Dozens ofprogressive and libertarian-leaning lawmakers on Wednesday threw their support behind significantly revising a set of government surveillance authoritiesthat are set to expire within months.

Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and conservative House Freedom Caucus signed onto a letter calling for "meaningful, bipartisan surveillance reform" just as Congress voted to extend those controversial provisions for another three months.

At the last minute, lawmakers tucked the 90-day surveillance authority extensioninto the temporary government funding measure, which passed theHouse 231-192 onTuesday. Thecontinuing resolution (CR), which allowed Congress to avoid an immediate government shutdown, gavekey committees three more months to debate what they want to do about the set of controversial surveillance authorities.

The House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee have jurisdiction over the USA Freedom Act, the bill that isset to expire, which allows the government to comb through phone records on millions of Americans and tracktargets during terrorism investigations.

Its unfortunate that we still have no agreement on critical privacy and civil liberties provisions that must be included in any final reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act," Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalJayapal hits back at Biden on marijuana 'prohibition' Progressive House Democrat unveils bill to allow state-based 'Medicare for All' Progressives press Democrats to rethink Israel policy MORE (D-Wash.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "Ive been deeply engaged with my Judiciary and Intelligence colleagues to make significant changes to any reauthorization billwere making good progress and hope to complete our work before this 90-day extension period ends."

Jayapal said the short-term extension was necessary because without it, the Senate might have pushed a "full reauthorization through with no changes" ahead of the original Dec. 15 expiration date. Now, the provisions likely won't expire until March 15.

"Our goal now is to ensure the final reauthorization contains our critical limits and protections on surveillance and privacy," Jayapal said.

In the letter sent to the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on Tuesday, a group of 49 lawmakers called for significant reforms. Theyasked for a total repeal of the call detail records program, whichallows the government toaccess phone records on millions of Americans every year during terrorism investigations, and strict restrictions on surveillance "that threatens First Amendment protected activities."

The lawmakers are asking to "prevent large-scale collection" of information on U.S. citizens and impose "strict limits" around how the government is allowed to use information obtained during criminal investigations.

"Disclosures over the past several years make clear that existing expansive surveillance powers pose an unacceptable threat to civil rights and civil liberties," the letter reads. "These laws contain numerous loopholes that can be exploited to improperly surveil people based on speech, race, religion, and other impermissible factors."

"Members should be given the opportunity to consider and vote on surveillance reform legislation as a standalone measure in the House, and not tucked into an expansive omnibus or budget bill," they wrote.

One of the expiring provisions, known as Section 215,is particularly contentious because it enables the phone records program, which was originally disclosed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. That program was pared down by the USA Freedom Act in 2015, and the National Security Agency (NSA) disclosed this year that it shuttered the effort entirely amid insurmountable technical difficulties.

Bipartisan lawmakers in both chambers have questioned whetherto extend the NSA's ability to reopen that program at any point, as the Trump administration has requested.

Under the CR,the provisions are set to expire on March 15 rather than next month.

See the original post:
Dozens of lawmakers call for government surveillance reforms | TheHill - The Hill

Recently, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the social media company's main platform has removed 5.4 billion fake accounts this year, dwarfing the 3.3 billion they removed in all of 2018. Many of these accounts were flagged as fake simply because of user misclassification Facebook does not permit nonhuman entities to have accounts, only pages. However, a significant amount of the banned accounts were malicious, representing scammers or distributors of fake news. In total, Facebook's recent transparency report estimated that 5 percent of active user accounts are fake, but outsiders estimate that figure as being much higher, potentially as high as 20 percent.

Facebook established its transparency report in 2013 as a response, in part, to Edward Snowden's revelations of that year, in which he leaked information regarding widespread government surveillance programs. The transparency report offered a means of letting users know how frequently Facebook received government requests for data.

In recent years, however, more attention has been paid to the report's focus on fake accounts and community standards as the social media company has been under fire for its role in the spread of fake news, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The huge spike in fake accounts that Facebook has taken down is partly due to improved methods for identifying them. Facebook claims that over 99 percent of fake accounts on their platform are automatically taken down within minutes of their creation before any user reports them as being fake. Thus, the majority of malicious accounts don't have the opportunity to take advantage of any unsuspecting users, but it's inevitable that some are slipping through the cracks.

With the 2020 elections and the new census on the horizon, a great deal of attention has been paid on how Facebook handles potentially manipulative content on its platform. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently announced that it would no longer be accepting political ads, while Zuckerberg affirmed that Facebook would continue to do so and does not fact-check the content in those ads. This decision, coupled with Facebook's fake accounts issue, has generated significant criticism over the social media company's impact on public discourse.

One high-profile use case for fake accounts is to spread propaganda in an effort to influence political outcomes. For instance, many fake social media accounts were developed by Russian agents prior to the 2016 election to drive traffic towards the DCLeaks website, a front for the Russian espionage group known as Fancy Bear which contained the stolen personal information of various prominent politicians. While this site contained real information intended for propaganda purposes, other accounts actively spread fake news stories. Leading up to the 2016 election, one fake news headline, for example, read "FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide," while another asserted that people were using food stamps to buy pot in Colorado.

These challenges aren't limited to just the U.S., either. A great deal of the online support for the far-right German party AfD has been found to be connected to suspicious accounts, and 30,000 fake accounts were removed in France prior to the 2017 election.

However, not all fake accounts are made by state actors with the purpose of spreading disinformation. Romance scammers often impersonate attractive individuals frequently military members, oddly enough to gain others' trust before announcing a fictional emergency. Then, the scammers ask their confidants for money to help out. Other scams exist, but they all follow the same basic formula: gain a target's trust; mine them for useful information regarding, for example, their background, their hopes, their family, their problems; and then manipulate them into giving the scammer money.

It's hard to imagine that Facebook will be able to crack down on every fake account out there. That's why the best thing we can do in the face of these adversaries is to better educate ourselves on basic cybersecurity practices, develop our critical thinking skills to evaluate fake news, and learn to be more suspicious of others online. Unfortunately, the sheer scale of Facebook users and fake accounts means that at least some individuals will fall victim to disinformation campaigns and scams from time to time.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

The rest is here:
Who's messaging you? Billions of fake accounts on Facebook - Big Think

The stopgap government funding measure on which the House is set to vote Tuesday would give Congress more time to debatea set of controversial government surveillance provisionscurrently set to expire by Dec. 15.

One last-minute addition to thecontinuing resolution (CR)would give Congress 90 more days to debate whether it wants to reauthorize the expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act,adivisive bill that allowsthe government to access phone recordsof millions of Americans. The House is largely expected to pass the CR this week.

A source familiar with the debate around the USA Freedom Act told The Hill thatkey lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee quickly realized there was not enough time for Congress to decide what to do about the surveillance provisions before Dec. 15 when they sat down to negotiate this month.

The source said itwas "easier to tuck it in" to the continuing resolution. They noted the lawmakers felt "impeachment has gotten in the way" of the negotiation process around the expiring surveillance provisions and that a longer timeline would give them more space to hammer out an agreement without such an intensive time constraint.

"Yeah thats gonna be a no from me dog," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezSanders doubles down on Bolivia 'coup,' few follow suit Hillicon Valley: Progressives oppose funding bill over surveillance authority | Senators call for 5G security coordinator | Facebook gets questions over location tracking | Louisiana hit by ransomware attack Overnight Energy: Mark Ruffalo pushes Congress on 'forever chemicals' | Lawmakers spar over actor's testimony | House Dems unveil renewable energy tax plan | Funding for conservation program passes Senate hurdle MORE (D-N.Y.) tweeted on Monday, referring to extending the surveillance provisions for three months.

Ocasio-Cortez's input signaled there may be some broader progressive pushback to the CR on Tuesday.

For months, Congress has been gearingupfor a battle over whether to reauthorize expiring provisionsin the USA Freedom Act, a 2015 surveillance reform bill that passedfollowing whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations aboutthe enormous amount of sensitive information the government was collecting on everyday Americans.

The USA Freedom Act created a pared-down version of the mass phone records surveillance program that Snowden brought to light. And now, months after top intelligence officials revealed that theNational Security Agency (NSA)shuttered the program as it struggled to adhere to the reforms, lawmakers are tasked with deciding whetherthe government should retain the authority toreopen it at any point.

The Trump administration has asked Congress toallow the NSA to retain the abilityto start theprogram back up. But even Republican lawmakers have publicly questionedwhether they want to reauthorize a program that was shut down amid enormous technical difficulties.

While the USA Freedom Act contains multiple surveillance provisions that will be up for reauthorization, the phone records program remains the most divisive.

The House will vote Tuesday on thefunding stopgap measure to prevent a government shutdown, pushing the deadline for an agreement from Nov. 21 to Dec. 20.

Updated at 7:04 p.m.

Originally posted here:
Funding stopgap would give Congress more time to debate expiring surveillance provisions | TheHill - The Hill

Hello! Today we did a major analysis of Edward Snowdens Twitter activity. Lets get started. First, the simple stuff: as of 2019-11-19, Edward Snowden (@Snowden) has 4179999 Twitter followers, is following 1 people, has tweeted 4483 times, has liked 365 tweets, has uploaded 372 photos and videos and has been on Twitter since December 2014.

Going from the top of the page to the bottom, their latest tweet, at the time of writing, has 37 replies, 77 retweets and 1,043 likes, their second latest tweet has 19 replies, 271 reweets and 635 likes, their third latest tweet has 5 replies, 165 retweets and 455 likes, their fourth latest tweet has 61 replies, 442 retweets and 1,683 likes and their fifth latest tweet has 31 replies, 520 retweets and 1,019 likes. But thats enough numbers for now

MOST POPULAR:

Going through Edward Snowdens last couple-dozen tweets (and retweets), the one we consider the most popular, having incited a very nice 342 direct replies at the time of writing, is this:

That looks to have caused quite a lot of different comments, having also had 2028 retweets and 4167 likes.

LEAST POPULAR:

And what about Edward Snowdens least popular tweet in the recent past (including stuff they retweeted)? We reckon its this one:

That only had 3 direct replies, 29 retweets and 53 likes.

THE VERDICT:

We did a ton of research into Edward Snowdens Twitter activity, looking through what people were saying in response to them, their likes/retweet numbers compared to before, the amount of positive/negative responses and so on. We wont drone on and on about the numbers, so our verdict is this: we believe the online sentiment for Edward Snowden on Twitter right now is terrific, and the vast majority of people seem to like them.

Thats it for now. Thanks for coming, and drop a comment if you disagree with me. However, we wont publish anything overly rude.

Visit link:
Edward Snowden & Twitter What On Earth? (2019-11-19) - Global Real News

Today is Wednesday, November 20 and the 45-foot white spruce tree arrived on Boston Common yesterday marking 102 years of friendship between Nova Scotia and Boston, read more on the Boston Herald.

Heres what else you need to know for today

8:30AM One Waterfront Initiative at Rowes Wharf. Join us for a conversation with the Trustees of Reservations to learn about the One Waterfront Initiative an ambitious project to build a network of new green open spaces along Bostons inner harbor. Hear from Nick Black, the managing director of the Trustees Boston Waterfront Initiative about the successes and challenges, plans for community outreach, partnerships with Massport and the City of Boston, and feasibility studies that have shaped the initiatives progress in East Boston, South Boston, and the North End. Free tickets here.

3:00PM Kids LEGO Club. Join the North End Library after school to build whatever you can imagine using LEGOs and DUPLOs.

4:00PM BTU Homework Help. Stop by the North End Library for a homework helper program sponsored by the Boston Teachers Union. The BTU provides a teacher to help children with their homework for free.

6:30PM Book Club at the Library. Join the North End Library for a book discussion on No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden by Glenn Greenwald.

7:00PM The Snow Leopard Project and Other Adventures in Warzone Conservation in Afghanistan. Lecture and book signing at the New England Aquarium. Following decades of war, Dr. Alex Dehgan moved to Afghanistan in 2006 to build the Wildlife Conservation Societys Afghanistan Program to protect snow leopards and other endangered species there. His recent book takes readers along with him and his team through some of the most dangerous places in postwar Afghanistan as they work to establish the countrys first national park. Register here.

A new hotel at 111 North Street has begun construction on a new 212-room Hilton-branded project near the Rose Kennedy Greenway and Haymarket. This particular Canopy brand of hotels by Hilton is intended to be more integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods meaning they may offer communal events, etc, read more on Curbed Boston.

Thursday, November 21

10:30AM Seniors Connect! Presents: Alzheimers Disease and related CTE. Stop by the North End Library where Dr. Michael Alosco will discuss recent advances in Alzheimers research, including discussion on risk factors, prevention, and clinical trial outcomes. He will also touch on Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) and its relation to Alzheimers Disease.

6:00PM Urban Renewal Community Meeting Downtown Waterfront-Faneuil Hall. The Boston Planning & Development Agency invites the surrounding community to a meeting at City Hall to discuss updates to the Downtown Waterfront-Faneuil HallUrban RenewalPlan Area, see additional details here.

7:00PM Downtown Schools Night at Hill House 74 Joy Street. Learn more about Bostons excellent public schools, from parents with children in those schools. This discussion will focus on nearby public elementary schools, with families sharing their views and experiences with their school. We currently expect to discuss the Hurley and Blackstone (South End), Quincy (Chinatown), Eliot (North End), and Harvard-Kent and Warren-Prescott (Charlestown) schools.

7:30PM Through the Lens: Jewish Classics, Celebrated and Unknown at 390 Commercial Street. Founder and Director of the Pittsburgh Jewish Music Festival, cellist Aron Zelkowicz, will perform with acclaimed artists pianist Christina Wright-Ivanova and mezzo-soprano Lynn Torgove important Jewish works by under-represented composers such as Joachim-Yehoyachin Stutschewsky, Joan Szymko, Gerald Cohen and Julius Chajes. This stunningly powerful and beautiful program will educate and inspire audiences about Jewish heritage and culture through music, see additional details here.

Friday, November 22

12:30PM ABCD Thanksgiving celebration. The ABCD North End / West End Neighborhood Service Center will hold their Thanksgiving Celebration on Friday, November 22. There will be turkey with all the trimmings, including pumpkin pie! See the event flyer here.

7:00PM Nazzaro Youth Program BINGO. The Nazzaro Center will be hosting a Friday Night Bingo event for the 10-12 youth program at 30 N Bennet Street, see additional details here.

Need to submit a post? Great, start here!

Keep up with whats happening on the Events Calendar.

Did we miss something? Add it to the comments below. Follow @northend.waterfront on Instagram and tag #northend or #bostonwaterfront to have your photo featured!

More here:
Wednesday's Brief: Canopy by Hilton Begins Construction, Boston Common Tree Arrives, One Waterfront Initiative, LEGO Club, Homework Help, Book Club...

In 2010, young senate staffer Daniel Jones is tasked with heading up an investigation into the CIAs systematic torture of Muslim and Arab detainees following the 9/11 attacks in 2001. The most infamous of these torture techniques was the now-discredited waterboarding, whereby water is poured into the nose and mouth of the victim to give him the sense of drowning. This was done in an effort to force out information leading to the arrest and imprisonment of those responsible for the 9/11 terrorst attacks.

As we now know, waterboarding (or any of the CIAs torture methods) did not produce one strand of usable evidence and, more often than not, produced lies from victims who would say anything in an effort to end the waterboarding. But when Jones investigation began, some pundits and politicos were convinced that torture had led to the arrest of many involved in 9/11 a feeling only intensified with the death of Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Jones task was difficult, and information came slowly. The CIA patently refused to cooperate with the investigation and forbade any of its members to testify. Jones and his small staff obtained information from the internet and from computer access to CIA files, memos and letters.

Come to find out, the CIA was aware waterboarding and similar extreme measures were ineffective, but continued using them to fit the narrative that something was being done to produce information leading to the arrest of those responsible for the single-greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. When the CIA produced its own report, waterboarding was hailed as an effective method, even though CIA leadership knew otherwise.

After six painstaking years of discovery, Jones and his crew produced a nearly 7,000-page report which resulted in the CIA suing the Senate Intelligence Committee to cover up publication of the report.

If this episode in recent U.S. history sounds like it would make for a snooze-fest of a motion picture, think again. Scott Z. Burns new film The Report makes the art of discovery fascinating, as layers upon layers of information are revealed. In a sense, The Report succeeds in much the same way Spotlight did, as a team of Boston Globe reporters uncovered layers of clues regarding the Catholic priest sexual-abuse scandal in Boston. While The Report never rises to that level, all the excitement generates from the discovery of facts and clues.

I equate The Report more to Oliver Stones Snowden, which presented notorious whistleblower Edward Snowden in an heroic light for going public with the CIAs global surveillance program. Here, Jones and his half-dozen fellow workaholics are the heroes for exposing a program which painted the U.S. in a negative light.

Ironically, the Obama administration works against Jones investigation. Barack Obama took office in 2009 with the goal of eliminating partisanship. The last thing he wanted was to circle back with an investigation of the previous administration even though he personally suspected everything in the report was true. Politically, Obamas goal was to mend fences. In practice, he tried to cover up the Senate Intelligence Committees report on extreme torture during the George W. Bush administration.

California Sen. Diane Feinstein chaired the intelligence committee during Jones investigation, and it is she (along with a few other Democrats) who encourages Jones to dig deeper until the truth is uncovered. She occasionally has to provide the voice of reason at least from a political perspective although her desire to publicize the truth is often stronger than her political reservation.

In The Report, Daniel Jones is played by Adam Driver, who succeeds in yet another fabulous performance. His character is all business and slowly becomes personally consumed by the task at hand. Feinstein is brilliantly played by Annette Bening, who turns in her best performance since American Beauty 20 years ago. Bening plays Feinstein so convincingly, we forget were watching Annette Bening. It feels like Sen. Feinstein is actually playing herself in this film.

The supporting cast is strong, particularly the always reliable Maura Tierney as the CIA operative who headed up the torture regime following 9/11, and Douglas Hodge as the psychologist who sold the enhanced interrogation program to the CIA in 2001.

These early scenes are told in flashback format, but its not hard to follow, as the flashback scenes are presented with a different color format to give them a yellowed, older look.

While The Report may not rank as one of the years very best films, its superior to most of the drivel Hollywood cranks out these days. And for a picture with almost no action scenes save for some intense torture sequences during the flashbacks it holds our interest throughout its almost two-hour running time. Burns, directing from his own original screenplay, is the logical person to direct The Report. Hes responsible for the Bourne Ultimatum series which is obviously similar, although fictional. Steven Soderbergh produced The Report, and the result is a tight, well-written work in which the thrills come from the uncovering of information, and the presentation of potentially damaging facts as crucial in a democracy.

More:
The Report delivers the goods - Current in Carmel

Margaret Valenti writes on the necessity of resistance within the White House and the ramifications of Anonymous choice to remain anonymous.

A new book coming out, A Warning, is written by Anonymous, the same White House official who claimed in a New York Times article back in 2018 that they led a resistance against President Donald Trump from within the White House. The book speaks of the rampant turmoil within the Trump administration that has negatively impacted the U.S. and the world.

Similar to the Whistleblower currently wreaking havoc on the Trump administration a scandal which could theoretically cost Trump the White House or any chance of reelection there are attempts to identify and discredit the figure behind Anonymous. Donald Trump attempted to get The New York Times to give him the name of Anonymous back when the article was published. The Justice Department, at Trumps request, recently tried to get Hachette, the publisher of A Warning, to reveal the identity of the author as well, which Hachette refused to do.

Obviously, any insurgency within an administration, especially the White House, is deeply troubling and reveals a lot about the current state of the presidency and the country at large. No administration wants to endure a resistance from the inside, which is often more difficult to put down than any on the outside.

In a quote from The New York Times article, I Am Part Of A Resistance Within The White House, Anonymous writes that the erratic behavior would be more concerning if it werent for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

Perhaps some of these people are already out of the White House, even Anonymous themselves, but the issue of resistance within the White House, while perhaps necessary, is an issue of national security. There is hardly any denying that, it is almost as if the turmoil within the White House can somehow reverberate onto the citizens of the U.S. The rise of nationalism in countries and Presidents around the world like Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Rodrigo Duterte, Xi Jinping, Win Myint, and Jair Bolsonaro, to name a few, is a concern for liberals, who champion a globalist viewpoint rather than a patriotic one.

Most would claim that this rise in nationalism has more to do with the elected leaders than the resistance against them, but there is always a duality, a push and a pull. In the U.S., with the election of Obama, many were lured into the idea that the U.S. would continue on a liberal path. They did not anticipate the resistance that would come and then the counter-resistance that some feel is necessary now.

It is hard to know what Anonymous goals truly are. What proof is there, truly, that this person is doing anything at all to resist Trump from within the White House? Are we supposed to have blind faith? Even Anonymous admits themselves in their upcoming book that unelected bureaucrats and cabinet appointees were never going to steer Donald Trump in the right direction in the long run, or refine his malignant management style . . . He is who he is.

It is hard to know whether Anonymous can be trusted since they do not have the same evidence backing up their claims as the Whistleblower. Perhaps, A Warning will enlighten the public about these supposed efforts, but lets be clear, it is dangerous to dismiss Anonymous outright.

Ksenija Pavlovic McAteer, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of this publication, believes that Anonymous choice to remain anonymous erodes confidence in the constitutional powers of the First Amendment and ultimately disrespects those who choose to speak out and accept the repercussions. She wrote about her concerns recently in her article Grow Some Balls Anonymous And Take Off The Mask. However, if Anonymous is still working in the White House and should Anonymous hope to continue their resistance, revealing their identity might destroy everything they hope to gain by being an insider.

The First Amendment gives people the right to speak as they wish, with some limitations, and does not demand that they speak as they are. While the sacrifices both made by Jamal Khashoggi and Edward Snowden are excellent examples of people who exposed oppression and corruption, Khashoggi ended up dead and Snowden will continue his asylum in Russia until 2022. Snowden did flee on his own accord, but it is doubtful he would receive the same treatment as the current whistleblower. Given the specifics of his position in the CIA, he chose to whistleblow outside of government protocol and probably for good reason.

Both of these men were essentially labeled traitors and their individual circumstances were dealt with accordingly, with international ramifications. Anonymous is someone, like Snowden, whose very existence threatens the current stability of the U.S. Perhaps the government would protect Anonymous, but the First Amendment is clearly not a blanket protection. It certainly does not protect a U.S. citizen from foreign governments.

There are journalists in the U.S. who are jailed and threatened if they do not give up sources, and still they choose not to. In general, however, journalists do not look highly on anonymous sources. That is why when they choose to accept an anonymous source it is usually for a very good reason.

The New York Times acknowledged their decision to keep Anonymous anonymous in the initial article by writing that the Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers.

The book may not tell the public anything that they do not already know and Anonymous may simply be writing it to gain more popularity. Though Anonymous is against impeachment or the use of the 25th amendment to remove Trump from office, they do not want Trump to get reelected. Yet it is also true that Anonymous may be causing further disunion by writing the book, which is why they are against the use of impeachment and the 25th amendment in the first place. They cannot gain any profitsince all the proceeds from the book will be donated to the free press.

There are multiple cases around the world of journalists and traitors who did not and still do not have the luxury of being able to be anonymous and continue to speak out against oppression and corruption. These people are heroes. In no way does Anonymous choice to be anonymous intend to dishonor them. It is true that the U.S. offers a lot of protection for people who choose to speak out, but it is clear that the protection is still limited.

To still be a little bit afraid, especially during this administration, is not an invalid concern. Donald Trump and his allies still actively threaten the Whistleblower. If the Whistleblowers identity was ever publicly revealed, what would happen? Would they be protected or would they be labeled a traitor and end up like Snowden? There is a reason that anonymity is an important protection in The Whistleblower Protection Act.

If the blanket of anonymity is what Anonymous needs to speak out against this administration, even if they are no longer a senior White House official, I, personally, would rather they speak out than remain silent.

See the original post here:
Anonymous Is Necessary And Should Remain Anonymous - The Pavlovic Today