Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's Relig...
Read more: Stephen King, Indiana, Indiana Anti Gay, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Mike Pence, Gay Rights, Gay Voices News
Read more: Stephen King, Indiana, Indiana Anti Gay, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Mike Pence, Gay Rights, Gay Voices News
Read more: Elizabeth Warren Jamie Dimon, Jamie Dimon, Jamie Dimon JP Morgan, London Whale, JP Morgan, Elizabeth Warren, Cfpb, A Fighting Chance, Politics News, Financial Regulation, Politics News
Two people were shot and one has died after a car tried to ram a gate at Fort Meade, the military installation that houses the National Security Agency, the Washington Post has reported.
The incident happened Monday morning at the base, which is located in Fort Meade, Maryland, between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. The shooting scene has been contained.
A senior defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity told the Associated Press that the two men were dressed as women.
A spokeswoman for the FBI said the incident is not believed to be linked to terrorism.
The FBI and NSA Police are investigating the matter.
The post One person dead in shooting at gates of NSA headquarters appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency considered abandoning its secret program to collect and store American calling records in the months before leaker Edward Snowden revealed the practice, current and former intelligence officials say, because some officials believed the costs outweighed the meager counterterrorism benefits.
After the leak and the collective surprise around the world, NSA leaders strongly defended the phone records program to Congress and the public, but without disclosing the internal debate.
The proposal to kill the program was circulating among top managers but had not yet reached the desk of Gen. Keith Alexander, then the NSA director, according to current and former intelligence officials who would not be quoted because the details are sensitive. Two former senior NSA officials say they doubt Alexander would have approved it.
Still, the behind-the-scenes NSA concerns, which have not been reported previously, could be relevant as Congress decides whether to renew or modify the phone records collection when the law authorizing it expires in June.
The internal critics pointed out that the already high costs of vacuuming up and storing the “to and from” information from nearly every domestic landline call were rising, the system was not capturing most cellphone calls, and the program was not central to unraveling terrorist plots, the officials said. They worried about public outrage if the program ever was revealed.
After the program was disclosed, civil liberties advocates attacked it, saying the records could give a secret intelligence agency a road map to Americans’ private activities. NSA officials presented a forceful rebuttal that helped shape public opinion.
Responding to widespread criticism, President Barack Obama in January 2014 proposed that the NSA stop collecting the records, but instead request them when needed in terrorism investigations from telephone companies, which tend to keep them for 18 months.
Yet the president has insisted that legislation is required to adopt his proposal, and Congress has not acted. So the NSA continues to collect and store records of private U.S. phone calls for use in terrorism investigations under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Many lawmakers want the program to continue as is.
Alexander argued that the program was an essential tool because it allows the FBI and the NSA to hunt for domestic plots by searching American calling records against phone numbers associated with international terrorists. He and other NSA officials support Obama’s plan to let the phone companies keep the data, as long as the government quickly can search it.
Civil liberties activists say it was never a good idea to allow a secret intelligence agency to store records of Americans’ private phone calls, and some are not sure the government should search them in bulk. They say the government can point to only a single domestic terrorism defendant who was implicated by a phone records search under the program, a San Diego taxi driver who was convicted of raising $15,000 for a Somali terrorist group.
Some fault NSA for failing to disclose the internal debate about the program.
“This is consistent with our experience with the intelligence community,” said Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich. “Even when we have classified briefings, it’s like a game of 20 questions and we can’t get to the bottom of anything.”
The proposal to halt phone records collection that was circulating in 2013 was separate from a 2009 examination of the program by NSA, sparked by objections from a senior NSA official, reported in November by The Associated Press. In that case, a senior NSA code breaker learned about the program and concluded it was wrong for the agency to collect and store American records. The NSA enlisted the Justice Department in an examination of whether the search function could be preserved with the records stored by the phone companies.
That would not work without a change in the law, the review concluded. Alexander, who retired in March 2014, opted to continue the program as is.
But the internal debate continued, current and former officials say, and critics within the NSA pressed their case against the program. To them, the program had become an expensive insurance policy with an increasing number of loopholes, given the lack of mobile data. They also knew it would be deeply controversial if made public.
By 2013, some NSA officials were ready to stop the bulk collection even though they knew they would lose the ability to search a database of U.S. calling records. As always, the FBI still would be able to obtain the phone records of suspects through a court order.
There was a precedent for ending collection cold turkey. Two years earlier, the NSA cited similar cost-benefit calculations when it stopped another secret program under which it was collecting Americans’ email metadata — information showing who was communicating with whom, but not the content of the messages. That decision was made public via the Snowden leaks.
Alexander believed that the FBI and the NSA were still getting crucial value out of the phone records program, in contrast to the email records program, former NSA officials say.
After the Snowden leaks, independent experts who looked at the program didn’t agree. A presidential task force examined NSA surveillance and recommended ending the phone records collection, saying it posed unacceptable privacy risks while doing little if anything to stop terrorism. The task force included Michael Morell, a former deputy CIA director, and Richard Clarke, a former White House counter terrorism adviser.
“We cannot discount the risk, in light of the lessons of our own history, that at some point in the future, high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there for the plucking,” the report said. Times, dates and numbers called can provide a window into a person’s activities and connections.
A separate inquiry by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board concluded the same thing.
David Medine, chairman of that board, said the concerns raised internally by NSA officials were the same as theirs, yet when NSA officials came before the privacy board, they “put on a pretty strong defense for the program. Except their success stories didn’t pan out,” he said.
The post AP: NSA weighed ending phone program before Snowden leak appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
Read more: Britney Spears Bikini, Britney Spears Sons, Britney Spears Photos, Britney Spears Kids, Britney Spears Children, Britney Spears Boys, Britney Spears Bikini Photos, Britney Spears Twitter, Entertainment News
The Predators are in the playoffs! Just waiting to get called up! #PutMeInCoach
A photo posted by Carrie Underwood (@carrieunderwood) on
A photo posted by Carrie Underwood (@carrieunderwood) on
On NewsHour Weekend Sunday, we explore how some of the biggest players in television are looking beyond cable by offering services that bundle and stream programs for consumers without a cable or satellite hookup.
As we reported the story, we had a number of conversations around the newsroom about this topic, which brought up a variety of questions:
Is it ethical to use a friend’s Netflix password? How long is it reasonable to use your parents’ HBO GO login before you should purchase your own subscription? Are live stream options sufficient or is cable still worth the cost?
All of the back and forth got us thinking: How do each of us consume media, and how do our habits that compare to those of our online community?
Here’s a selection of media habits from a few of our newsroom team members.
Hari Sreenivasan, PBS NewsHour Weekend anchor
Cable? Yes.
Favorite shows: Sherlock, Black Mirror, Top Gear and many others that get me through flights when I stay offline.
What does your media diet look like? I have cable, but reluctantly so. I’ve thought seriously of cutting the cord and the obnoxious bill for hundreds of channels I never care to watch, but realize that my provider makes unbundling to just have internet almost as expensive as keeping the cable box. I tried Aereo for a quick minute but the bandwidth was not ready for primetime. I have an Apple TV at home, and use it to access Netflix, PBS and HBO (which I pay for) because the interface, while far from perfect, is infinitely better than the cable box from the company that shall not be named. I’m watching video almost as much on my laptop as on a large screen.
Beth Ponsot, Online News Editor
Cable? No.
Favorite shows: Broad City, Shameless, Top Chef, House of Cards
What does your media diet look like? I have a TV, but I don’t pay for cable. I use an HDMI cord to hook my laptop up to my TV, turning it into a giant computer screen. I share logins for streaming services like Netflix and HBO GO and then watch on my ‘TV’ (or my phone if I’m on the go). If I want to watch a particularly cinematic show and be sure the quality won’t be interrupted — Downton Abbey or Mad Men, for example — I’ll download the season in HD from iTunes. I watch PBS NewsHour on YouTube and Frontline documentaries on pbs.org.
William Brangham, Producer/Correspondent
Cable? Yes.
Favorite Shows: The Walking Dead, Mad Men, Sherlock, Louie
What does your media diet look like? I have an older TV (720p!) and grudgingly pay for a bundled cable service. I’m a family of five, so the variety cable affords with all those channels is helpful. For example, my wife loves Downton Abbey and Modern Family, we all watch 60 Minutes, and my kids range anywhere from The Simpsons and Brooklyn Nine-Nine to Premier League Soccer and Disney’s Jessie. We have an Apple TV through which we watch a lot of Netflix and HBO GO, though we’re increasingly watching more and more on a laptop or tablet.
Andrew Mach, Multimedia Editor
Cable? Notta.
Favorite shows: Portlandia, Sherlock, The Leftovers, Broad City
What does your media diet look like? I rock a Roku and mainly watch movies and series at my leisure on a television, but occasionally I’ll use my iPad or iPhone. Most often, it’s via the Netflix and HBO GO apps (for which I share passwords), and sometimes it’s on YouTube or iTunes. I can’t remember the last time I watched something on cable, and I find it annoying when award shows or other big events aren’t available to stream online.
Hannah Yi, Producer
Cable? Nope.
Favorite shows: Broad City, House of Cards, Last Week Tonight, The Jinx, The Mindy Project
What does your media diet look like? I don’t own a television so I’m watching everything on either my iPad or laptop. I subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus and use a friend’s HBO GO password. I’m also able to watch 60 Minutes or PBS shows like NewsHour and Frontline documentaries through their apps. So even without cable, I feel fully connected and able to comfortably watch from my smaller screens.
Zachary Green, Associate Producer:
Cable? Yes.
Favorite shows: The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, Better Call Saul, New Girl, Kroll Show, Community, The Americans, Justified, Broad City, Archer (the list goes on…)
What does your media diet look like? There’s a weekly line-up of shows that my wife and I watch on cable, like New Girl and Broad City. Cable shows that are on later at night, like The Daily Show, I’ll DVR and watch in the morning before I go to work. We have Netflix and Amazon Prime accounts that we use to watch shows like Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Orange is the New Black, The Americans or Justified. We use a friend’s HBO GO password to watch shows like Game of Thrones or HBO movies like Behind the Candelabra.
Now we want to know — what does your media diet look like?
Share yours in the comments section below or join the conversation on Facebook.
The post What’s your media diet? See how you compare to the NewsHour team appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
AL-O-HA! pic.twitter.com/s6l13q7d4g
— Britney Spears (@britneyspears) March 27, 2015
Missing vacay already... Best week with the boys. Back home and back to work! #GoTime pic.twitter.com/c2UHe0B41O
— Britney Spears (@britneyspears) March 28, 2015
Read more: Breakfast Club, The Breakfast Club Anniversary, Breakfast Club Facts, Behind the Scenes, Ally Sheedy, John Kapelos, Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwald, Video, Entertainment Originals, Entertainment News
A photo posted by Who What Wear (@whowhatwear) on
a coincidental @isabelmarant moment | @eyeswoon @real_kate_foley
A photo posted by by Danielle (@weworewhat) on
A photo posted by • Kate Brien • (@hatebrien) on
A photo posted by P A N D O R A S Y K E S (@pinsykes) on
A photo posted by Frédérique Tietcheu (@igobyfrankie) on
BREAKING: UK cutting nets pic.twitter.com/hQ3vyqnnLC
— Matt Norlander (@MattNorlander) March 29, 2015
Read more: Gay Couples, LGBT Couples, Queer Couple, Brian Powers, Brian Powers Photography, LGBT Issues, Queer Issues, Gay Issues, Gay Voices News
War crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed across the board by all parties.
We have no idea how bad this is and I suspect that it’s going to be far worse than imagined.
Just because it’s on YouTube means nothing to a court of law, it has to be authenticated.
More from The WorldPost's Weekly Interview Series:
- Have We Got ISIS All Wrong?
- What Is The State Of Political Islam Today?
- Was The Libyan Intervention A Mistake?
- What Palestinian Membership In The ICC Really Means
- Anguish In Argentina After Prosecutor's Mysterious Death
- Could The New Syriza Government Be Good For Greece's Economy?
- Naming The Dead: One Group's Struggle To Record Deaths From U.S. Drone Strikes In Pakistan
WASHINGTON — A Defense Department official says U.S. forces rescued two Saudi airmen after they ejected from an F-15 fighter jet over waters south of Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is leading airstrikes against Iran-allied Houthi rebels.
The official says a U.S. helicopter flew Thursday from neighboring Djibouti to the Gulf of Aden and rescued the airmen. Initial reports said the rescued airmen were “ambulatory.”
The destroyer USS Sterett took lead of the situation after Saudi Arabia requested U.S. assistance Thursday afternoon, coordinating assets from the U.S. naval base in Djibouti and the amphibious transport dock USS New York.
The official, who was not authorized to discuss the operation by name and requested anonymity, had no information on the two airmen’s status or why they ejected from their plane.
This report was written by Lou Kesten of the Associated Press.
The post US rescues Saudi pilots from waters near Yemen appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
Read more: Pit Bull, Playful Dog, Pit Bull Awareness, Pit-Bull-Stereotypes, Dog, Dog Story, Cop, Police Man, Policeman, Law Enforcement, Good News News
Read more: Christianity, Roman Catholic Church, Catholic Church, Catholics, Cardinal Raymond Burke, Raymond Burke, Gay Catholics, Remarried Catholics, Religion News
The crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 into an Alpine mountain, which killed all 150 people aboard, has raised questions about the mental state of the co-pilot. Authorities believe the 27-year-old German deliberately sought to destroy the Airbus A320 as it flew Tuesday from Barcelona to Duesseldorf.
In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration requires that pilots receive a physical exam from a flight surgeon annually or every six months depending upon the pilot’s age. The International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency that sets global aviation standards, also requires that pilots receive a periodic medical exam including a mental assessment.
Technically, doctors are supposed to probe for mental problems, but pilots said Thursday that’s usually not how it works.
“There really is no mental health vetting,” said John Gadzinski, a captain with a major U.S. airline and former Navy pilot. In 29 years of physicals from flight surgeons he’s never once been asked about his mental health, he said.
Bob Kudwa, a former American Airlines pilot and executive who maintains his commercial pilot’s license, said: “They check your eyes, your ears, your heart — all the things that start going bad when you get older. But they don’t do anything for your head, no.”
There also is no confidential reporting, Gadzinski said. “If you had a mental health issue, you certainly wouldn’t tell your flight surgeon about that because it goes right to the FAA,” he said.
Pilots are also required to disclose existing psychological conditions and medications on health forms they fill out themselves for the FAA. Failure to do so could result in a fine of up to $250,000. The forms include questions about whether a pilot is depressed or has attempted suicide, Gadzinski said.
“Is this really the best way? Ask the guy who is mentally ill if he’s mentally ill and if he says ‘no’ then, hey, we’re good to go?” he said.
Europe has a single standard for pilot medical exams. “These medical assessments are done by doctors with a specialty in aviation health. … They know what to look for, physically and mentally,” said Richard Taylor, a spokesman for the United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority.
Lufthansa, which owns the regional airline, has no knowledge about what have might have motivated co-pilot Andreas Lubitz “to take this terrible action,” said Carsten Spohr, the chief executive of Lufthansa.
Airlines typically ask pilots to take mental health screening exams when they apply for a job, but follow-up after hiring is cursory at best, experts say.
“If you’ve got 12,000 or 15,000 pilots like American Airlines has … every now and then you’re going to get a crackpot no matter how hard you try,” Kudwa said.
Video by PBS NewsHour
When that happens, other pilots who fly with the unstable pilot “sooner or later (are) going to let the boss know and then a check airman will be flying with him” to see if there is a problem, he said.
A check airman is an airline pilot who monitors the skills of other pilots by flying with them and watching how they perform. Still, check rides prompted by mental health concerns are rare, Kudwa said.
“You try to get these guys who are on the edge out of the program, but even in my career I ran into guys where I thought, ‘How did he get through the system?'” said Kudwa, who was with American for 28 years. “Or people change. Or, as we see in today’s environment, people get radicalized by social media.”
U.S. airline pilots generally receive training from their airlines about every six months to keep flying skills sharp. At that time, the chief pilot or check pilot monitoring their performance often asks pilots a few questions about their emotional stability, said John Goglia, a former National Transportation Safety Board member and aviation safety consultant.
“It’s very, very loose,” Goglia said. “It’s easy to get around that because it’s not a mental health professional who is asking the questions … ‘Is everything all right at home? Are you fighting with your wife? Are you kicking the kids and dog?’ It’s not much. It’s usually pilots looking at pilots.”
The post Little vetting of pilots for mental health, U.S. experts say appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
Al Jazeera is calling for the immediate release of their two Nigerian journalists who were detained early Tuesday while on special assignment to cover Nigeria’s upcoming presidential election.
According to military statements, journalists Ahmed Idris and Ali Mustafa worked without proper ”protection, accreditation or due clearance” and suspicion of “loitering.” Al Jazeera issued a statement late Wednesday, saying that both journalists received accreditation from the Independent Electoral Commission in Abuja to report anywhere during election period and call for their release “without conditions.”
We call on the Nigerian authorities to release Ahmed Idris and Ali Mustafa; they have all the relevant paperwork to report on the Nigerian elections and stories related to the election. Both men had just finished filming a story on the military with their cooperation. They were not ‘loitering’, but were in the hotel room and had only passed through the restricted areas of Yobe and Borno State to get to Maiduguri.
Both journalists were detained in Maiduguri in Borno State and currently remain in their hotel room, contrary to military statements of the journalists “loitering.”
Prior to the March 28 election, Nigeria has imposed increased security measures, sealing the country’s inland and coastal borders in response to the threat of Boko Haram.
The post Al Jazeera demands release of two journalists ‘without conditions’ before Nigerian election appeared first on PBS NewsHour.
WASHINGTON — The military has been trying to force special operations troops heading to war zones to use flawed government software for intelligence analysis instead of a commercial alternative they say they need, according to government records and interviews.
Over the last four months, six Army special operations units about to be deployed into Afghanistan, Iraq and other hostile environments have requested software made by Palantir, a Silicon Valley company that has synthesized data for the CIA, the Navy SEALs and the country’s largest banks, among other government and private entities.
But just two of the requests have been approved, in both cases by the Army after members of Congress intervened with senior military leaders. Four other requests made through U.S. Army Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and Tampa, Florida-based Special Operations Command have not been granted. The Army says its policy is to grant all requests for Palantir, while special operations officials say they are working through the requests on a case-by-case basis.
Email messages and other military records obtained by The Associated Press show that Army and special operations command bureaucrats have been pressing troops to use an in-house system built and maintained by traditional defense contractors. The Distributed Common Ground System, or DCGS, has consistently failed independent tests and earned the ire of soldiers in the field for its poor performance.
Special operations units have used Palantir since 2009 to store and analyze intelligence on information ranging from cultural trends to roadside bomb data, but has always been seen by top Pentagon officials as an interim solution until their in-house system is fielded. Those who have used the system say DCGS has yet to deliver on its promise of seamlessly integrating intelligence.
Pentagon officials say DCGS, despite its flaws, has broader capabilities than Palantir, and that in some cases it complements Palantir.
Intelligence officers say they use Palantir to analyze and map a variety of intelligence from hundreds of databases. Palantir costs millions, compared to the billions the military has been pouring into DCGS.
Special operations officials, in a statement to AP, said Palantir had been “extremely successful” in Iraq and Afghanistan and they are working to expand access to Palantir for units deployed in the fight against the Islamic State group. But records and interviews show a history of internal pressure against making and approving such requests.
One veteran special operations intel analyst, who is on his seventh deployment in 12 years, said his recent request for Palantir for a unit heading to Iraq had met with “pushback” both from his own headquarters and from bureaucrats who favor DCGS’s analytical component at the Pentagon, special operations command headquarters in Tampa, and Army special operations in Fort Bragg. Another special operations officer also used the term “heavy pushback” in an email about his request for Palantir.
Like most active duty Army personnel interviewed for this story, they declined to be quoted by name because they feared speaking out could put their careers at risk.
In their statement, special operations officials said their questions about Palantir requests should not be interpreted as resistance.
The failings of the Army’s version of DCGS has received significant public attention in recent years. The version tailored to special operations troops has even less capability, special operations command acknowledges in its records. Another version being offered to special operations troops working in remote areas, called DCGS-Lite, has received mediocre reviews from intelligence analysts, Army records show.
Intelligence officers say Palantir is easier to use, more stable and more capable than DCGS, which sometimes doesn’t work at all.
The Pentagon system is difficult to master, the veteran intelligence analyst said, while it takes him about 30 minutes to train a new analyst on Palantir.
Another officer wrote in an email that with Palantir, his analysts were able to easily mix open-source intelligence gleaned from social media or Web searches with classified reporting. DCGS makes that much harder, he said.
In February, an intelligence officer for the 5th Special Forces Group wrote in an email, “We still want Palantir because we think it is the best tool to meet the needs of our mission,” which includes operations against the Islamic State group in Iraq and training rebels in Syria.
The only reason the unit is using DCGS, the officer wrote, was because it came with much-needed laptops. “We do not plan to use any of the DCGS apps or tools for our mission,” the officer wrote. The person who provided the email asked that the author not be identified to spare him or her from retaliation.
All the commercial interests in the dispute have political clout. Palantir employs a bevy of lobbyists to press its case in Washington, as do the defense companies behind DCGS, such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Booz Allen Hamilton, which have longstanding relationships with Pentagon buyers.
In addition to the professional lobbying, some members of Congress have been contacted by special operation officers who complained that they were being denied the tools they needed to do their jobs.
One of the lawmakers, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., grilled Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno over the issue at a recent budget hearing. She asked about a request for Palantir by 1st Special Forces Group based at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state. Murray’s office had been lobbying behind the scenes for months.
“It’s been approved,” Odierno said, to Murray’s surprise.
In December, Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., wrote to Gen. Joseph Votel, the special operations commander, raising concerns that special operations command “has yet to provide tools to the warfighters in Afghanistan and Iraq despite spending six years and nearly $150 million to develop” the special operations version of DCGS.
In January, Votel responded to the congresswoman that the system was delivering “critical” capabilities through “numerous, highly capable components.”
Ken Dilanian is the AP’s intelligence writer.
The post Is bureaucratic red tape hindering how special ops can do its job? appeared first on PBS NewsHour.