day “cooling-off” period for borrowers who take out three loans in a row.

Payday lenders have already balked at the rules, calling them unnecessary and damaging for consumers who have nowhere else to turn for their short-term lending needs.

Food safety

The FDA is expected to issue final requirements in March for the sanitary transportation of animal and human food.

The rules, which were are mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011, establish requirements for shippers, carriers and receivers to use sanitary practices to ensure that that food does not become contaminated when being transported. The final rules were originally expected to be released in April 2015.

Financial advisers  

The Labor Department is also expected to issue a final rule in 2016 that would require financial advisers to disclose more information to their clients about the compensation they receive.   In October, under mounting pressure from business groups, Labor Secretary Tom Perez said the department planned to make some changes to the contentious regulations — commonly called the “fiduciary rule” — but would not detail what those changes would be.

Methane

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to finalize new rules to limit methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The rule would require drillers to use new technologies to track and block both accidental and purposeful leaks when producing and transmitting oil and gas. The EPA has set a June deadline for the release of this final rule.

Obama Spied on Congress/Israel, Contempt/Disdain

Posted on December 29, 2015December 29, 2015 by Denise Simon

U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress
National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders also swept up the content of private conversations with U.S. lawmakers

WSJ: President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed much of the agency’s spying operations in 2013, there was little worry in the administration about the monitoring of friendly heads of state because it was such a closely held secret. After the revelations and a White House review, Mr. Obama announced in a January 2014 speech he would curb such eavesdropping.

In closed-door debate, the Obama administration weighed which allied leaders belonged on a so-called protected list, shielding them from NSA snooping. French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders made the list, but the administration permitted the NSA to target the leaders’ top advisers, current and former U.S. officials said. Other allies were excluded from the protected list, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO ally Turkey, which allowed the NSA to spy on their communications at the discretion of top officials.

Privately, Mr. Obama maintained the monitoring of Mr. Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Obama mentioned the exception in his speech but kept secret the leaders it would apply to.

Israeli, German and French government officials declined to comment on NSA activities. Turkish officials didn’t respond to requests Tuesday for comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA declined to comment on communications provided to the White House.

This account, stretching over two terms of the Obama administration, is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former U.S. intelligence and administration officials and reveals for the first time the extent of American spying on the Israeli prime minister.

Taking office
After Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential election, U.S. intelligence officials gave his national-security team a one-page questionnaire on priorities. Included on the form was a box directing intelligence agencies to focus on “leadership intentions,” a category that relies on electronic spying to monitor world leaders.

The NSA was so proficient at monitoring heads of state that it was common for the agency to deliver a visiting leader’s talking points to the president in advance. “Who’s going to look at that box and say, ‘No, I don’t want to know what world leaders are saying,’ ” a former Obama administration official said.

In early intelligence briefings, Mr. Obama and his top advisers were told what U.S. spy agencies thought of world leaders, including Mr. Netanyahu, who at the time headed the opposition Likud party.

Michael Hayden, who led the NSA and the Central Intelligence Agency during the George W. Bush administration, described the intelligence relationship between the U.S. and Israel as “the most combustible mixture of intimacy and caution that we have.”

The NSA helped Israel expand its electronic spy apparatus—known as signals intelligence—in the late 1970s. The arrangement gave Israel access to the communications of its regional enemies, information shared with the U.S. Israel’s spy chiefs later suspected the NSA was tapping into their systems.

When Mr. Obama took office, the NSA and its Israeli counterpart, Unit 8200, worked together against shared threats, including a campaign to sabotage centrifuges for Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies targeted one another, stoking tensions.

“Intelligence professionals have a saying: There are no friendly intelligence services,” said Mike Rogers, former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Early in the Obama presidency, for example, Unit 8200 gave the NSA a hacking tool the NSA later discovered also told Israel how the Americans used it. It wasn’t the only time the NSA caught Unit 8200 poking around restricted U.S. networks. Israel would say intrusions were accidental, one former U.S. official said, and the NSA would respond, “Don’t worry. We make mistakes, too.”

In 2011 and 2012, the aims of Messrs. Netanyahu and Obama diverged over Iran. Mr. Netanyahu prepared for a possible strike against an Iranian nuclear facility, as Mr. Obama pursued secret talks with Tehran without telling Israel.

Convinced Mr. Netanyahu would attack Iran without warning the White House, U.S. spy agencies ramped up their surveillance, with the assent of Democratic and Republican lawmakers serving on congressional intelligence committees.

By 2013, U.S. intelligence agencies determined Mr. Netanyahu wasn’t going to strike Iran. But they had another reason to keep watch. The White House wanted to know if Israel had learned of the secret negotiations. U.S. officials feared Iran would bolt the talks and pursue an atomic bomb if news leaked.

The NSA had, in some cases, spent decades placing electronic implants in networks around the world to collect phone calls, text messages and emails. Removing them or turning them off in the wake of the Snowden revelations would make it difficult, if not impossible, to re-establish access in the future, U.S. intelligence officials warned the White House.

Instead of removing the implants, Mr. Obama decided to shut off the NSA’s monitoring of phone numbers and email addresses of certain allied leaders—a move that could be reversed by the president or his successor.

There was little debate over Israel. “Going dark on Bibi? Of course we wouldn’t do that,” a senior U.S. official said, using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname.

One tool was a cyber implant in Israeli networks that gave the NSA access to communications within the Israeli prime minister’s office.

Given the appetite for information about Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions during the U.S.-Iran negotiations, the NSA tried to send updates to U.S. policy makers quickly, often in less than six hours after a notable communication was intercepted, a former official said.

Emerging deal
NSA intercepts convinced the White House last year that Israel was spying on negotiations under way in Europe. Israeli officials later denied targeting U.S. negotiators, saying they had won access to U.S. positions by spying only on the Iranians.

By late 2014, White House officials knew Mr. Netanyahu wanted to block the emerging nuclear deal but didn’t know how.

On Jan. 8, John Boehner, then the Republican House Speaker, and incoming Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed on a plan. They would invite Mr. Netanyahu to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress. A day later, Mr. Boehner called Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, to get Mr. Netanyahu’s agreement.

Despite NSA surveillance, Obama administration officials said they were caught off guard when Mr. Boehner announced the invitation on Jan. 21.

Soon after, Israel’s lobbying campaign against the deal went into full swing on Capitol Hill, and it didn’t take long for administration and intelligence officials to realize the NSA was sweeping up the content of conversations with lawmakers.

The message to the NSA from the White House amounted to: “You decide” what to deliver, a former intelligence official said.

NSA rules governing intercepted communications “to, from or about” Americans date back to the Cold War and require obscuring the identities of U.S. individuals and U.S. corporations. An American is identified only as a “U.S. person” in intelligence reports; a U.S. corporation is identified only as a “U.S. organization.” Senior U.S. officials can ask for names if needed to understand the intelligence information.

The rules were tightened in the early 1990s to require that intelligence agencies inform congressional committees when a lawmaker’s name was revealed to the executive branch in summaries of intercepted communications.

A 2011 NSA directive said direct communications between foreign intelligence targets and members of Congress should be destroyed when they are intercepted. But the NSA director can issue a waiver if he determines the communications contain “significant foreign intelligence.”

The NSA has leeway to collect and disseminate intercepted communications involving U.S. lawmakers if, for example, foreign ambassadors send messages to their foreign ministries that recount their private meetings or phone calls with members of Congress, current and former officials said.

“Either way, we got the same information,” a former official said, citing detailed reports prepared by the Israelis after exchanges with lawmakers.

During Israel’s lobbying campaign in the months before the deal cleared Congress in September, the NSA removed the names of lawmakers from intelligence reports and weeded out personal information. The agency kept out “trash talk,” officials said, such as personal attacks on the executive branch.

Administration and intelligence officials said the White House didn’t ask the NSA to identify any lawmakers during this period.

“From what I can tell, we haven’t had a problem with how incidental collection has been handled concerning lawmakers,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He declined to comment on any specific communications between lawmakers and Israel.

The NSA reports allowed administration officials to peer inside Israeli efforts to turn Congress against the deal. Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal.

“These allegations are total nonsense,” said a spokesman for the Embassy of Israel in Washington.

A U.S. intelligence official familiar with the intercepts said Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”

NSA intelligence reports helped the White House figure out which Israeli government officials had leaked information from confidential U.S. briefings. When confronted by the U.S., Israel denied passing on the briefing materials.

The agency’s goal was “to give us an accurate illustrative picture of what [the Israelis] were doing,” a senior U.S. official said.

Just before Mr. Netanyahu’s address to Congress in March, the NSA swept up Israeli messages that raised alarms at the White House: Mr. Netanyahu’s office wanted details from Israeli intelligence officials about the latest U.S. positions in the Iran talks, U.S. officials said.

A day before the speech, Secretary of State John Kerry made an unusual disclosure. Speaking to reporters in Switzerland, Mr. Kerry said he was concerned Mr. Netanyahu would divulge “selective details of the ongoing negotiations.”

The State Department said Mr. Kerry was responding to Israeli media reports that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to use his speech to make sure U.S. lawmakers knew the terms of the Iran deal.

Intelligence officials said the media reports allowed the U.S. to put Mr. Netanyahu on notice without revealing they already knew his thinking. The prime minister mentioned no secrets during his speech to Congress.

In the final months of the campaign, NSA intercepts yielded few surprises. Officials said the information reaffirmed what they heard directly from lawmakers and Israeli officials opposed to Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign—that the prime minister was focused on building opposition among Democratic lawmakers.

The NSA intercepts, however, revealed one surprise. Mr. Netanyahu and some of his allies voiced confidence they could win enough votes.

***

Enter Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader

The Phone Call that Upended U.S.-Israel Relations

WSJ: It started off as a routine call between then-House Speaker John Boehner and the incoming Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, about ways Republicans in Congress could put the brakes on the nuclear pact President Barack Obama was negotiating with Iran.

Then Messrs. Boehner and McConnell had a light-bulb moment: They could undercut Mr. Obama by extending an invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress opposing the emerging deal.

The initiative set in motion by Messrs. Boehner and McConnell during the Jan. 8 phone call not only would inflame hostilities between the White House and Republicans in Congress but exacerbate the biggest breakdown in relations between U.S. and Israeli heads of state in decades, as detailed in this Wall Street Journal piece.

Mr. Boehner (R., Ohio) and Mr. McConnell (R., Ky.) knew secrecy was key. If word leaked out, they believed the White House would pressure Mr. Netanyahu to decline. To ensure the invitation would come as a surprise, the leaders decided to tell only their closest aides.

“We knew this would be a poke in the eye,” a person close to the Republican leaders said of the invitation.

The immediate concern was whether Mr. Netanyahu would agree to accept the invitation. Mr. Netanyahu’s relationship with Mr. Obama was already deeply troubled. Initially, the two Republicans weren’t sure the prime minister would be eager to make that situation even worse by entering into a direct political fight with the president in Congress.

When Mr. Boehner called Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Jan. 9, the ambassador said he liked the idea and would sound out the prime minister, according to a person familiar with the call.

From the beginning, Mr. Boehner wasn’t entirely comfortable with what was a clear breach of protocol. Typically, only the White House would extend such an invitation in consultations with Congress. He and Mr. McConnell did not tell the White House about their discussions at any point during the planning, congressional officials said.

(Ironically, the Obama administration had already broken the precedent by inviting the South Korean president to address Congress without first consulting Mr. Boehner.)

Mr. Boehner tapped his chief of staff, Mike Sommers, to serve as the main point of contact for Mr. Dermer in the negotiations. No one else on Mr. Boehner’s staff was told.

This was not the first time Mr. Boehner had invited the Israeli prime minister to address Congress. Early in his tenure as speaker, the Ohio Republican approached the White House about inviting Mr. Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of House and Senate members. The White House dragged its feet before eventually giving Mr. Boehner the green light to extend an invite.

In waiting on the White House, tension developed between Mr. Boehner and his no. 2, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.). Mr. Cantor, for years the only Jewish Republican in the House, pushed the speaker to demand an answer from the Obama administration, but Mr. Boehner wanted to give the president and his team time to digest the idea.

In the end, Mr. Netanyahu declined the invitation.

The second time, the Republicans knew they would be stirring a partisan hornets’ nest, given the controversy about the Iranian talks.

The Boehner and McConnell teams had decided they would send a formal letter inviting Mr. Netanyahu on Jan. 21, one day after Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address.

On Jan. 20, Secretary of State John Kerry, who led the negotiations with Iran, held a 45-minute meeting with Mr. Dermer, who didn’t say a word about the pending announcement, U.S. officials said.

That afternoon, Mr. Boehner sent final word to Mr. Dermer finalizing plans to made the announcement the next day.

An Israeli official in Washington said the ambassador “felt it would be inappropriate for him to raise the issue with the administration, including in his meeting with the secretary of state, until the speaker notified them.”

In the State of the Union, the president hailed the prospects for a nuclear deal with Iran and warned Congress not to throw obstacles in the way.

“New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails, alienating America from its allies, making it harder to maintain sanctions and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again,” Mr. Obama said.

On Jan. 21, as planned, Mr. Boehner’s office formally sent the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. A few hours before Mr. Boehner’s office released the invitation letter to the press, Mr. Boehner’s chief of staff, Mr. Sommers, called Katie Fallon, Mr. Obama’s top congressional liaison, to inform her. The initial call was cordial. Mrs. Fallon said she appreciated the heads up. The White House had yet to digest the news.

At the White House National Security Council, then-coordinator for the Middle East, Philip Gordon, reacted with disbelief when told Mr. Netanyahu would address a joint session of Congress on the Iran deal. “No he’s not,” Mr. Gordon said in response. “I talk to Dermer all the time.” In those discussions, Mr. Dermer never mentioned an impending speech, Mr. Gordon said.

An hour after Mr. Sommers told the White House, Mrs. Fallon called Mr. Boehner’s chief of staff back. This time she was not as understanding and scolded Mr. Sommers for going around the Obama administration’s back.

Senior officials demanded answers from their Israeli counterparts. Administration officials thought the idea was cooked up by Messrs. Dermer and Netanyahu, and then proposed to the Republicans in Congress. In fact, it was the other way around, congressional officials said.

Mr. Dermer told his American counterparts it was his impression the speaker’s office would “take care of” informing the White House, according to a former U.S. official.

The National Security Agency was spying on Israeli communications but didn’t pick up on the discussions between Messrs. Boehner and Dermer, nor on the deliberations that followed between Messrs. Dermer and Netanyahu on accepting the invitation.

Every Registered Voter, Personal Data Leaked

Posted on December 29, 2015December 29, 2015 by Denise Simon

191M Records Exposed In Data Leak: Personal Information Of ‘Every Registered U.S. Voter’ Said To Be Freely Available

Scott Hough

In 2014, there were 142.2 million people registered to vote in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Forbes is reporting that a database containing 191 million voter records, which includes personal data, has been found, available for anyone to access, online by a “whitehat hacker” named Chris Vickery.

It appears that the personal details of “every registered U.S. voter” are publicly available online. When asked to pull up details on random people by Forbes, Vickery was easily and quickly able to retrieve their names, addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers, and party affiliations, with data appearing to date as early as 2000. Reportedly, no financial information or social security numbers are included in the leaked information.

Vickery has reportedly been unable to pinpoint where the data came from and who might have made it available online. Some attributes of the database led Vickery and researchers with DataBreaches.net to pursue NationBuilder, which has been said to produce similar databases in the past. NationBuilder CEO Jim Gilliam has reportedly stated that IP addresses associated with the database were not associated with the group’s customers, but that it is possible that a customer working on a “non-hosted” system could have produced it.

“From what we’ve seen, the voter information included is already publicly available from each state government so no new or private information was released in this database,” Gilliam was quoted.

A long list of potential suspected political groups have denied responsibility for the voter data leak, including NGP VAN, Political Data, L2 Political, Aristotle, and Catalist.

Vickery and DataBreaches.net were reported to have made reports with the FBI in New York. Forbes reported that the FBI recommended making a report with the Secret Service, which was said to offer no response. DataBreaches.net was said to have made reports with the California Attorney General’s office as well, according to CNET.Information contained in voter records is a matter of public record in many states. South Dakota specifies that voter information may not be placed on the Internet for “unrestricted access” or “commercial purpose.” California has some of the strictest laws protecting voter information in the country, where records are private and may only be accessed “under certain circumstances.”

“I deal with criminals every day who know my name. The thought of some vindictive criminal being able to go to this site and get my address makes me uncomfortable,” an anonymous police officer was quoted. “I’m also annoyed that people can get my voting record. Whether I vote Republican or Democratic should be my private business.”

A Twitter user pointed out that an abusive ex-spouse could use the information to locate a previous partner who does not wish to be found. For that matter, with the information available on the Internet, just about anyone can.

The exposed voter records are said not to include who the voter actually voted for, but that party affiliations are available, which may make determining who an individual likely voted for a simple task. It is noted that the information could be particularly useful during an “issues-oriented campaign.”

Just last week, Chris Vickery exposed that the personal information, including e-mail addresses, user names, and password hints of 3.3 million users registered to the website of SanrioTown.com, home to Hello Kitty, was freely available online, according to CNET. Vickery also recently found a hole allowing the personal information, including usernames and e-mail addresses, of 13 million MacKeeper users to be freely accessed online, as reported by CNET. The MacKeeper software, perhaps ironically, is a suite of security programs aimed at making Mac users safe and secure online.

*** What to be concerned with in 2016: Gartner Report

Biggest Cyber Security Threats To Watch For In 2016; Gartner Forecasts 6.8B Devices Connected To Internet Of Things In 2016

Harriet Taylor, in a December 28, 2015 article on CNBC’s website is the latest in a series of articles on the evolving cyber threat and what may be the top cyber threats next year. “Headless worms, machine-to-machine attacks, jailbreaking, ghostware, and two-faced malware,” top the list of key cyber threats to prepare for next year.” In the coming year,”hackers will launch increasingly sophisticated attacks on everything from critical infrastructure, to medical devices,” said Fortinet Global Security Strategist, Derek Manky. “We are facing an arms race in terms of security. Every minute we sleep, we are seeing about a half a million [cyber] attack attempts that are happening in cyber space,” he added.

Here’s How The 2016 Cyber Threat Landscape Looks To Some Experts:

The rise of machine-to-machine attacks: Research company Gartner predicts there will be 6.8B connected devices in use in 2016; a 30 percent increase over 2015. By 2020, that number will jump to more than 20B connected devices, the company forecasts. That would mean an average of two to three Internet-connected devices for every human being on the planet. The sheer number of connected devices, or ‘Internet of Things (IoT), presents an unprecedented opportunity for hackers. “We’re facing a massive problem moving forward for growing attack surface,” said Manky.

“That’s a very large playground for attackers, and consumer and corporate information is swimming in that playground,” he said. In its 2016 Planning Guide for Security and Risk Management, Gartner said: “The evolution of cloud and mobile technologies, as well as the emergence [maturation?] of the IoT,’ is elevating the importance of security and risk management foundations.”

“Smartphones present the biggest risk category going forward,” Manky believes. “They are particularly attractive to cyber thieves because of the sheer number in use, and multiple vectors of attack, including malicious apps and web browsing;

“We call this drive-by-attacks — websites that will fingerprint your phone when you connect to them; and, understand what that phone is vulnerable to,” Manky said,. “Apple devices are still the most secure,” he added. But, he also cautioned that there is no such thing as a totally safe device connected to the IoT.

Are you nurturing a headless worm?: “The new year will likely bring entirely new [cyber] worms and viruses able to propagate from device-to-device,” predicts Fortinet. the new year will see the first “headless worms” — malicious code — targeting “headless devices,’ such as smartwatches, smartphones, and medical hardware;” “These are nasty bits of code that will float through millions, and millions of computers,” Manky warns. “The largest we’ve seen to date, is about 15 million infected machines, controlled by one network — with an attack surface of 20B devices. Certainly that number can spike to 50M, or more. You can suddenly have a massive outage globally, in terms of all these consumer devices just simply dying and going down [dark];”

Jailbreaking the cloud: “Expect a proliferation of attacks on the cloud, and cloud infrastructure, including so-called virtual machines, which are software-based computers. There will be malware specifically built to crack these cloud-based systems “Growing reliance on virtualization; and both private and hybrid clouds — will make these kind of attacks even more fruitful for cyber criminals,” according to Fortinet. “At the same time, because apps rely on the cloud, mobile devices running compromised apps will provide a way for hackers to remotely attack public and private clouds and gain access to corporate networks.”

Hackers will use Ghostware to conceal attacks: “As law enforcement boosts its [cyber] forensic capabilities, hackers will adapt to evade surveillance and detection, [Stealth] malware designed to penetrate networks, steal information, then cover up its tracks will emerge in 2016. So-called Ghostware, will make it extremely difficult for companies to track exactly how much data has been compromised, and hinder the ability of law enforcement to prosecute cyber criminals.”

“The attacker and the adversaries are getting much more intelligent now,” Manky said.

“Alongside Ghostware, cyber criminals will continue to employ so-called “blastware,” which destroys and disables a system/s when detected. “Blastware can be used to take out things like critical infrastructure, and it’s much more of a damaging attack,” he added.

“Because attackers may circumvent preventative controls, detection and response capabilities are becoming increasingly critical,” advises Gartner in its report.

Two-Faced malware: “Many corporations now test software in a safe environment called a sandbox, before running it on their networks.” “A sandbox is designed to do deeper inspection to catch some of these different ways that they’re trying to change their behaviors,” Manky said. “It’s a very effective way to look at these new threats as we move forward.”

“That said,” Ms. Taylor writes, “hackers in turn, are creating malevolent software that seems benign under surveillance; but, morphs into malicious code, once it’s no longer under suspicion. It’s called……two-faced malware.”

WHAT FORTINET DID NOT ADDRESS

Lots to think about with these 2016 predictions in the cyber realm. Clearly, there is no such thing as a digital Maginot Line; and, even if there were — we all know how that worked out for France. Stealth malware, malware that goes dormant when under surveillance; and/or changes like a chameleon, infected clouds, deceptive clouds, combat clouds, hijack clouds — one is to some degree only limited by one’s imagination. It truly is a digital wilderness of mirrors.

Fortinet did not address encryption and the Dark Web. What nasty surprises will the Dark Web have for us in 2016? Will we be able to develop something akin to a router that cleans out our pipes at home — in the digital world? How will we ever really know if our systems are ‘clean?’ How are stay-behinds, also known as the gifts that keep on giving — likely to evolve? What about downloading, or stealing information in an encrypted and clandestine mode? And, one must not forget the widespread practice of denial, and deception. How will the field of digital forensic attribution evolve? Will it get ‘easier’ to pin the tail on the donkey?; or, more complicated and difficult? What about the purposeful; but, sophisticated corruption of data?

Fortinet did not address the growing threat of ransomware. Kaspersky Labs, in its 2016 forecast, “expects to see the success of Ransomweare to spread to new frontiers.” “Not only does Kaspersky lab expect Ransomware to gain ground on banking trojans; but, Kaspersky also expects it to transition to other platforms; i.e., cross the rubicon — to not only target Macs; but, also charge ‘Mac prices. Then, in the longer term, there is the likelihood of the IoT ransomware — begging the question, how much would you be willing to regain acces to your TV programming? Your fridge? Your car?,” Kaspersky asks.

Kaspersky Labs also “expects the trend of cyber ‘guns-for-hire,’ to continue to evolve and grow.” Will we see white-hat cyber mercenaries — i.e., a different version of Anonymous — or cyber militias for hire to ‘fight’ against the bad guys? What about black-hat cyber mercenaries, and the potential emergence of a ‘Dr. No’ in the digital world.

Will we see the emergence of lethal, offensive cyber weapons — where the objective is to cause loss of of life? Or, will we see the emergence of a cyber weapon of mass disruption? A Stuxnet on steroids?

What about cyber ‘bomb damage assessment? Can we/have we achieved the ability to conduct elegant, targeted, offensive cyber offensive operations, that do not cause excessive digital collateral damage?

Will 2016 finally see a larger-scale cyber attack here in the U.S. and abroad?

Will the cyber threat to our stand-alone systems become even more profound? It has already been demonstrated by researchers at Ben Gurion University in 2014 — that stand-alone systems could be breached using the effluent heat coming off the system.

Will the cyber/digital decision tree on when to respond, how, where, why, with what, come to the fore in the strategic realm?

How will cyber tradecraft evolve and mature?

Will the Islamic State, al Qaeda, other terrorist groups attempt to launch a major cyber attack on the U.S.?

Muslim Brotherhood, Cameron: No Obama: Yes

Posted on December 29, 2015December 29, 2015 by Denise Simon

The topic of the Muslim Brotherhood, the mac-daddy umbrella jihad organization globally with a terror history, Cameron is right, Obama is wrong.

The United Kingdom has an epic Islamic issue in country and the United States is a close follow. The worst part for our homeland is the UK and Europe are part of the United States visa waiver program. Travel freely, no questions asked. We must now rely on U.S. Customs and Border Patrol assigned to the UK to work the issues.

Couple Guilty Of Plotting Major Terror Attack

‘Silent Bomber’ Mohammed Rehman and his wife were days from building a bomb that would have caused multiple casualties in London.

Couple Guilty Of Terror Attack Plot

SkyNews: Would-be suicide bomber Mohammed Rehman and his wife Sana Ahmed Khan have been found guilty of planning a major terror attack in London.

Rehman, 25, had stockpiled bombmaking materials at his Reading home and using the Twitter username ‘Silent Bomber’ he asked his followers which targets they thought suitable for a massive terror attack; Westfield shopping centre or the London Underground.

Rehman used a profile picture of ‘Jihadi John’ Mohammed Emwazi, to post: “Westfield shopping centre or London underground? Any advice would be appreciated greatly,” accompanied by a link to an al Qaida media release about the 7/7 bombings.

The same day, he searched YouTube for ‘London bombings’ and ‘Shehzad Tanweer’ – one of the 7/7 bombers who he referred to as his “beloved predecessor”.

Prosecutors claimed Rehman proved he was “intent on martyrdom” when he also tweeted: “Now I just make explosives in preparation for kuffar lol and when I’ve made the required amount I’ll be wearing them on my chest.” More details here.

So for Prime Minister David Cameron, he has work to do starting with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that Barack Obama remains supportive of and quite loyal.

Statement by David Cameron on the findings of the internal review to improve the government’s understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I have today laid before both Houses the main findings of the internal review I commissioned in the last Parliament to improve the government’s understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood; establish whether the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology or activities, or those of individual members or affiliates, put at risk, damaged, or risked damaging the UK’s national interests; and where appropriate inform policy.

The review involved substantial research and wide consultation including Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the UK and overseas, and an open invitation to other interested parties to submit written contributions.

Read the Muslim Brotherhood review.

It is a complex subject: the Muslim Brotherhood comprises both a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.

Since the authors completed their initial research in 2014, and during the course of the government’s examination of the findings, further allegations of violence carried out by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood have surfaced, which the government will continue to investigate, taking action as appropriate.

As the Muslim Brotherhood continues to evolve, so must our understanding of it. The findings have revealed much that we did not know but work will continue to ensure we keep up to date with developments.

The government considers the following the most important findings.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s foundational texts call for the progressive moral purification of individuals and Muslim societies and their eventual political unification in a Caliphate under Sharia law. To this day the Muslim Brotherhood characterises Western societies and liberal Muslims as decadent and immoral. It can be seen primarily as a political project.

Parts of the Muslim Brotherhood have a highly ambiguous relationship with violent extremism. Both as an ideology and as a network it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism. It has stated its opposition to al-Qaida (AQ) but it has never credibly denounced the use made by terrorist organisations of the work of Sayyid Qutb, one of the Brotherhood’s most prominent ideologues. Individuals closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK have supported suicide bombing and other attacks in Israel by Hamas, an organisation whose military wing has been proscribed in the UK since 2001 as a terrorist organisation, and which describes itself as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Moreover, despite the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s public condemnation of violence in 2012/13 and afterwards, some of their supporters have been involved in violent exchanges with the security forces and other groups. Media reports and credible academic studies indicate that in the past 12 months a minority of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Egypt have engaged alongside other Islamists in violent acts. Some senior leaders have publicly reiterated the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to non-violence, but others have failed to renounce the calls for retribution in some recent Muslim Brotherhood statements.

Muslim Brotherhood-associated and influenced groups in the UK have at times had a significant influence on national organisations which have claimed to represent Muslim communities (and on that basis have had a dialogue with government), charities and some mosques. But they have also sometimes characterised the UK as fundamentally hostile to Muslim faith and identity; and expressed support for terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas.

Aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and activities therefore run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. The Muslim Brotherhood is not the only movement that promotes values which appear intolerant of equality and freedom of faith and belief. Nor is it the only movement or group dedicated in theory to revolutionising societies and changing existing ways of life. But I have made clear this government’s determination to reject intolerance, and to counter not just violent Islamist extremism, but also to tackle those who create the conditions for it to flourish.

The main findings of the review support the conclusion that membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.

We will therefore keep under review the views that are promoted and activities that are undertaken by Muslim Brotherhood associates in the UK, in Arabic as well as English. We will consider whether any action under the Counter-Extremism Strategy or as part of our wider work may be appropriate, including action in line with the new engagement policy the government will develop to ensure central and local government does not inadvertently provide legitimacy or a platform for extremists. We will challenge extremists’ poisonous narratives and promote positive alternatives that show vulnerable people that there are better ways to get on in life.

We will continue to:

refuse visas to members and associates of the Muslim Brotherhood who are on record as having made extremist comments, where this would be conducive to the public good and in line with our existing policy guidelines and approach to extremism in all forms

seek to ensure charities that have links to the Muslim Brotherhood are not misused to support or finance the Muslim Brotherhood instead of their lawful charitable purpose

strengthen liaison arrangements with international partners to ensure that allegations of illicit funding or other misuse of charities are robustly investigated and appropriate action taken

enforce the EU asset freeze on Hamas

keep under review whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription

We will also intensify scrutiny of the views and activities that Muslim Brotherhood members, associates and affiliates (whether based in the UK or elsewhere) promote overseas. As our Counter-Extremism Strategy makes clear, insights from our overseas posts will help the government better understand drivers, networks and ideologies. We will continue to consult, and share information and analysis with, governments in the Middle East and North Africa as appropriate. We will then take further decisions and actions as needed.

Normalized Cuba Relations Forces 8000 Cubans on U.S.

Posted on December 29, 2015December 29, 2015 by Denise Simon

Fusion: Sidestepping Nicaraguan intransigence, Costa Rica and five other countries have announced a secret deal to airlift some 8,000 Cuban immigrants out of Costa Rica and into El Salvador, where they’ll be put on buses and transported up to Mexico in the last leg of their harrowing 5,000-mile journey to the United States.

The decision to leapfrog Nicaragua comes nearly six weeks after the Sandinista government decided to militarize its southern border and prevent Cubans from continuing their journey north through Central America. Cuban immigrants have been piling up on the border ever since, as their numbers swelled from 1,500 to some 8,000, according to the number of temporary visas issued by Costa Rican authorities.

More details:

FoxLatino:

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (AP) – Central American nations have reached a deal to let the first of thousands of stranded Cuban migrants continue their journey north toward the United States next month, officials said Monday.

The humanitarian transfer will airlift an unspecified number of Cubans the first week of January from Costa Rica to El Salvador, from where they will continue by bus toward Mexico, Costa Rica’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The Guatemalan government, which hosted a diplomatic meeting earlier in the day to consider the issue, described it as a “pilot” program and said a work group has been tasked with coordinating logistics.

The two governments did not immediately release further details, citing some nations’ desire for discretion on what has become a diplomatic flashpoint between Costa Rica and neighboring Nicaragua.

The number of Cubans stranded in Costa Rica has reached at least 8,000 since Nicaragua closed its border to them weeks ago. The islanders say they are trying to reach the United States, where favorable migratory policies toward Cubans mean nearly all are allowed to stay and apply for residency.

On Sunday, Pope Francis called for their plight to be resolved.

Costa Rican Foreign Minister Manuel Gonzalez said the measure will be available only to Cubans who are already in Costa Rica. Ministry spokeswoman Melissa Duran told The Associated Press it will be up to the migrants to pay the costs of their travel, but did not give more specifics.

On Dec. 18, Costa Rica stopped issuing transit visas for Cuban migrants and announced that any who arrived after that without a visa would be deported.

Cuba has seen a spike in outward migration in the year since it and Washington announced they would re-establish diplomatic ties after more than five decades of open hostility. Many Cuban migrants say they chose now to emigrate out of fear that detente could bring about an end to the U.S. policies that benefit them — although U.S. officials say no change is in the works.

Cuba and its close ally Nicaragua argue that the U.S. policies toward Cubans encourage them to attempt dangerous migratory routes and cause a brain drain on the island.

More from NPR: