THE TANGLED WEB WE WEAVEInside the Shadow System That Shapes the InternetBy James Ball

It was as if the Interstate System of highways had been built using volunteer road crews, working without a map. No one present at the 1969 creation of the network that later became the internet imagined that this niche Pentagon project built as a research tool for a small group of academic computer scientists would one day become the backbone of the global economy.

Fast-forward five decades, and Big Tech is eating the world. During this year of pandemic and protest, the combined value of the American tech sector has topped that of the entire European stock market, and the products of its five biggest companies Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft become ever more inescapable features of life and work. Severe market consolidation has prompted increasingly vigorous bipartisan calls to rein in the excesses of the companies built on the internet. Regulation is essential, lawmakers argue, both to restore fairness to the online economy and to protect democracy itself.

Without letting Silicon Valley giants off the hook, James Ball argues that the fix is not so simple. The problem isnt just the business practices of a few companies, he explains in his nimble and persuasive new book, The Tangled Web We Weave. It is the entire system.

Ball, an investigative journalist who was part of the reporting team for The Guardian that broke Edward Snowdens 2013 revelations of N.S.A. surveillance, is on familiar terms with the online worlds darker corners and the role governments and their spy agencies have played in shaping them. Unsurprisingly, he has little patience for techs free-market mythmaking or for the gauzy abstractions cloud, mobile, search, social used to describe its products. Drawing on unusually candid interviews with a series of tech insiders and writing in terms that nontechnical readers can understand, Ball pulls away the software curtain to reveal a more complex institutional and corporate history.

The internets greatest strengths its nonhierarchical architecture, its scalability allowed it to quickly expand after American regulators opened the network up to commercial activity in the early 1990s. Yet the pace of expansion overwhelmed the organizations tasked with its maintenance and oversight, such as ICANN, the registry of domain names, and revealed the difficulties inherent in having a global network born in and governed by America.

Although Ball does not go into great detail about the broader political dynamics, his tale demonstrates how very much this timing and context mattered. Emerging as a commercial platform at a moment when Reaganite conservatism gave way to Clintonian centrism, the internet became a system where deep-pocketed industries prevailed over a public sector withered by four decades of austerity politics and an increasingly laissez-faire approach to corporate regulation.

The result was something that one Silicon Valley investor once termed the largest single legal creation of wealth weve witnessed on the planet. Cable companies grew fatter and richer on all the internet traffic; venture capitalists pushed start-ups to move fast, break things and cash out at the end. Ball is particularly helpful in offering a deep dive into the business of online advertising, whose tools and tactics make the data privacy intrusions of the online world possible, and whose perverse incentives have both undermined the economics of old media and clogged our consoles with clickbait.

As Ball chronicles, the relentless commercial tracking of life online created an opening for more alarming intrusions. The American government spied on its citizens and allowed the internets insecurities to be exploited by hackers. China, busily building up its tech infrastructure as our own system frays, is willing to take surveillance and industrial espionage even further. This is the world that advertising capitalism has built, Ball concludes ruefully, a world in which our expectations of any kind of private life are disappearing, and leaving us feeling disempowered against both our major corporations and our governments.

What should we do? The joy and wonder of the internet is that everything is connected, Ball writes. Clearly, for anyone trying to look at how to fix its problems, the fact that everything is connected makes everything a lot harder, too. Keenly aware of the intrusive track record of the national security state, Ball is reluctant to lean too hard on the government for answers. Instead, he argues, we need to become systems thinkers who recognize that Big Tech is only one piece of a larger whole.

It is indeed high time to move beyond the malevolent-overlord thesis of some recent tech critique. This book is refreshing and necessary in this regard. But we need to change our institutions as well as our thinking. As Balls evidence makes clear, a sharp power imbalance between public and private sectors is at the root of our problems. We are overdue for a systemic correction.

See original here:
Book Review: The Tangled Web We Weave, by James Ball - The New York Times

This story appeared in the November 2020 issue as "Cracking the 414s."Subscribe to Discovermagazine for more stories like this.

In the 1983 techno-thriller WarGames, David Lightman, played by a fresh-faced Matthew Broderick, sits in his bedroom, plunking away on a boxy computer using an 8-bit Intel processor. As text flashes across the screen, Davids face lights up; he believes hes hacking into a video game company, but the unwitting teenager is actually facing off against a military supercomputer. Shall we play a game? the computer asks ominously. In the film, the subsequent showdown triggers a countdown to World War III.

The same year the film was released, a group of teenagers and young adults from Milwaukee were playing a game of their own. Much like Brodericks character, these suburban tech savants who dubbed themselves the 414s hacked into large, networked computer systems used by high-profile organizations, looking for new games to play. And similarly, what started out as innocuous fun had some very real consequences. The group eventually was caught by the FBI for raiding around a dozen government and industry systems. Among these were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a nuclear weapons research site that produced atomic bombs used during World War II.

For much of the American public, the 1983 Matthew Broderick/Ally Sheedy film WarGames and the 414s antics were their first introductions to the idea of hackers. (Credit: AA Film Archive/Alamy)

While the 414s antics didnt spark a nuclear conflict, they did ignite a national conversation on computer security long before cyberwarfare made headlines and modern-day hackers like Edward Snowden became household names. Plus, the media frenzy fueled by the group alerted U.S. legislators that new laws were needed to combat computer crime.

Ultimately, the group would help introduce the nation to the possibilities and problems, like sloppy security protections that come with computer connectivity. After the group was exposed, member Neal Patrick was asked on NBCs Today show if he had any regrets.

In hindsight, I really wish that accessing those systems just wasnt so easy, he replied.

In the early 1980s, computer culture was having a moment. The first IBM personal computer came on the scene in 1981, popularizing the term PC. The next year, the Commodore 64 was introduced; it would later become the best-selling computer model of all time. By 1983, both tech aficionados and more cautious adapters were warming up to the PCs potential. That same year, The New York Times went digital with the organizations first newsroom computer.

By todays standards, however, these simple machines still had a long way to go. One of the most relevant things here is just how early this was in the technology age, says Alan J. Borsuk, who was a reporter at The Milwaukee Journal at the time and covered the 414s. It was before there was a popular concept of the internet or email or anything like that. It was really very rudimentary just the beginnings of things.

But for many, these proto-computers were a portal into previously uncharted territory. Tim Winslow, who would become a member of the 414s, first tapped into their potential as a junior high school student in the mid-1970s. His math teacher had brought in a primitive computer to test out some problems. The device, called a teletype, was essentially a mechanical typewriter that displayed text on a glass screen. Combined with an acoustically coupled modem, which transmitted signals through a telephone network, the system was able to send and receive typed messages.

At the time, personal computers like the Commodore 64 were just becoming popular. (Credit: Arda savasciogullari/Shutterstock)

Winslow didnt have a chance to test the computer during class. But he stayed after school that night to try it out for himself. As soon as his teacher dialed into the network and revved up the math program, Winslow was hooked. I fell in love with just trying to learn and create with this new technology, he says.

Winslow found he wasnt the only one who gravitated to these early computers. In high school, he joined an Explorer Scout program focused on computing and tech, sponsored by IBM, where he met most of his fellow would-be hackers. The members met right after school in downtown Milwaukee to program computer code together.

Over time, many of them became friends, eventually deciding their group needed a name. In the 1980s, gangs in Milwaukee would identify themselves by the names of the streets they ran, like the 2-7s, who were active on 27th Street numbers that were carved on the picnic tables where the hackers sometimes met for dinner. Since their turf was Milwaukee, the group took its name from the local area code and became the 414s.

Tim Winslow was among the 414s interviewed for the documentary The 414s: The Original Teen Hackers, which premiered at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival. (Credit: Winslow Family)

Over at least a year, the 414s used their home computers and telephone modems to connect to major computer installations across the country. By using basic passwords and login information which were written in the instruction manuals for various computer systems and never updated or changed they were able to penetrate these larger networks. For example, says Winslow, the login and password for one of the systems were simply that:systemandsystem.

It was so easy to get logged into them because people didnt read their own manuals, he says.

The gang saw themselves as explorers, harnessing their curiosity to learn more about how the systems worked. Mostly, the 414s were looking to get their hands on computer games. Throughout 1983, though, the groups activities grew bolder. At one point, they hacked into Security Pacific National Bank in Los Angeles, which had billions in assets. That spring, the 414s infiltrated a computer at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

By June, the jig was up. The 414s exploits were revealed when they hacked into Memorial Sloan Kettering and accidentally deleted billing records. This tipped off a Memorial Sloan Kettering administrator, who then contacted the FBI, which tracked the gang back to Milwaukee by tracing incoming telephone calls.

In order to get more proof, they actually went outside of our homes and put data-capture pieces [on] our phone lines, says Winslow. Not long after, several of the 414s, including Winslow, then 20; Gerald Wondra, 21; and 17-year-old Patrick would be greeted by suit-and-tie-clad FBI agents on their doorsteps.

I had gone to bed a little late the night before; my mom came down and woke me up, says Winslow, who came upstairs to find the agents sitting at the kitchen table. They [said], Wed like to talk to you about what youve been doing with your computer for the last few months."

Winslow, Wondra and another member were all charged by the federal government and faced the possibility of jail time. But because Patrick was a minor, he wasnt at risk for prosecution.

(Credit: Michael T. Vollmann)

While his peers made plea deals, Patrick toured the media circuit, appearing on The Phil Donahue Show and the CBS Morning News. His face was splashed across the cover of Newsweek. He even testified on the dangers of computer security before Congress in Washington, D.C., where the clicking of cameras was so loud that it sometimes drowned out the people speaking. At one point, Patrick was asked when he first considered the ethical propriety of what he was doing.

Once the FBI knocked at my door, he answered.

Because there were no laws against hacking at the time, the adult members of the 414s were charged with making harassing telephone calls. The misdemeanor offense came with two years of probation and a $500 fine; the charges were eventually expunged.

Yet, nearly four decades later, the 414s legacy lives on though perhaps not in the most obvious ways. Filmmaker Michael Vollmann, director of the documentary The 414s: The Original Teenage Hackers, says he was originally drawn to the groups story because it has since been overshadowed by films like WarGames. [But] there were a few things that came out of it, he continues. Like the fact that Neal Patrick went and testified before Congress to talk about his experience. As a result of the gangs exploits, and the media circus that followed, six bills were introduced in the House that dealt with different aspects of computer crime.

Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity expert, notes how far the field has come since. Weve come a long way [from] the curiosity of kids that just looked at it and said, Hey, lets just try passwords, he says. That was really the only protection; [there was] no two-factor authentication, no security tokens, no digital certificates. All of that came later, and it came when we could no longer trust people with just a username and password because it was too easy to break in. Ultimately, he says the story of the 414s was a watershed moment that exposed the soft underbelly of computer security.

If it is the case that these were the only people who got into Los Alamos labs when it was very poorly protected, adds cybersecurity expert Joseph Steinberg, [then] they did us a big favor.

The rest is here:
The Story of the 414s: The Milwaukee Teenagers Who Became Hacking Pioneers - Discover Magazine

You can enable subtitles (captions) in the video player

It's the people of the United States who are the victims of what amounts to Chinese theft on a scale so massive that it represents one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history.

US officials this morning are blaming Chinese hackers for another serious data breach.

Hello, and welcome to a furtive edition of our monthly foreign policy and defence vlog. I say furtive because spying, of course, is meant to be done in secret. And US administrations in the past have been so worried about making things worse they used to refer to Chinese spying in decidedly delicate and obfuscatory terms, blaming APTs, advanced persistent threats, for attacks they often attributed in private to Beijing.

No more. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director, has led the charge in blaming Beijing for a new era of espionage that experts believe puts at risk not only America's dearest military secrets, but its lucrative commercial secrets too.

Great powers spy on each other. We recognise that too. We spy on you, you spy on us. But there's rules to this game.

James Lewis, a cyber security expert who served in government posts, has calculated that Chinese espionage has cost the American economy $600bn in past years. He's put together an eye-popping list of things China has allegedly stolen from the US - nuclear test data, plans for the F-35 fighter plane, commercial jet engine details, and bioengineered corn seed.

I remember a PLA colonel said to us: "For us, there is no difference between national security and technological advancement." Right? So this is a Chinese strategy, to build their economy, build their technological base, and displace the US.

The Trump administration has this year shut down the Chinese consulate in Houston, the energy capital of the world, claiming it was a spy hub. And the FBI says it now opens a counter-intelligence case into China every 10 hours.

Of the nearly 5,000 active FBI counter-intelligence cases currently underway across the country, almost half are all related to China. And at this very moment China is working to compromise American healthcare organisations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic institutions conducting essential Covid-19 research.

Mr Pompeo said that Chinese officials were targeting state and local US officials, even Parent Teacher Associations in schools and local city police.

Protecting American interests requires vigilance, a vigilance that starts with you and all state legislators, regardless of party. Know that when you're approached by a Chinese diplomat it is likely not in the spirit of co-operation or friendship.

US authorities say China has spent time and effort trying to recruit spies in the US, whether online through websites such as LinkedIn or in person, often targeting Americans with security clearances or Chinese nationals who are attending US universities or making their careers in the US.

You get invited to drink tea at the local Ministry of State Security headquarters. And in the room while you're drinking tea they suggest that it would be in your interest to co-operate with them. And if you didn't co-operate with them, well, bad things could happen, perhaps to your family that stayed behind in China. So that kind of pressure on individuals is very powerful.

Experts say the most trenchant spying from China in recent years has taken place online, however, bursting through in a series of mass cyber hacks, including the 2015 theft of vast amounts of data from OPM, the Office of Personnel Management.

The Chinese looked at a series of hacks, travel agents, insurance companies, OPM, of course, banks. And you pile all that data together, and you can use it, you can correlate it, you could manipulate it, and identify not just American agents, but Chinese who have been recruited.

China's cyber prowess is one reason the Trump administration is so worried by TikTok, the viral social media sensation that is owned by a Chinese company and which operates in the US. Spying, of course, is a two-way street. And as we all know from the revelations of Edward Snowden, the US has extraordinary tools of its own on the cyber side.

Experts say it's much harder for the US to carry out physical covert operations inside China, however, simply because they characterise it as a surveillance state. Chinese spying remains largely cloaked from view. But while the US complains that China is stealing its industrial secrets, China was once victim of colossal spy heists itself. Over hundreds of years the west stole the secrets of silk, porcelain, and tea.

Economic espionage has been around for centuries, millennia. And in fact, what's quite interesting is that it used to be China that was the target of espionage, economic espionage, from the west. And in fact, there are some stories about products which we probably don't think of as being of great value - you probably have them at home right now, or you might be wearing some of it - that at one point in time were seen as incredibly valuable commodities, so valuable that they were the targets of espionage.

Jim Lewis dismisses any notion of equivalence between US and Chinese industrial spying as feeble-minded. While declassification leaks and co-operation with US spy agencies have all helped Hollywood to tell America's own spy tales, Albion told me the best way to decode Chinese espionage is to turn to the country's own growing literary canon.

China denies many of these claims, and the US is generally mute on its own espionage efforts. While spying falls far short of out-and-out war, one thing seems for sure. With more and more data heading online and US-China tensions rising, spying is here to stay.

Read more:
New cold war: China-US spying steps out of the shadows - Financial Times

Sept. 29, 2020, stickers to be given to people who have voted (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)

The U.S. has a long history of interfering in elections abroad

Throughout history, the United States has interfered in the elections of many other countries around the world. At least since the CIA was created in 1947. Whenever exposed for this, our political officials have often argued that we were simply promoting stability or spreading democracy. These types of covert actions by any given country are always in their own self-interest, at least from their point of view. The ends justify the means, depending on your perspective and whether youre on the right side of a movement. The point is, while our historical narrative has painted a picture of Americas hegemony spreading goodness throughout the world, our new narrative involves the U.S. appearing weak enough to be misled and fooled into extremes on one political side or the other through propaganda and misinformation campaigns.

Today we find ourselves in an Orwellian news cycle of constitutional crises that would have been the absurd fodder in dystopian fiction of days past. Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress and witness tampering in the Russia investigation and then had his 40-year prison sentence commuted by Trump, said in an interview with Alex Jones that if Donald Trump loses the election in November he should declare martial law. Since August, Trump has been saying that The only way were going to lose is if the election is rigged. And this is our new normal. While the pandemic and quarantines have led us to accept many new norms in some areas of our lives, the weeks and months following Election Day are bound to force us to confront new norms of election interference in our democratic process.

2016 set all new precedents

After the 2016 election, many Americans learned they were the victims of Russian propaganda and media manipulation. Robert Muellers top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann stated that he believes Russias interference in the 2016 election was more damaging to our democracy than the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was during World War II. Today we continue seeing ongoing misinformation campaigns wreak havoc on the ecosystem of truth. In August of this year, Facebook reported having removed a troll farm posing as African-Americans for Donald Trump and QAnon supporters, as well as hundreds of fake accounts linked to The Epoch Times. On October 1, Reuters revealed that a pro-Trump news site called the Newsroom for American and European Based Citizens (NAEBC) was actually being run by people associated with the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-backed troll farm.

On October 8, it was reported that Facebook had deleted hundreds of fake accounts tied to Turning Point USA and banned U.S. marketing firm Rally Forge, a clear example of how American political strategists and marketers have been emulating the same foreign propaganda techniques we know occurred in 2016.Without a doubt, Russia is helping to amplify false narratives in the U.S. election once again, with arguments in line with Trumps claims over the legitimacy of mail-in voting. There was an Intelligence Bulletin on September 3 from the Department of Homeland Security that states that, "We assess that Russia is likely to continue amplifying criticisms of vote-by-mail and shifting voting processes amidst the COVID-19 pandemic to undermine public trust in the electoral process." Other reports claim that we can also expect China and Iran to contribute to the growing mess of sowing doubt and anger.

Despite all that other countries may be doing to impact our 2020 election, the most successful spreaders of misinformation seem to now be within our own borders. A recent paper by Harvard University found that Fox News and Donald Trumps own campaign were far more influential in spreading false beliefs than Russian trolls or Facebook clickbait artists. While Trump has benefited from other countries actions to enrage and polarize our society, he himself has been much more prolific and successful at spreading propaganda, along with Fox News. The Harvard paper goes on to say that, Our findings here suggest that Donald Trump has perfected the art of harnessing mass media to disseminate and at times reinforce his disinformation campaign...

84% of American voters are eligible to vote by mail in the 2020 election, according to a Washington Post analysis. Trump has repeatedly dismissed the validity of mail-in voting despite the U.S. intelligence community insisting that there is no evidence of fraud in mail-in voting. The actions of his new postmaster general have themselves served as deliberate sabotage by maiming that department and slowing it down at every turn.Trump may be right in calling this a rigged election, but not for the reasons he claims. Its being rigged, in part, by changes to the post office to disrupt mail-in ballots while simultaneously claiming that mail-in ballots will be rife with fraud or shouldnt be counted after Election Day, all in order to set the stage for not accepting the results.

Trump will only accept the results if he wins

In March, Trump told Fox & Friends that Democrats want levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, youd never have a Republican elected in this country again. By dismissing the validity of votes counted after Election Day, Trump is setting the stage for not conceding, and admitting that more people having their vote counted would be bad for him. Regarding the likelihood of voter fraud, The Atlantic put it this way, An authoritative report by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, calculated the rate of voter fraud in three elections at between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Another investigation, from Justin Levitt at Loyola Law School, turned up 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation out of more than 1 billion votes cast in the United States from 2000 to 2014. Judges in voting-rights cases have made comparable findings of fact.

In June, former Defense Secretary Mattis wrote that, "Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people does not even pretend to try." Scientific American endorsed Joe Biden in September, making him their first endorsement in the publications 175 year history. The New England Journal of Medicine, also with a history of being nonpartisan, published an editorial on October 8, saying, Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent.

There is a constant drumbeat of warning signs that Trump may try to not leave office if he loses. With the high likelihood that he will be charged with crimes by the state of New York once he does leave office, Trump has even more reason to use every tool at his disposal to try to retain power.

Normal is whatever happens

The phrase new normal has been thrown around a lot this year, in some ways helping us cope or accept the reality of our daily lives now. New normals of working from home or schooling from home, of mask wearing and distancing and obsessive hand washing. Described by the World Economic Forum, The 'new normal' discourse sanitizes the idea that our present is okay because normal is regular. Normal becomes what we see and hear everyday. According to a Rice University study, the mental health of black men in the U.S. improved during Barack Obamas presidency, showing that our leaders do help uphold standards, or create new ones.

Simply calling attention to such matters doesnt correct them. Edward Snowdens revelations about government surveillance didnt lead to correcting all the problems he exposed, it just gave us some insight into the new normal of our lack of privacy as Americans and made us all more aware of it. We the people can help decide what we accept as our new normals, and those norms can change as often as our priorities do. In an interview with Anand Giridharadas, Noam Chomsky put it this way, I think if you take a look at the United States in the 1920s, and you asked, Could there ever be a labor movement?, you would've sounded crazy. How could there be? It had been crushed. But it changed. Human life is not predictable. Depends on choices and will, which are unpredictable.

Our new normal, at least for now, includes existential threats to our democracy such as increased election interference. And not just from other countries, but from within our own borders and from our own leaders.

Original post:
Election Interference Is The New Normal - Forbes

A federal court is ordering ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, seen here in November, to pay more than $5 million in profits and royalties from his 2019 memoir and speeches. Armando Franca/AP hide caption

A federal court is ordering ex-National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, seen here in November, to pay more than $5 million in profits and royalties from his 2019 memoir and speeches.

A federal court has ruled that former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden must pay more than $5 million in book royalties and speaking fees derived from his 2019 memoir, the Justice Department said Thursday.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered its final judgment and injunction on Tuesday, siding with the U.S. in a lawsuit dating to the publication of Snowden's 2019 book, Permanent Record.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argued that by not submitting the book for a pre-publication review, Snowden had violated nondisclosure agreements he signed while working for the National Security Agency and CIA.

"Edward Snowden violated his legal obligations to the United States, and therefore, his unlawful financial gains must be relinquished to the government," Deputy U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen said in a Justice Department statement.

The statement went on to say that the ruling imposes a constructive trust for current and futures earnings from the book and 56 speeches.

Snowden has resided in Russia since 2013 after being granted asylum there from federal charges stemming from his leak of classified information revealing U.S. surveillance programs. Snowden had worked for the CIA from 2006 to 2009 and as a contractor for the NSA at various times between 2005 and 2013.

The Justice Department's suit was filed the same day as the book's release in September 2019. In addition to Snowden, the suit also named his publisher, Macmillan, and requested the court freeze assets related to the memoir. The department also requested that royalties and profits from the book be put in a trust for the U.S. government.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the same court responsible for Tuesday's finding ruled Snowden breached his obligations to the intelligence agencies, though at the time, the court held off on judgment over the scope of remedies due to the government.

This week's decision is separate from the criminal charges Snowden faces, including espionage and theft of government property.

Read the original post:
Court Rules Edward Snowden Must Pay More Than $5 Million From Memoir And Speeches - NPR

Here are our lists of the best TV shows on Netflix, the best movies on Amazon Prime Video and the best of everything on Disney Plus.

The Best Documentary Feature category at the Academy Awards used to be something only the most devoted cinephiles cared much about. But over the past 20 years, docs have swelled in popularity, thanks in part to crowd-pleasing hits like Free Solo and March of the Penguins and thanks also to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu making these movies easier to watch.

(Note: The dates reflect the year a film was in competition, not necessarily its U.S. theatrical release.)

The filmmakers Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert bring some valuable perspective to some of the biggest issues facing the global economy in their absorbing, illuminating and often quite funny film, which tracks what happened when a Chinese company opened a glass plant in the U.S. heartland. While charting the differences between Chinese and American work habits as well the differences in the workers expectations Bognar and Reichert tell a story thats ultimately about the changing nature of labor in our increasingly automated age.

In 2017, the accomplished mountain-climber Alex Honnold attempted to ascend Yosemites towering El Capitan formation with no ropes or other safety equipment to prevent him from falling thousands of feet if he lost his grip. The husband-and-wife filmmakers Jimmy Chin and Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi recorded the entire adventure, from the planning to the climb, focusing primarily on Honnolds uncanny calmness as he risked his life to achieve something extraordinary. This movie is a fascinating character study, as well as a harrowing document of extreme risk.

In its early scenes, this investigative documentary from Bryan Fogel has the director using himself as a guinea pig, taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs to find out whether they actually give athletes an edge. But entering this world of black-market dope peddlers puts Fogel in contact with shady characters, and as he gets to know these crooks and doctors, his films emphasis shifts from what P.E.D.s do for individuals to the many ways that international crime syndicates some of them covertly state-sponsored have corrupted Olympic sports. What starts as a quirkily personal sports doc turns into a political thriller.

In retrospect, the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial was a pivotal moment in American history, exposing this countrys racial, gender and wealth disparities. ESPNs five-part docu-series O.J.: Made in America, directed by Ezra Edelman, covers all those topics, framing them with the career of a football star who was thriving in showbiz before he was accused of killing his wife. Edelman widens his scope beyond the crime by considering the history of racially insensitive policing in Los Angeles and the question of whether money and fame allows some people to avoid facing consequences.

Cameras seemed to capture every moment of soul singer Amy Winehouses brief, painful life, whether they were held by friends and lovers or shoved into her face by paparazzi. Using this raw and often invasive footage, this brilliant biography by director Asif Kapadia paints a compassionate portrait of the troubled yet immensely talented artist, and implicates our collective fascination with tabloid train-wreck stories in her death. Thankfully, the downward spiral has built-in uplift in the form of Winehouses tender, velvety singing voice.

In 2013, from a hotel room in Hong Kong, Edward Snowden leaked documents showing that U.S. cyberintelligence was monitoring the communications of hundreds of millions of people around the world. Filmmaker Laura Poitras was in the room with him and journalist Glenn Greenwald, chronicling Snowdens seismic revelations and the aftermath. The result is this suspenseful espionage thriller, complete with code names, classified information written on scraps of paper and testimonies before German Parliament. While Greenwald broke the news in The Guardian, Poitras turned it into art.

This lighthearted jaunt by director Morgan Neville profiles several backup singers, including Darlene Love and Merry Clayton, whose most memorable recordings were made standing behind the main attraction. We learn about these womens roles in shaping the classic-rock canon in songs from the Rolling Stones, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Lou Reed and many more, and the film rousingly ends in a heartwarming staged concert with the backups singing lead, however briefly. Although the film provides many inspirational moments, this is no simple tune: It is also an examination of the various factors that can qualify (or disqualify) one for the American spotlight involved not just talent and luck, but also gender, race and age.

In his hometown, Detroit, in the 1970s, Rodriguez was a failed folk singer-songwriter with two flop albums to his name. But in South Africa he was a Dylanesque hero, his songs having become anthems for the anti-apartheid movement. This precise narrative by director Malik Bendjelloul begins by introducing us to the fans who kept Rodriguez alive, then leads us upstream, via masterful pacing, as they discover what became of their phantom prophet.

Winning the big game is a small victory for a high school football team compared with a players going to college: Thats one of the life lessons imparted by Bill Courtney, a volunteer coach who runs a scrappy program at a tough North Memphis high school. For this uplifting underdog sports story, directors Daniel Lindsay and T.J. Martin follow a pivotal season with Courtneys team, as its fortunes and its individual players crest and fall before the title reveals itself in unexpected ways.

Before The Big Short came this furious denouncement of the corporate and political skulduggery that led to the 2008 financial crisis. As director Charles Ferguson breaks down the concepts of deregulation, credit default swaps and the housing bubble, he makes no secret of the anger he feels toward investment banks, Treasury Department officials and any current or former economist unfortunate enough to step in front of his camera. Ferguson reframes the Great Recession from being just a story about money to one about the cynical and greedy betrayal of American values.

In 1974, a French daredevil named Philippe Petit sneaked with his crew to the top of the World Trade Center in New York, still under construction at the time, and strung a wire between the two towers; Petit then performed a tightrope act on the wire for nearly an hour. This wildly entertaining account of the vertiginous escapade, by director James Marsh, is the perfect heist movie filled with tense pacing and thrilling re-enactments of the crack team at work. The film trains its vision on the how of the operation rather than the why, and yet still makes a case for dreaming (and building) crazy, wonderful things.

One of the earliest films from the prolific documentarian Alex Gibney uses one persons terrifying tale as a way into a larger conversation about the ethics and the efficacy of torture as a tool of war. While detailing the fate of an Afghani taxi driver who was beaten to death while in U.S. custody, Gibneys well-researched and disturbingly persuasive doc also covers the sequence of small but inexorable steps that led to letting the unconscionable become an accepted feature of American foreign policy.

Many Americans first education on the dangers of climate change came through this 2006 documentary by Davis Guggenheim based on a traveling lecture series by Al Gore. In this breathless film, Gore transforms every methodical tool of the college instructor (PowerPoint slides, graphs of rising temperatures, bulleted lists on fossil fuels) into angry, riveting, impassioned warning bells. Although the film became a rallying cry for environmentalists, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb higher, recently surpassing the tipping point Gore warns about in the film.

Accompanied by Morgan Freemans inimitable baritone narration, thousands of emperor penguins must use all their instincts to breed and survive in Antarcticas harsh subzero environment. This lyrical nature documentary by director Luc Jacquet, which gave audiences an exotic close-up look at the penguins annual mating journey over the course of a year, was a smash hit upon its 2005 release: Though their environs are punishing, the adorable waddlers come across as winning heroes who survive not because of any exceptional bravado, but because its just what they do year after year.

Two stories interweave throughout this intimate social-issue documentary, directed by Ross Kauffman and Zana Briski. One is about how Briski taught the children of Calcuttas red light district how to use cameras, allowing them to capture their sometimes shocking living conditions. The other story involves Briskis navigation of various bureaucracies in an effort to get the authorities to place these children in better schools. What emerges is both an unflinching portrait of extreme poverty and an illustration of how art can illuminate our common humanity.

The former defense secretary Robert McNamara, a chief architect of the Vietnam War, imparts the 11 lessons he learned while orchestrating the drawn-out conflict under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. An animated and occasionally dodgy presence on camera, McNamara is at once defensive of and distraught by his legacy, which makes him the ideal foil for director Errol Morriss dogged pursuit of the truth behind the wars justification and execution.

In the aftermath of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre, Michael Moore plunged into the American gun debate with his usual mix of impassioned advocacy and impish humor. His filmmaking techniques and open partisanship are polarizing for a reason, as the movie often simplifies complex issues to score political points. But Moores interviews yield revelatory glimpses into the dark side of human nature, and force us to reckon with our inability to hold a rational discussion about guns, even as the number of mass shootings has only mounted since Moores film was released.

Here is the original post:
Stream These Oscar-Winning Documentaries From the 21st Century - The New York Times

The surfacing of private WhatsApp exchanges between Bollywood actors amid the investigation into the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput has raised questions about the platforms security, and whether the app indeed protects user privacy. Mint takes a deep dive.

What does end-to-end encryption mean?

When texts are sent from your phone, there are three points of contactyour phone, WhatsApps servers and the receivers phone. So, between WhatsApps server and the receiver, the so-called Man In The Middle (MITM) attacks are possible. Besides, WhatsApp, its parent Facebook could technically access texts when theyre on server. In end-to-end encryption, the transmitted text is encrypted all the time, ensuring that only the sender and receiver can read it in plain text. This reduces chances of MITM attacks or leaks at the service provider. Even if a person does intercept the text, theyll get unreadable encrypted texts only.

Do all exchanges via WhatsApp remain pvt?

While end-to-end encryption is a powerful protection measure, it doesnt guard against physical access to ones messages. Your phones lock code encrypts all data inside it, and whenever the correct code is entered, data is available in plain text. You could set up the lock code to be entered a second time before WhatsApp is opened, but that doesnt help much. Messaging application Signal allows users to set up a separate Signal PIN, though if youre forced to hand over your phone to the authoritieslike in the case with Bollywood actors currentlyyoull probably have to disclose your PIN too.

View Full Image

Are there safer alternatives to WhatsApp currently?

Signal and Telegram are popular. Besides, since they arent as big as WhatsApp there may be less effortespecially by governmentsto compromise their systems. Signal has more security features and endorsement from whistleblower Edward Snowden, which is why users opt for it. But even Signal cant do much to protect against physical access to a phone.

Does WhatsApp have built-in backdoors?

WhatsApp uses the open source Signal protocol for encryption, which is a sort of a defence against backdoors. Theoretically, since the encryption code is open sourced, experts can spot backdoors. The government may say backdoors wont be open to the public, but an existing backdoor can be found by attackers and security experts. That said, WhatsApps overall code is closed source, so you cant be sure how the Signal protocol is implemented, and with what modifications. Your only option, in that case, is to trust WhatsApp.

How much can one trust Facebook?

WhatsApp was the icon of openness for long. Many experts still say WhatsApp has done a lot to ensure no backdoors can be mandated by governments, but many have trouble trusting Facebook, given its track record on user privacy. The company has vested interests with all big governments, so the argument is, why Facebook would side with users instead of authorities. The point that Facebook needs users is thin too, since the company gets a big part of its data from being able to track users outside its platforms.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Original post:
Whats really up with your secure WhatsApp chats - Mint

Various

Wiretaps, state surveillance, assassins struck with amnesia, Armie Hammers Russian accentwere talking about spy movies, the best spy movies, the best spy movies ever.

Now, obviously, we cant please everybody. When we set out to write this list, we wanted a wide sampling of spy craft cinema. We wanted a mix of historical gems with action blockbusters. We wanted a bit of reality and fantasy, seriousness and comedy. We wanted those films that have stood the test of time and those contemporary efforts that, while maybe lacking in the plot department, broke through in other areas, like stunts and special effects and tone. Which is all to say, were probably going to miss some of your favorites. (Boo hoo.)

What makes a spy movie a spy movie? Two categories. On one hand, were looking at realism, the films that depict probable spy craftfilms which feature real techniques and real stakes, if only slightly altered for dramatic purposes. These are Cold War dramas. Stories about human assets and operatives, not bred assassins and spies. Stories that accurately depict the incentives, the demands, and the consequences of international espionage.

And then we have the hyperrealism, the films that offer escapism, that make us want to be 10 years old again and go into our backyard and start doing dumb shit. These are the films with heightened stakes and crazy stunt work and car chases and hunters being hunted. Everything shaken. Nothing stirred.

So with all that in mind, here are our favorite spy movies, which we are calling the best spy movies. Are we missing one or two films that should be here? Probably. Deal with it.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

Guy Ritchie's reboot of the 1964 television series contains all the director's stylistic action alongside some great buddy comedy. And from two actors we didn't expect. Also lots of sexual attention. No? Just us? C'mon, look at those jawlines.

Stream It Here

Unthinkable (2010)

Controversial for its scenes of torture, Unthinkable chews on some pretty intense utilitarian questions while also being a fun ride.

Stream It Here

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

Based on the Tom Clancy novel, The Hunt for Red October is maybe the best submarine spy film. (We're counting Das Boot as a war movie, so calm down.)

Stream It Here

Enemy of the State (1998)

The film will probably feel more prescient than paranoid these days given the the state surveillance efforts after 9/11.

Stream It Here

Munich (2005)

Based on Israeli intelligence's Operation Wrath of God, a retaliatory operation for the 1972 Munich Olympics terror attack, which left 11 Israeli Olympians dead, Munich is maybe the closest to actual assassin activity of any film on this list. The result is more tragedy than blockbuster.

Stream It Here

A Most Wanted Man (2014)

Three names: Philip Seymour Hoffman. A Most Wanted Man was Hoffman's last film to be finished, and the legendary actor turns in another standout performance as a German intelligence officer.

Stream It Here

Snowden (2016)

Three names again: Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Levitt gives a standout performance as former CIA analyst Edward Snowden in a biopic probably as polarizing as the man himself.

Stream It Here

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Chronicling the nearly ten-year-long hunt for Osama bin Laden, Kathrine Bigelow's 2012 thriller shows all the trials and difficulties of military intelligence work. It also features a controversial interrogation scene you're going to want to read up on after.

Stream It Here

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Skip the remake and watch the original. Made at the height of Cold War tension and paranoia, The Manchurian Candidate is as much historical document as it is a classic film. No other film does the sleeper cell concept in a more terrifying way.

Stream It Here

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)

When there are spy films, there are spy film parodies, and Austin Powers and all his mojo do it more absurdly than anyone else.

Stream It Here

Burn After Reading (2008)

The Coen Brothers' pitch black spy comedy is somehow both ridiculous and simultaneously compelling. They're all having sex with each other!

Stream It Here

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

Both a parodic response to the new serious James Bond films and a celebration of all the stunts and pyrotechnics that make 007 movies great, Kingsman is in a league of it's own. One of the best action films of all time. This is how you shoot a fight scene, Hollywood.

Stream It Here

Day of the Jackal (1973)

Based on the Frederick Forsyth novel, Jackal follows one assassin and one mission: killing French president Charles de Gaulle. Its singular focus does away with body count action cinema, making for an actually compelling and seemingly realistic depiction of targeted killing.

Stream It Here

The Good Shepherd (2006)

A semi-fictional account of the early days of the CIA, Robert De Niro's historical drama captures the paranoia and uncertainty of post war Europe. The Cold War didn't begin with gunshots. It began with briefcases.

Stream It Here

Argo (2012)

Based on the real mission lead by CIA operative Tony Mendez who posed as a filmmaker to rescue U.S. diplomats trapped in Tehran during the hostage crises, Argo is as wild as it getswhile still being true.

Stream It Here

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

When it comes to stunt work and action sequences, few do it better than Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt. For Fallout, Cruise and company went bigger than ever, and oh boy does it pay off.

Stream It Here

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011)

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1965)

Eastern Promises (2007)

Eastern Promises is our wild card on this list. Explaining why the film belongs here, however, might be a bit of a spoiler. So we'll just leave it at this: this film will punch you in the throat.

Stream It Here

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

The Bourne franchise is perhaps the best example of hyper-realized spy thrillers around. While Paul Greengrass' handheld-directed fight sequences can feel overly frenetic at times, the pacing and chase scenes make this franchise one of the best action trilogies ever. (We'll ignore that fourth film.)

Stream It Here

Notorious (1946)

Here come the Hitchcocks. It's hard to talk about suspense without mentioning the master, and Alfred Hitchock brought all his talents to this one. It's a love story trapped inside an espionage operation and maybe the best spy melodrama ever put to screen.

Stream It Here

North by Northwest (1959)

One more for the master, this one about an innocent man pursued across America by an unknown organization. It's maybe Hitchcock's best film and an essential watch in the spy genre. It was put to screen just as the Cold War was heating up.

Stream It Here

Goldfinger (1964)

This entry is for at least several James Bond films, including From Russia with Love, Dr. No, and Skyfall. But we're going with Goldfinger and Sean Connery at his 007 prime. What more could you want from a spy movie?

Stream It Here

The Lives of Others (2006)

Bond may take the cake when it comes to action spy thrillers (and Hitchcock when it comes to just general suspense), but when it comes to espionage with heart and soul, the best spy film has to be Germany's The Lives of Others. The film follows the years-long surveillance of a fictional East German playwright. Tragic and heroic in equal measure, it's the kind of film that somehow makes all other spy movies feel tired and jingoistic.

Stream It Here

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Read more here:
These Are the 25 Best Spy Movies of All Time - menshealth.com

A survey of responses from more than 30 companies to questions about how theyre approaching EU-U.S. data transfers in the wake of a landmark ruling (aka Schrems II) by Europes top court in July, which struck down the flagship Privacy Shield over U.S. surveillance overreach, suggests most are doing the equivalent of burying their head in the sand and hoping the legal nightmare goes away.

European privacy rights group noyb has done most of the groundwork here rounding up in this 45-page report responses (some in English, others in German) from EU entities of 33 companies to a set of questions about personal data transfers.

It sums up the answers to the questions about companies legal basis for transferring EU citizens data over the pond post-Schrems II as astonishing or AWOL given some failed to send a response at all.

Tech companies polled on the issue run the alphabetic gamut from Apple to Zoom. Airbnb, Netflix and WhatsApp are among the companies that noyb says failed to respond about their EU-US data transfers.

Responses provided by companies that did respond appear to raise many more questions than they answer with lots of question-dodging boilerplate responses in evidence and/or pointing to existing privacy policies in the hope that will make the questioner go away (hi Facebook!) .

Facebook also made repeat claims that sought for info falls outside the scope of the EUs data protection framework

In addition, noyb highlights a response by Slack which said it does not voluntarily provide governments with access to data which, as the privacy rights group points out, does not answer the question of whether they are compelled to do so under surveillance laws such as FISA702.

A similar issue affects Microsoft. So while the tech giant did at least respond specifically to each question it was asked, saying its relying on Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for EU-U.S. data transfers, again its one of the companies subject to U.S. surveillance law or as noyb notes: explicitly named by the documents disclosed by Edward Snowden and publicly numbering the FISA702 requests by the US government it received and answered.

That, in turn, raises questions about how Microsoft can claim to (legally) use SCCs if users data cannot be adequately protected from U.S. mass surveillance

The Court of Justice of the EU made it clear that use of SCCs to take data outside the EU is contingent on a case by case assessment of whether the data will in fact be safe. If it is not, the data controller is legally required to suspend the transfer. EU regulators also have a clear duty to act to suspend transfers where data is at risk.

Overall, we were astonished by how many companies were unable to provide little more than a boilerplate answer. It seems that most of the industry still does not have a plan as to how to move forward, noyb adds.

In August the group filed 101 complaints against websites it had identified as still sending data to the U.S. via Google Analytics and/or Facebook Connect integrations with, again, both tech giants clearly subject to U.S. surveillance laws, such as FISA 702.

And noyb founder Max Schrems whose surname has become synonymous with questions over EU-U.S. data transfers continues to push the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) to take enforcement action over Facebooks use of SCCs in a case that dates back some seven years.

Earlier this month it emerged the DPC had written to Facebook issuing a preliminary order to suspend transfers. However Facebook filed an appeal for a judicial review in the Irish courts and was granted a stay.

In an affidavit filed to the court, the tech giant appeared to claim it could shut down its service in Europe if the suspension order is enforced. But last week Facebooks global VP and former U.K. deputy PM, Nick Clegg, denied it could shut down in Europe over the issue. Though, he warned of profound effects on scores of digital businesses if a way is not found by lawmakers on both sides of the pond to resolve the legal uncertainty around U.S. data transfers. (A Privacy Shield 2 has been mooted but the European Commission has warned theres no quick fix, suggesting reform of U.S. surveillance law will be required.)

For his part, Schrems has suggested the solution for Facebook at least is to federate its service splitting its infrastructure in two. But Thierry Breton, EU commissioner for the internal market, has also called for European data[to] be stored and processed in Europe arguing earlier this month this data belong in Europe and there is nothing protectionist about this, in a discussion that flowed from U.S. President Trumps concerns about TikTok.

Back in Ireland, Facebook has complained to the courts that regulatory action over its EU-EU data transfers is being rushed (despite the complaint dating back to 2013); and also that its being unfairly singled out.

But now with data transfer complaints filed by noyb against scores of companies on the desk of every EU data supervisor, and regulators under explicit ECJ instruction, they have a duty to step in, as a lot of pressure is being exerted to actually enforce the law and uphold Europeans data rights.

The European Data Protection Boards guidance on Schrems II which Facebook had also claimed to be waiting for also specifies that the ability to (legally) use SCCs to transfer data to the U.S. hinges on a data controller being able to offer a legal guarantee that U.S. law does not impinge on the adequate level of protection for the transferred data. So Facebook et al would do well to lobby the U.S. government on reform of FISA.

Excerpt from:
Tech giants are ignoring questions over the legality of their EU-US data transfers - TechCrunch

Fake news! That was the predictable response from President Trump on Sunday when he addressed the blockbuster New York Times report detailing Trump tax return data covering nearly 20 years.

The Times investigation is extraordinarily complex. The newspapers editors said the material obtained by its reporters consisted of thousands of pages and required months of extensive investigation, analysis, and legal review.

Early in the week, the biggest headlines were reserved for two significant findings.

First, the president paid almost no personal income tax for 11 of the covered years. And in the 2016 and 2017 tax years, the first during which he was president, Trump paid only $750 in federal tax, far, far less than the average American.

Steven A. Smithis a former editor of the Spokesman-Review.

Second, Trumps business holdings, including his golf courses and resorts, are huge money losers. He has outstanding loans totaling hundreds of millions due to be repaid in the next four years and for which he is personally liable. The tax data indicate he will have trouble paying off those loans.

And there is more, so much more.

Of course, the presidents first response was predictable. Whenever news organizations report something remotely negative, the president can be relied on to tweet fake news. On Sunday, he also claimed the Times findings were factually false, a step beyond merely fake.

On Monday, he said the investigation relied on illegally obtained material. His most vocal supporters accused the Times of unethical journalism while the White House demanded the paper provide the presidents team the source documents before they would respond in detail.

Attacking the Times is a tried and true strategy and plays well with the Trump base. But the challenges warrant some discussion. The issues are not merely the arcane musings of journalists.

Did the Times obtain the tax data illegally? Of course, the papers editors will not reveal their sources. The data could have come from the presidents own accountants or attorneys. It is possible the data came from members of Congress, who have been seeking the information since Trumps 2016 election, or even from individuals within the Internal Revenue Service which has been involved in a rancorous audit of Trump for years. More likely, the data came to the paper through the offices of prosecutors, possibly in New York state, who are themselves investigating the president.

It is possible, depending on the source, that there was a violation of law in the sharing of such tax information. But that violation would be on the source, not the newspaper. The courts have ruled time and again that if the news organization is given the information freely, does not violate the law itself, then publication of the information is legal, particularly when it is of vital public importance.

Think back to the Pentagon Papers case. Daniel Ellsberg broke the law when he stole the papers from the Pentagon. But newspapers were protected by the First Amendment when they published it. Julian Assange may someday be tried for espionage related to Wikileaks revelations about U.S. military actions in Iraq. But the Times was protected when it published the leaked information. And when Edward Snowden stole documents related to federal electronic surveillance of Americans, he had to flee to Russia to avoid prosecution for espionage. But newspapers, including the Times, were protected by the First Amendment when they published the Snowden revelations.

So, the Trump tax information was legally obtained by the newspaper.

The White House wants to review the source material, but The Times is refusing to turn it over. Is that ethical?

The Times argues a White House review would effectively result in disclosure of its sources. Clearly, the paper had to promise anonymity in order to obtain the data and the promise of anonymity in such cases is, essentially, a sacred ethical obligation. You can be sure reporters and editors would go to jail willingly rather than reveal their sources, even to a judge.

Refusal to turn the material over to the White House does give the president a convenient escape ramp. Stories based on anonymous sources are always less credible than those based on named sources. Absent a review of the actual documentation, the president can hide behind charges of fake news and false information, arguments that will play to a base that does not trust the press.

Tax information is private and protected by law and so even if the Times properly obtained the tax data, its publication constitutes an invasion of the presidents privacy, his supporters have argued.

But the president of the United States has no privacy, certainly in comparison to the average American. The public has a legitimate interest in all his actions, personal and public, and reporting on those actions is protected. Furthermore, Trump is the first modern-era president to refuse to release basic financial information. If such information was viewed as important to the public before Trump, it is clearly of public significance now.

Finally, a quick look at social media shows that some of the presidents most vocal supporters insist the Times has libeled him, essentially labeling him a tax dodger. A careful reading of the Times investigation shows reporters never used such language, never leveled accusation of legal wrongdoing. They let the data speak for itself.

There are complexities to U.S. libel laws and a difference in their application when it comes to public figures. But there is one unalterable factor in the consideration of any accusation of libel. Truth is an absolute defense.

If the published information is true, there is no libel. To show otherwise, even if he could overcome the public-figure hurdles, the president would have to prove the published information is false. Repeat: He would have to prove the information is false. That would mean a protracted court fight during which he could be deposed under oath and, among other actions, be ordered to provide records to refute those obtained by the paper. That is not going to happen. As in so many cases involving the president, he will huff and puff and threaten to blow the house down. But he will not take legal action in response to legitimate journalism.

The Times investigation is a masterwork of sourced investigative reporting that took months to complete. The newspaper has answered questions that have been asked from the day Trump descended the Trump Tower escalator to announce his candidacy.

Will it have an impact on the coming election? Probably not. His base is unmovable and his opposition unshakable. And if we know anything of these times it is the rapidity with which headline-grabbing event after headline-grabbing event fades quickly as the next controversy erupts; COVID deaths give way veterans insults that give way to Ruth Bader Ginsberg which gives way to Trump tax returns. And that is just in the last month.

Still, journalists view the Times report with awe. Its reporters were able to do what lawyers, accountants, prosecutors, the courts and even Congress with its subpoenas were unable to accomplish. The window into Trumps financial dealings has been opened. And the president will not be able to close it again.

Follow this link:
Inside the blockbuster NYT report on Trump's taxes or lack thereof - Pacific Northwest Inlander