The Projects and People That Shaped Security in 2021 The New Stack – thenewstack.io

With the peak of the holiday season here, when most are running on lean teams and may not have the resources to respond to a serious cyberattack, the latest exploitation of log4j logging library has sent developers in a scramble. This breach capitalizes on what has been another whirlwind of a year in cybersecurity, froth with porous technology that has been steadily increasing the workloads for developers.

The ever-expanding cloud native landscape and broader adoption of open source software were met with increased pressure to accelerate release cycles, placing many businesses at greater risk this year. For many, the ransomware attacks, and the battlespace of the modern supply chain, gave adversaries a number of vulnerabilities to explore, while the U.S. presidential administration issued an executive order, requiring vendors who manufacture and distribute software to detail what is actually in their products particularly open source software in a software bill of materials (SBOM).

From building in security processes earlier in the application life cycle to revisiting existing security technology with evolving new practices, these are the top security stories of the year that influenced developers to keep hackers out of the cloud native ecosystem.

Top Security Stories of 2021:

#1: The Web App Firewall Is Dead and We Know Who Killed It Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) entered the market in the late 1990s and have traditionally served to protect data and assets from being exploited and attacked. But now, with many organizations operating under faster application release cycles, can the traditional WAF keep up? Check out this story by our sponsor Check Point, for the latest insights to maintain WAFs that will keep up with the speed of DevOps.

#2: Shell-less Kubernetes: Talos Systems Introduces the Common Operating System Interface Conventionally, Kubernetes is run on top of a standard Linux distribution but Talos Systems takes a different approach with its container-specific operations system (CSOS), Talos OS, which is driven by application programming interfaces (API)s. Talos Systems believes it is better to run Kubernetes on a CSOS than a general-purpose Linux because it avoids unnecessary overhead and lacks any built-in coordination with Kubernetes. Further, the attack surface is smaller than they would be with a general-purpose host OS, presenting fewer opportunities to compromise a container-specific host OS.

#3: Defend the Core: Kubernetes Security at Every Layer Kubernetes has exploded to 88% widespread adoption, yet more than half of respondents in Red Hats latest survey said theyve delayed deploying Kubernetes applications into production due to security concerns. In this story, Jimmy Mesta, Head of Security Research at Fastly, looks at the implications of containers and offers his advice of best practices to help keep the hackers out.

#4: Why Open Source Project Maintainers Are Reluctant to Use Digital Signatures, Two-Factor Authentication Open source continues to be abused by unscrupulous developers. In fact, a recent survey revealed that when asked if the open source projects they worked on required the use of 2FA such as theGitHub organizational setting Require two-factor authentication, almost half of the developers said they didnt use it. How then should open source organizations manage programmers to say who they are?

#5: How Parlers Data Was Harvested When the right-wing social network Parler was turned off by Amazon Web Services (AWS), Parlers data, including death threats and geotagged deleted messages was scraped and published on numerous public websites. Deleted messages were also captured as Parlers proprietary program didnt actually delete them. Instead, it marked them to be invisible to users which revealed bad security programming. Heres the story by The New Stacks Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols of how Parlers former members became victims of the community.

#6: Managing Kubernetes Secrets with AWS Secrets Manager GoDaddy, one of the leading web-hosting companies, open sourced an internal project called Kubernetes External Secrets. In this last story of a series by Principal Analyst, Janakiram MSV at Janakiram & Associates, he walks through how the project can used to configure secrets backed by Amazon Web Services Secrets Manager. Launched this year as part of Amazons CodeGuru service for developers, Amazons Secrets Detector machine learning feature automatically finds confidential system credentials that might be hidden in source code, helping to find bugs and security vulnerabilities then suggesting remedies.

Continued here:
The Projects and People That Shaped Security in 2021 The New Stack - thenewstack.io

Log4j: Where’s Fancy Bear been? Right there, choppin’ lumber… – The CyberWire

One of the mysteries about Log4shell so far has been the relative absence of Russian exploitation, whether by privateers or intelligence services. Given the extensive activity observed on the part of China, North Korea, Iran, and Turkey, where have the Russian threat actors been? BGRnoted that the usual Russian operators seemed to have been quiet, so far. Mandiant, in its own rundown of cyberespionage taking advantage of Log4j vulnerabilities, sensibly said, "We expect threat actors from additional countries will exploit it shortly, if they havent already. In some cases, state sponsored threat actors will work from a list of prioritized targets that existed long before this vulnerability was known. In other cases, they may conduct broad exploitation and then conduct further post-exploitation activities of targets as they are tasked to do so."

SecurityScorecard has solved that mystery. It reported this morning that it's observed Drovorub activity, and Drovorub points to its masters at Fancy Bear, APT28, Russia's GRU military intelligence service. Drovorub, which means "woodcutter," is a toolkit developed by the GRU's 85th Main Special Services Center for use against Linux-based systems. And that activity has been extensive. SecurityScorecard regards Russian reconnaissance, probing, and probable exploitation as comparable in scale to what's been observed from China. More developments can be expected, the researchers write: "Its important to remember that we are still in the very early days of trying to understand this security issue and how its being used by threat actors."

There's reason to think that self-propagating worms are under development to take advantage of Log4j bugs. Researcher Greg Linares believes at least three groups are working on a Log4j worm. SecurityWeek, which cites Linares, also quotes other researchers who think the news of a coming worm is unproven at least, unlikely at best, or probably likely to lead to worms less serious than some of the high-profile cases observed earlier this century.

The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) this morning issued Emergency Directive 22-02, directing the US Federal agencies that fall within its remit to identify and update all vulnerable systems no later than 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on December 23rd. CISA gives the agencies until December 28th to report completion. In full, the required actions are as follows:

"By 5 pm EST on December 23, 2021:

"By 5 pm EST on December 28, 2021:

Log4j is from Apache's open source library, and some have asked if the vulnerability exposed as Log4shell should call into question the very idea of using open-source software. The short answer would be, according to some, not at all. IT World Canada has a useful discussion of the issue, in which they point out that the Open Source Security Foundation is well-funded, backed by deep-pocketed tech firms, and that securing open source software is not a hobbyist's labor of love. The piece quotes the CTO of NCC Group, Ollie Whitehouse, who frames it this way:

All software, open-source, closed-source, has latent cybersecurity vulnerabilities. We are only now getting to a point where we understand how to industrialize the detection and remediation of that. And the Open Source Security Foundation, with very large technology vendor backing now, is making concerted efforts to give it support, understanding that some of these projects are maintained by small teams.

MIT Technology Review takes the contrary view, arguing that the security of open-source software is indeed overlooked and underfunded. Their article quotes Veracode's CTO, Chris Wysopal, who says, The open-source ecosystem is up there in importance to critical infrastructure with Linux, Windows, and the fundamental internet protocols. These are the top systemic risks to the internet.

In truth there are probably significant local variations in resourcing and attention, which is the case with software produced by a variety of teams in any organization.

Vendors are working to patch their products against Log4shell, and it's proving to involve the "struggle" most observers have foreseen, Reuters reports. As the patches are issued, they should of course be applies when practicable.

Ric Longenecker, CISO at Open Systems, wrote to offer an assessment of the Log4shell (and yes, he thinks, the exploits are indeed wormable):

Some are calling Log4J the vulnerability of the decade. Forty percent of organizations are reportedly being targeted, and it is wormable. Weve already gotten a taste of the potential impact of this vulnerability with Kronos Global being hit, and we should be wary of other potential organizations at risk and how it may impact the ability to distribute paychecks before the holidays. Companies must continue taking this very seriously and must ensure round-the-clock monitoring. We strongly encourage all companies to seek out a trusted security partner to help protect themselves against a potential attack. Log4J might be a doorway into an organization thats used as a foothold, but not executed on for several months. When that time comes, enterprises may be able to avert a severe compromise or ransomware attack if proper steps are taken beforehand.

He recommends that all organizations take these steps to protect themselves:

Rezilion also sent us some recommendations, and theirs are directed toward small businesses:

"Scan now with what you have, but make sure your scan also accounts for various types of nested JAR files and for cases in which Log4j isn't explicitly mentioned as part of the JAR name.

"Build a remediation plan that prioritizes patching Log4j instances that are loaded into memory first. This will ensure you patch what's actually exploitable first versus applying remediation efforts where it's not critically needed.

"Devote some resources into validating whether active exploitation of your organization is taking place. For organizations without appropriate commercial solutions, there are some recent open source projects available that are aimed at discovering exploitation attempts."

And the holiday season may be a busy one for IT and security teams. Randal Pinto, CTO of Red Sift, commented:

The log4j vulnerability will still be around for some time and security teams will have a busy holiday season patching up systems. But our advice for organizations is to be thorough in your assessment. Dont only look internally but also at your supply chain, given the number of ways this vulnerability can be exploited. Ultimately this is another stark reminder that hackers will try all channels as a way to infiltrate a system, not only the obvious ones.

Link:
Log4j: Where's Fancy Bear been? Right there, choppin' lumber... - The CyberWire

The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science – Reason

On September 28, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky shared the results of a new study that appeared to confirm the need for mask mandates in schools. The study was conducted in Arizona over the summer, and published by the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: It found that schools in counties without mask mandates had 3.5 times more outbreaks than schools in counties with mask mandates.

The significance of that finding should have raised eyebrows, according toThe Atlantic's David Zweig. "A number of the experts interviewed for this article said the size of the effect should have caused everyone involved in preparing, publishing, and publicizing the paper to tap the brakes," he wrote in a new article that explores the study's significant flaws. "Instead, they hit the gas."

His article demonstrates quite convincingly that the study's results are suspect:

But the Arizona study at the center of the CDC's back-to-school blitz turns out to have been profoundly misleading. "You can't learn anything about the effects of school mask mandates from this study," Jonathan Ketcham, a public-health economist at Arizona State University, told me. His view echoed the assessment of eight other experts who reviewed the research, and with whom I spoke for this article. Masks may well help prevent the spread of COVID, some of these experts told me, and there may well be contexts in which they should be required in schools. But the data being touted by the CDCwhich showed a dramaticmore-than-triplingof risk for unmasked studentsought to be excluded from this debate. The Arizona study's lead authors stand by their work, and so does the CDC. But the critics were forthright in their harsh assessments. Noah Haber, an interdisciplinary scientist and a co-author of a systematicreviewof COVID-19 mitigation policies, called the research "so unreliable that it probably should not have been entered into the public discourse."

It turns out that there were numerous problems with the study. Many of the schools that comprise its data set weren't even open at the time the study was completed; it counted outbreaks instead of cases; it did not control for vaccination status; it included schools that didn't fit the criteria. For these and other reasons, Zweig argues that the study ought to be ignored entirely: Masking in schools may or may not be a good idea, but this study doesn't help answer the question. Any public officialincluding and especially Walenskywho purports to follow the scienceshould toss this one in the trash.

In other COVID-19 news, the CDC is now recommending the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines over Johnson & Johnson due to the rare blood-clotting issues relating to the later. According to Fox Business:

Regulators eventually decided that the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine outweighed the risks, but theFDA released new datathis week showing that more cases have occurred in the summer and fall.

Women between the ages of 30 and 49 are most affected by the blood clotting issue at a rate of about 1 in 100,000 shots.

Health officials have confirmed 54 cases of the blood clots, nine of which have been fatal, CDC official Dr. Isaac See said Thursday. Two more deaths are suspected to be related to the blood clotting issue.

The J&J shot doesn't seem to provide much protection against the now-surging omicron variant, in any case.

Speaking of omicron, the latest COVID-19 variant is spreading throughout the U.S., and is already causing a wave of shutdowns on some college campuses, including Cornell University, Stanford University, Georgetown University, New York University, and Princeton University. That these campuses all saw cases spike despite 95 percent vaccination rates likely means that the vaccines are not doing nearly enough to slow and stop infection, though they still seem to offer significant protection against severe disease and death.

That will end up being key: In Washington, D.C., for instance, high vaccination rates meant that while the delta wave did cause a spike in cases, the city's death rate did not increase at all.

Hopefully, we see something similar with omicron, though everyone should prepare for Democratic officials to bring back mask mandates (and maybe lockdowns) in response to rising cases. Mayor Muriel Bowser will probably reinstate D.C.'s mask mandatejust as soon as her own holiday parties are over.

Last week, a British court ruled that Julian Assange could face extradition to the U.S. Assange's legal team has argued that doing so would put Assange's health in grave danger: He has already suffered a mini stroke, and his brother has said, "I have no doubt he will die" if extradited.

For years, the founder of WikiLeaks hid in the U.K.'s Ecuadorian embassy to evade government authorities who want to prosecute him for publishing the Chelsea Manning leaks, which revealed horrific wrongdoings perpetrated by the U.S. military. The effort to punish Assange is a blow to freedom of the press and the First Amendment, and one that all civil libertarians ought to oppose.

One MSNBC columnist, Frank Figliuzzi, is treating the possible extradition of Assange as a potential window intothe Mueller investigation:

Former President Donald Trump already faces a future filled withlegal battlesin multiplefederal, state and local jurisdictions fromGeorgiato theDistrict of ColumbiatoNew York stateandManhattan. And, now, a British court decision againstWikiLeaks founder Julian Assangecould resurrect the two seminal questions from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation: Did Trump obstruct justice, and did his campaign collude with Russia? Assange, an Australian citizen sitting inHer Majesty's Prison Belmarsh in southeast London, may hold the key that reopens the prosecutive possibilities.

Liberals should be howling about the unjust persecution of Assange, not salivating at the near-zero chance that he would provide new information that would bring back the possibility of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.

The Republican Party is paying Trump's legal expenses, according toThe Washington Post:

The Republican Party has agreed to pay up to $1.6 million in legal bills for former president Donald Trump to help him fight investigations into his business practices in New York, according to Republican National Committee members and others briefed on the decision.

The party's executive committee overwhelmingly approved the payments at a meeting this summer in Nashville, according to four members and others with knowledge of the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private meeting of the executive committee.

That means the GOP's commitment to pay Trump's personal legal expenses could be more than 10 times higher than previously known.

Last month, the GOP said in campaign-finance filings that it had paid Trump's personal attorneys $121,670 in October. More payments have been made since then. A party official said Thursday that the RNC paid $578,000 in November to attorneys known to be representing both Trump and his businesses.

Original post:
The Study That Convinced the CDC To Support Mask Mandates in Schools Is Junk Science - Reason

Anthony Broadwater Was Convicted of Raping Alice Sebold. Then the Case Unraveled. – The New York Times

The young womans face was bruised in multiple places, her long brown hair matted with bits of leaves.

There was a fresh bump on the back of her head and a cut on the left side of her nose. Her tan cardigan and Calvin Klein jeans were streaked with dirt. Abrasions covered her body. Traces of blood and semen were found inside her vagina as well as on her underwear.

She was just 18, a freshman at Syracuse University who had arrived at the adjacent Crouse Irving Memorial Hospital in the early morning of May 8, 1981.

Her name was Alice Sebold. And she had been raped.

The assailant was a stranger, but Ms. Sebold had studied his appearance his small but muscular build, the way he gestured, his eyes and lips.

And so, five months later, when she spotted a man named Anthony Broadwater near a restaurant on Marshall Street, Ms. Sebold knew she had solved her case. She reported him to the authorities, saying that Mr. Broadwater had said to her, Dont I know you from somewhere?

At the trial the following year, Ms. Sebold took the stand and described how she had celebrated the last day of the school year at a friends apartment, then left to head back to her dormitory, following a brick path through Thornden Park.

She testified that a man had grabbed her from behind, punched her, threatened to kill her with a knife, dragged her by her hair, then raped her in what she described as a tunnel.

Is there any doubt in your mind, Miss Sebold, that the person that you saw on Marshall Street is the person who attacked you on May 8 in Thornden Park? the prosecutor asked.

No doubt whatsoever.

Years later, Ms. Sebold would recount in a best-selling memoir that she felt confident justice had been served. She had been sweaty and shaky by the end of her testimony but was bolstered by the words of a bailiff.

Ive been in this business for 30 years, he said. You are the best rape witness Ive ever seen on the stand.

Anthony James Broadwater was born in Syracuse, the fourth of six boys, and lived for a while near Syracuse University, where his father worked as a janitor. He rarely set foot on campus, saying he felt that it was off limits to him and other young Black locals. Instead, he spent time at a community recreation center and the local Boys & Girls Club.

When he was about 5 years old, his mother died of pneumonia. It was he and his brother Wade who discovered her body on the couch in their living room.

Known as Tony, Anthony Broadwater was outgoing and rambunctious, often tussling with his siblings. Wade Broadwater recalled how his brother could get caught up in entertaining a crowd and was once stopped for letting kids ride on the roof of his car. While the police who patrolled the neighborhood were familiar with the brothers, Anthony Broadwater had never been accused of anything serious.

A skilled wrestler at Henninger High School, he dropped out around 17 and was intrigued when a Marine Corps recruiter said he could be on a flight to California within days. I wanted to see the world and try to better myself, he said.

Stationed at Twentynine Palms and Camp Pendleton, he ended up with a cyst on his wrist. He was discharged and received disability for the injury. He returned to Syracuse, where his father was ill with stomach cancer, and eventually took a job installing phones for a telecommunications company.

On Oct. 5, 1981, he and a friend drove over to Marshall Street, a stretch of restaurants and shops that had long served as a gathering place for college students. While his friend was inside a store, Mr. Broadwater recognized a police officer from his younger days. Later, in court, the officer and Mr. Broadwater would each remember calling out to the other, Dont I know you?

The two made small talk, unaware that Ms. Sebold had passed Mr. Broadwater on the street and was watching their exchange.

Days later, Mr. Broadwater was taken into custody. Ms. Sebold had identified him as her rapist.

But when it came time for the police lineup, Ms. Sebold, who is white, looked at the Black men before her and indicated that her attacker was the last person in the row, Number Five. Mr. Broadwater was Number Four. She would insist an hour later that the two men had looked identical to her.

Studies would later show that misidentifications by eyewitnesses, especially those that are cross-racial, make up a large percentage of erroneous convictions.

Mr. Broadwater was charged with eight felony counts, including rape and sodomy. He was 20 years old.

In 1981, Syracuse was a city of 170,000 with a dwindling manufacturing industry. Located in Central New York at the edge of the Finger Lakes region, its economy had grown increasingly dependent on Syracuse University, although a disconnect loomed between students and their surroundings.

Locals, often called townies, were discouraged from going near the campus in the University Hill neighborhood in the center of the city. Black residents made up about 16 percent of the citys population and tended to live in its poorer areas.

Onondaga County did not have a public defenders division, so it relied on a list of volunteers in private practice who worked for a small hourly rate. The Broadwater case was assigned to Steven Paquette, a defense attorney two years into his career who had already represented dozens of clients.

Mr. Paquette, the son of a UPS driver, was the first in his family to attend college and was idealistic about criminal defense work. He often felt that his Black clients could not get a fair shake in a county where jury pools tended to be mostly white and conservative.

He found Mr. Broadwater to be unusual because he was intensely eager about cooperating with the district attorneys office.

He was emphatic throughout that they got the wrong guy, recalled Mr. Paquette, now 66. It was a disbelief coupled with a faith that once the facts were out, justice would be done for him.

Mr. Paquette was one of more than two dozen people connected to Mr. Broadwater, Ms. Sebold or the rape case who spoke to The New York Times.

Times reporters also reviewed hundreds of pages of court documents and exhibits, as well as Ms. Sebolds memoir, for this article.

Mr. Paquette encouraged Mr. Broadwater to opt for a bench trial. The judge, Walter T. Gorman, was considered a thoughtful and competent adjudicator.

The states case was to be presented by William Mastine, a confident prosecutor whose law career would end the following decade after he pleaded guilty to defrauding a client, according to court documents and news reports.

At 6-foot-6, Mr. Mastine usually towered over others in the courtroom and enjoyed facing off against another lawyer on a final stage. Its not a rush, just a satisfaction that what youre doing is right, said Mr. Mastine, now 74.

He had been handed the Broadwater case only a week before, he said. Based upon everything we had in front of us, he was the guy, he said.

The trial began on May 17, 1982, and lasted just two days. DNA analysis was unavailable at the time, but a forensic chemist testified that a pubic hair from a Black person that had been recovered from the rape kit was consistent with the hair sample Mr. Broadwater had submitted.

Hair comparison has since been discredited as an unreliable science that can match little beyond a persons race and is responsible for many wrongful convictions.

Ms. Sebold held firm to her account.

I could not have identified him as the man who raped me unless he was the man who raped me, she testified.

Mr. Broadwater was the last to take the stand, the only witness to testify for the defense. His lawyer asked him to discuss his unique facial markings features Ms. Sebold had never reported, although she had described being a centimeter away from her rapist.

I have a scar underneath my chin, and I had an operation in 74 on my eye, Mr. Broadwater testified. Also, I have a chipped tooth.

In his closing argument, Mr. Mastine, the prosecutor, reminded the court that Ms. Sebold had been a virgin, a detail brought up more than once throughout the case.

Afterward, the defense was startled when Judge Gorman immediately announced he was ready to rule.

He declared simply and with no insight into his decision that Mr. Broadwater was guilty of rape in the first degree.

Mr. Broadwater was taken into custody, departing from a courtroom devoid of any friends or family members. He had not asked anyone to attend the trial, certain that he would walk free.

The Great Read

Here are more fascinating talesyou cant help but read all the way to the end.

Ms. Sebold would go on to write The Lovely Bones, a novel about a 14-year-old girl who is raped and murdered. Published in 2002, it reached the top of the New York Times best-seller list, selling more than 10 million copies before eventually being adapted into a film.

Its success led readers to discover Lucky, the 1999 memoir Ms. Sebold had written about her own rape, in which she had changed the name of her attacker to Gregory Madison.

The raw, personal account of her trauma served as inspiration for many sexual assault victims and impressed those who had already acknowledged her writing talent.

She was a considered person, a deeply honest-to-the-core writer, unstinting and tenaciously unwilling to offer anything but her best, said the poet Tess Gallagher, one of Ms. Sebolds professors at Syracuse, in an email to The Times. Ms. Gallagher had also accompanied Ms. Sebold to the preliminary hearing for the assault case.

I was beside her then and remember how terrified she was in that courtroom, Ms. Gallagher said.

The memoir follows Ms. Sebolds entire journey through the criminal justice system.

In one scene, she recounts how a prosecutor she trusted, named Gail Uebelhoer, told her that the man she identified in the lineup was a friend of Mr. Broadwater and had tricked her by staring menacingly.

According to the book, Ms. Uebelhoer then coached her into explaining away the misidentification in front of the grand jury. When reached by The Times, Ms. Uebelhoer declined to comment.

Even slight or inadvertent nudges during lineups have been shown to influence a victims memory. According to the Innocence Project, lineups should be conducted in a double-blind manner, where the administrator does not know which person is the suspect and the witness is not assured the suspect is present.

Ms. Sebold also described being given a short break while testifying, during which she received a visit from Judge Gorman, who warmly asked about her family. His tone was more gentle than the one he used in court, Ms. Sebold wrote. Judge Gorman died in 2009.

These passages would help illustrate the flaws in Mr. Broadwaters case. But not for two more decades.

While in prison, Mr. Broadwater obtained his G.E.D. and studied the law, trying repeatedly to get his case revisited. At one point he hoped to retain Johnnie Cochran, sending $1,000 saved from his disability payments and custodial job. But the lawyers firm returned the money, informing him it did not handle post-conviction matters.

Mr. Broadwaters father, who believed in his innocence, wanted to help but was undergoing chemotherapy. He died in 1983.

At each parole hearing, Mr. Broadwater refused to admit guilt, despite knowing he would fare better if he expressed responsibility for the crime. He wondered if he would die in prison like the man he watched get fatally stabbed during a fight.

Sixteen years crept by. He was finally released on the last day of 1998. But freedom came with a cage. A sex offender on parole, he had to abide by a curfew and was prohibited from most workplaces.

He relied on temporary gigs, taking a job at a metal plating factory, bagging potatoes, doing yardwork and roofing, mopping floors, scavenging for scrap metal. Night jobs were helpful, because they gave him the alibi he had lacked when police questioned him about Ms. Sebold. He believed he had been home at the time but had no proof.

Whispers that he was a rapist were deafening. Friends were scarce. Mr. Broadwaters computer use had to be monitored after he was released, so he found it easier just to never learn how to work one. Still, he continued to reach out to lawyers.

One disappeared with $1,400. Another failed to obtain Mr. Broadwaters file, which had been sealed. When a car accident left Mr. Broadwater with a neck injury, he set aside most of the $30,000 payout, hoping he could find a lawyer to take his case.

He began dating Elizabeth a year after his release. She was Baptist like him, had a sincere way about her and was a homebody. He wasted no time handing her a file with information about his past.

If youre going to be in a relationship with me, this is what Im going to be fighting all my life, he said. She pored over the papers in tears. I dont know how they did this to you, she said. Im going to be with you.

What happened to her in 1981? In May 1981,Ms. Sebold, who was then a freshman at Syracuse University, had celebrated the last day of the school year at a friends apartment. She was raped in a park as she returned home.

Who is Anthony Broadwater? Five months after her rape, Ms. Sebold, who is white, spotted Mr. Broadwater, who is Black, in Syracuse and told the authorities he was her assailant. At the time, Mr. Broadwater worked for a telecommunications company.

What happened next? Days after Ms. Sebold made her report, Mr. Broadwater was taken into custody. Though she failed to identify him during a police lineup, Mr. Broadwater was found guilty of rape in the first degree. He has always maintained he was innocent.

Why is the case back in the news? Mr. Broadwater, who spent 16 years in prison and was released in 1998, had tried to clear his name for decades. New lawyers took up his cause earlier this year, and argued that the case against him was deeply flawed. On Nov. 22, a state judge exonerated him.

They moved into the dilapidated house his father had left behind. She wanted children, but Mr. Broadwater felt it would be unfair to bring kids into his difficult world.

He learned of Ms. Sebolds memoir around 2006, but he had no interest in reading what he considered his own horror story.

It was in the hands of another convicted felon that the case against Mr. Broadwater began to unravel.

Timothy Mucciante was a disbarred lawyer from Michigan who had gone to prison multiple times for fraud. His most wild scheme was one in which he convinced investors he would buy condoms and latex gloves and trade them in Russia for chickens that would be sold in Saudi Arabia. He pocketed the money instead.

After his last prison stint ended in 2010, Mr. Mucciante hoped to reform himself, he said.

I certainly have a lot to make up for in terms of what I owe the world, he said in an interview.

Earlier this year, Mr. Mucciante was forging ahead in a new career, having started his own film production company. He had joined other producers who were adapting Ms. Sebolds memoir and planning to film it in Toronto. He offered to cover the films entire budget of 6.5 million Canadian dollars.

As Mr. Mucciante read the script and the book, he was struck by how little evidence was presented at trial. He said he began to doubt the memoirs veracity and withheld funding until he was dismissed from the project, which never got off the ground.

But three people who worked on the film said Mr. Mucciante did not raise questions about the memoir, and that his contract was terminated in early June because he failed to deliver the money he had promised, claims Mr. Mucciante disputes.

Court documents show Mr. Mucciante, 62, has filed for bankruptcy on at least a dozen occasions, but he told The Times that he is currently financially stable.

In late June, Mr. Mucciante decided to take a deeper look at Ms. Sebolds trial. He found and hired Dan Myers, a retired detective who had spent 20 years with the Onondaga County Sheriffs Office and was working as a private investigator.

Mr. Myers learned that Gregory Madison from the book was in fact Anthony Broadwater. He told The Times that a police officer who worked on the case had offered him a stunning admission: He did not believe the right man had been caught.

Mr. Myers connected Mr. Broadwater with David Hammond, a criminal defense lawyer he worked with who had served as a judge advocate in the Army. Mr. Hammond also helped represent Chelsea Manning as she appealed her conviction for espionage.

Intrigued, Mr. Hammond reached out to Melissa Swartz, a lawyer at a different firm known for her forensic expertise.

The two were friends and liked to team up. One of their cases was taking years to put together. But as they separately combed through Mr. Broadwaters files, they began feverishly texting each other.

After talking at length with Mr. Broadwater and reading Ms. Sebolds memoir, the lawyers discovered the arguments they could make for exoneration were astonishingly obvious: The flawed hair comparison testimony. The heavy reliance on Ms. Sebold spotting her rapist five months afterward. The misidentification during the police lineup. The fact that Mr. Broadwater had passed two polygraph tests.

All of it illustrated what, Mr. Hammond said, was a travesty hiding in plain sight: Forty years, yet all it took was someone to pick up the trial transcript and, frankly, talk to Anthony and read Lucky.

Soon the same revelations were had by William Fitzpatrick, the Onondaga County district attorney who joined Mr. Broadwaters lawyers in their motion to overturn the conviction. A handful of years ago, he said, he had instructed his staff to review cases that used hair comparison. Mr. Broadwaters name never came up.

Mr. Fitzpatrick said he emailed with Ms. Sebold and asked her about conversations that, as depicted in the memoir, were improper.

Ms. Sebold, he said, told him that a long time had passed by the time she wrote the memoir and that she had written scenes as she remembered them.

On Nov. 22, Mr. Broadwater arrived at a courthouse a block away from the one that had entombed him in a false narrative. He was 61 years old, with gray in his braids and a forehead creased with age.

When the judge announced his exoneration, he let out a gasp, leaned forward and cried.

Ms. Sebold said she had learned a few weeks before Mr. Broadwaters exoneration that the district attorney was re-evaluating the case.

Its hard to unravel a truth I now know to be false and that has been part of my life for forty years and my work for twenty, without my whole understanding of truth and justice falling apart, she said through a spokesman in an email to The Times, adding that she hadnt been able to think about much else.

Every word Ive read that Anthony Broadwater has said has made me see him as a man who, though brutalized, somehow came through it with a generous heart, she said. To go from thinking he was the man who raped me to believing he was an innocent victim is an earth-shattering change.

In an earlier statement posted to Medium, Ms. Sebold said that her goal in 1982 was justice not to perpetuate injustice and that she was now wrestling with the realization that her rapist went free.

She said that Mr. Broadwater had become another young Black man brutalized by our flawed legal system. She added: I am sorry most of all for the fact that the life you could have led was unjustly robbed from you.

Scribner, which published Lucky, has ceased its distribution and will consider along with Ms. Sebold how it might be revised. To do justice to the new reality and all the ramifications of the past would be a huge undertaking, Ms. Sebold said in her email. It might also be amazing.

Fans of the author now find themselves grappling with the news that Mr. Broadwater had been a victim, too.

See more here:
Anthony Broadwater Was Convicted of Raping Alice Sebold. Then the Case Unraveled. - The New York Times

A day in the death of British justice – newagebd.net

Stella Moris, partner of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, makes a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London on December 10. Agence France-Presse/Niklas Hallen

THE pursuit of Julian Assange for revealing secrets and lies of governments, especially the crimes of America, has entered its final stage as the British judiciary upholders of British justice merge their deliberations with the undeterred power of Washington.

I sat in Court 4 in the Royal Courts of Justice in London with Stella Morris, Julian Assanges partner. I have known Stella for as long as I have known Julian. She, too, is a voice of freedom, coming from a family that fought the fascism of Apartheid. Today, her name was uttered in court by a barrister and a judge, forgettable people were it not for the power of their endowed privilege.

The barrister, Clair Dobbin, is in the pay of the regime in Washington, first Trumps then Bidens. She is Americas hired gun, or silk, as she would prefer. Her target is Julian Assange, who has committed no crime and has performed a historic public service by exposing the criminal actions and secrets on which governments, especially those claiming to be democracies, base their authority.

For those who may have forgotten, WikiLeaks, of which Assange is founder and publisher, exposed the secrets and lies that led to the invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen, the murderous role of the Pentagon in dozens of countries, the blueprint for the 20-year catastrophe in Afghanistan, the attempts by Washington to overthrow elected governments, such as Venezuelas, the collusion between nominal political opponents (Bush and Obama) to stifle a torture investigation and the CIAs Vault 7 campaign that turned your mobile phone, even your TV set, into a spy in your midst.

WikiLeaks released almost a million documents from Russia which allowed Russian citizens to stand up for their rights. It revealed the Australian government had colluded with the US against its own citizen, Assange. It named those Australian politicians who have informed for the US. It made the connection between the Clinton Foundation and the rise of jihadism in American-armed states in the Gulf.

There is more: WikiLeaks disclosed the US campaign to suppress wages in sweatshop countries like Haiti, Indias campaign of torture in Kashmir, the British governments secret agreement to shield US interests in its official Iraq inquiry and the British Foreign Offices plan to create a fake marine protection zone in the Indian Ocean to cheat the Chagos islanders out of their right of return.

In other words, WikiLeaks has given us real news about those who govern us and take us to war, not the preordained, repetitive spin that fills newspapers and television screens. This is real journalism; and for the crime of real journalism, Assange has spent most of the past decade in one form of incarceration or another, including Belmarsh prison, a horrific place.

Diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, he is a gentle, intellectual visionary driven by his belief that a democracy is not a democracy unless it is transparent, and accountable.

Yesterday, the United States sought the approval of Britains High Court to extend the terms of its appeal against a decision by a district judge, Vanessa Baraitser, in January to bar Assanges extradition. Baraitser accepted the deeply disturbing evidence of a number of experts that Assange would be at great risk if he were incarcerated in the USs infamous prison system.

Professor Michael Kopelman, a world authority on neuropsychiatry, had said Assange would find a way to take his own life the direct result of what Professor Nils Melzer, the United Nations Rapporteur on Torture, described as the craven mobbing of Assange by governments and their media echoes.

Those of us who were in the Old Bailey last September to hear Kopelmans evidence were shocked and moved. I sat with Julians father, John Shipton, whose head was in his hands. The court was also told about the discovery of a razor blade in Julians Belmarsh cell and that he had made desperate calls to the Samaritans and written notes and much else that filled us with more than sadness.

Watching the lead barrister acting for Washington, James Lewis a man from a military background who deploys a cringingly theatrical aha! formula with defence witnesses reduce these facts to malingering and smearing witnesses, especially Kopelman, we were heartened by Kopelmans revealing response that Lewiss abuse was a bit rich as Lewis himself had sought to hire Kopelmans expertise in another case.

Lewiss sidekick is Clair Dobbin, and the 11th of August was her day. Completing the smearing of Professor Kopelman was down to her. An American with some authority sat behind her in court.

Dobbin said Kopelman had misled Judge Baraister in September because he had not disclosed that Julian Assange and Stella Morris were partners, and their two young children, Gabriel and Max, were conceived during the period Assange had taken refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

The implication was that this somehow lessened Kopelmans medical diagnosis: that Julian, locked up in solitary in Belmarsh prison and facing extradition to the US on bogus espionage charges, had suffered severe psychotic depression and had planned, if he had not already attempted, to take his own life.

For her part, Judge Baraitser saw no contradiction. The full nature of the relationship between Stella and Julian had been explained to her in March 2020, and Professor Kopelman had made full reference to it in his report in August 2020. So the judge and the court knew all about it before the main extradition hearing last September. In her judgement in January, Baraitser said this:

[Professor Kopelman] assessed Mr Assange during the period May to December 2019 and was best placed to consider at first-hand his symptoms. He has taken great care to provide an informed account of Mr Assange background and psychiatric history. He has given close attention to the prison medical notes and provided a detailed summary annexed to his December report. He is an experienced clinician and he was well aware of the possibility of exaggeration and malingering. I had no reason to doubt his clinical opinion.

She added that she had not been misled by the exclusion in Kopelmans first report of the Stella-Julian relationship and that she understood that Kopelman was protecting the privacy of Stella and her two young children.

In fact, as I know well, the familys safety was under constant threat to the point when an embassy security guard confessed he had been told to steal one of the babys nappies so that a CIA-contracted company could analyse its DNA. There has been a stream of unpublicised threats against Stella and her children.

For the US and its legal hirelings in London, damaging the credibility of a renowned expert by suggesting he withheld this information was a way, they no doubt reckoned, to rescue their crumbling case against Assange. In June, the Icelandic newspaper Stundin reported that a key prosecution witness against Assange has admitted fabricating his evidence. The one hacking charge the Americans hoped to bring against Assange if they could get their hands on him depended on this source and witness, Sigurdur Thordarson, an FBI informant.

Thordarson had worked as a volunteer for WikiLeaks in Iceland between 2010 and 2011. In 2011, as several criminal charges were brought against him, he contacted the FBI and offered to become an informant in return for immunity from all prosecution. It emerged that he was a convicted fraudster who embezzled $55,000 from WikiLeaks, and served two years in prison. In 2015, he was sentenced to three years for sex offenses against teenage boys. The Washington Post described Thordarsons credibility as the core of the case against Assange.

In the High Court, Lord Chief Justice Holroyde made no mention of this witness. His concern was that it was arguable that Judge Baraitser had attached too much weight to the evidence of Professor Kopelman, a man revered in his field. He said it was very unusual for an appeal court to have to reconsider evidence from an expert accepted by a lower court, but he agreed with Ms Dobbin it was misleading even though he accepted Kopelmans understandable human response to protect the privacy of Stella and the children.

If you can unravel the arcane logic of this, you have a better grasp than I who have sat through this case from the beginning. It is clear Kopelman misled nobody. Judge Baraitser whose hostility to Assange personally was a presence in her court said that she was not misled; it was not an issue; it did not matter. So why had Lord Chief Chief Justice Holroyde spun the language with its weasel legalise and sent Julian back to his cell and its nightmares? There, he now waits for the High Courts final decision in October for Julian Assange, a life or death decision.

And why did Holroyde send Stella from the court trembling with anguish? Why is this case unusual? Why did he throw the gang of prosecutor-thugs at the Department of Justice in Washington who got their big chance under Trump, having been rejected by Obama a life raft as their rotting, corrupt case against a principled journalist sunk as surely as Titantic?

This does not necessarily mean that in October the full bench of the High Court will order Julian to be extradited. In the upper reaches of the masonry that is the British judiciary there are, I understand, still those who believe in real law and real justice from which the term British justice takes its sanctified reputation in the land of the Magna Carta. It now rests on their ermined shoulders whether that history lives on or dies.

I sat with Stella in the courts colonnade while she drafted words to say to the crowd of media and well-wishers outside in the sunshine. Clip-clopping along came Clair Dobbin, spruced, ponytail swinging, bearing her carton of files: a figure of certainty: she who said Julian Assange was not so ill that he would consider suicide. How does she know?

Has Ms Dobbin worked her way through the medieval maze at Belmarsh to sit with Julian in his yellow arm band, as Professors Koppelman and Melzer have done, and Stella has done, and I have done? Never mind. The Americans have now promised not to put him in a hellhole, just as they promised not to torture Chelsea Manning.

And has she read the WikiLeaks leak of a Pentagon document dated 15 March, 2009? I recommend this document, for it foretells much of what has happened. US intelligence, it says, intended to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assanges centre of gravity with threats and criminal prosecution. Read all 32 pages and you are left in no doubt that silencing and criminalising independent journalism was the aim, smear the method.

I tried to catch Ms Dobbins gaze, but she was on her way: job done.

Outside, Stella struggled to contain her emotion. This is one brave woman, as indeed her man is an exemplar of courage. What has not been discussed today, said Stella, is why I feared for my safety and the safety of our children and for Julians life. The constant threats and intimidation we endured for years, which has been terrorising us and has been terrorising Julian for 10 years. We have a right to live, we have a right to exist and we have a right for this nightmare to come to an end once and for all.

DissidentVoice.org, December 12. John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker.

View post:
A day in the death of British justice - newagebd.net

Can The 1982 Island Trees Case Impact Todays Book Censorship? This Weeks Book Censorship News… – Book Riot

If you care about book challenges and censorship, one Supreme Court case you should familiarize yourself with which hasnt been cited nearly during this flux of challenges is Board of Education, Island Trees School District vs. Pico (Island Trees). This landmark 1982 case was the first to address the removal of books from school libraries across the country. Though it was a 5-4 split within the court, the ruling in favor of Pico meant that no school board could remove books from a library once itd been added, simply because they disagreed with the content within it.

Justice Brennan, in announcing the judgement which did not have a majority opinion to it, stated:

The Island Trees case came from an incident in the school district located in Levittown, New York, in 1975. A group which called themselves Parents of New York United submitted a list of 11 books they considered inappropriate to the school board, which then removed the books from the library and proceeded to send them through the review committee. Even though the committee said five of nine titles should be returned to shelves, the school board overruled the decision, returning only two (the other two books in question were a book in the junior high school that contained the satirical essay A Modest Proposal, and a book in the 12th grade curriculum, and both were removed).

The school board made this decision because they were anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Sem[i]tic, and just plain filthy, according to the case syllabus.

Today In Books Newsletter

Sign up to Today In Books to receive daily news and miscellany from the world of books.

Thank you for signing up! Keep an eye on your inbox.

High school senior Steven Pico, in the case, helped bring the voices of four fellow high school students and one junior high school student into the story. All of them pushed back against the boards decision. They believed thanks, in part, to the precedent set with the Tinker vs. Des Moines case that their First Amendment rights were being violated.

One possible reason why this case hasnt been cited is that it wasnt legally binding because there wasnt a majority opinion. But because it also hasnt been challenged, it stands as a powerful reminder of a few things: this isnt and never has been the first time books in school libraries have been challenged, let alone that books by authors of color have been at the center of the discussion (the 11 titles included books by Piri Thomas, Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, Alice Childress, and Eldridge Cleaver); its not the first time that students have been forced to speak up for their First Amendment Rights; its noteworthy that the ruling stated this means books cannot be removed from school libraries because of disagreement with what they present (i.e., stories of those from the global majority and queer stories); that school boards have exerted more power than granted to them; and more.

When and if we begin to see lawsuits arising from todays censorship landscape, watch for Island Trees to be cited and revisited. The Supreme Court isnt stacked in favor of intellectual freedom right now, given the appointments made by the treasonous former administration, but prior rulings give weight to the reality that book censorship denies rights granted to young people in the First Amendment.

Onto this weeks book censorship news, with a toolkit for how to fight book bans and challenges, as well as how to spot fake news sites many of which are fueling these censorship attempts. Note: This will be the final roundup of 2021. Roundups will continue beginning the first full week of 2022.

Heres this weeks intellectual freedom hero:

And a couple more must-reads from authors experiencing challenges or outright censorship: author Jo Knowles talks about two of her queer-positive books being challenged in Texas and Derf Backderf talks about why his graphic memoir My Friend Dahmer has been banned.

View original post here:

Can The 1982 Island Trees Case Impact Todays Book Censorship? This Weeks Book Censorship News... - Book Riot

[Interview] Index on Censorship will continue to monitor government suppression of the media in Turkey: Jemimah Steinfeld – Stockholm Center for…

Author and journalist Jemimah Steinfeld said in an interview with the Stockholm Center for Freedom that the jailing of journalists in Turkey is worrying and that Index on Censorship has been closely following the country for 10 years and will continue to do so in the future. What is happening in Turkey has obviously been very upsetting. In countries like Turkey there is, of course, a lack of plurality of the press, and the circumstances are very challenging. We will continue to monitor Turkey and highlight problems associated with press freedom in the future, she said.

As part of SCFs interview series Freedom Talks, our research director Dr. Merve R. Kaykc talked to Jemimah Steinfeld about freedom of press and the suppression of journalists in Turkey.

Steinfeld is the head of content at Index on Censorship, a nonprofit that campaigns for freedom expression worldwide and publish work by censored writers and artists. She has lived and worked in both Shanghai and Beijing, where she has written on a wide range of topics, with a particular focus on youth culture, gender and censorship. She is the author of Little Emperors and Material Girls: Sex and Youth in Modern China, which was described by Financial Times as meticulously researched and highly readable. Steinfeld has freelanced for a variety of publications, including The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, Vice, CNN, Time Out and the Huffington Post. She has a degree in history from Bristol University and went on to earn an MA in Chinese studies at SOAS University of London.

You work at Index on Censorship. How are organizations like yours important in monitoring media freedom and advocating for improvement?

The first issue of our magazine came out in 1972. The organization was founded in 1971, and right from the start it has been about addressing censorship in all forms, while some of the early foundations of Index and the idea behind Index was to smuggle writings from and work with writers from Iron Curtain countries. We look at censorship in its entirety. Censorship is not a right problem or a left problem. We look at it globally and from the top down, for instance, an autocrat imprisoning a writer. But also, from the bottom up, for instance, weve had cases with LGBT people from China who dont feel like they can come out to their parents because there is too much pressure on them to have kids. Freedom of speech is probably the most important human right because without free speech you cannot talk about other human rights. Media freedom really sits at the center of free speech because journalists really are the people who hold power to account in the most visible, open way they are the ones who investigate whats going on. Journalists are so crucial to free speech that they are quite often the first people to be punished when there is a dictatorship. They are the first people to be arrested and to be told that their words need to be changed. Therefore, media freedom fits in the broader structures of power and coercion.

We have a magazine, where in each issue we work with up to 40 journalists and we pay everyone because we see that as really, really important to media freedom. I mean, one of the things thats happened in the last few decades, especially with the increasing use of the Internet, is that journalists often dont get paid for their work. And that in and of itself is a way of silencing journalists and making it incredibly hard to be a journalist. Paying journalists is really key to treating them with respect.

Do you think media freedom is at the point it should be in liberal countries, or are there still steps that can be taken for improvement?

It would really depend on the different countries. Even in liberal countries there are laws that can be very punishing to journalists. For instance, at the moment we are leading an initiative called SLAPP, which is short for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

One of the most important cases is that of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed on October 17, 2017. She got into her car outside her home, and it exploded. Killing her basically silenced her because she was a very daring, courageous and brilliant journalist who had been exposing a lot of corruption. Around the time she died there were 40 lawsuits against her.

Powerful individuals and organizations resort to these lawsuits with the aim of physically and financially exhausting journalists even if there isnt really a case against them. They want to intimidate journalists into silence, and other journalists who witness such lawsuits may self-censor to avoid them. Such lawsuits are currently perfectly legal in many countries.

Of course, the situation is still better than in places like China. Ive worked in a newsroom in China that was censored, and I have worked in newsrooms in the UK. I have seen what happens, and it is not the same thing. However, that does not mean we are at a perfect place in the UK.

A final thing is lots of journalists and particularly female journalists in places like the UK and the US are subjected to online harassment. Such harassment is vicious, and its particularly vicious to women. Journalism is a more high-profile profession, and lots of journalists are putting their names and faces out there in the public.

They are uncovering things that people dont always want to read and hear. Therefore, the online world has made it easier for journalists to be harassed. I have heard of journalists in the UK who have quit their jobs because of this. I think the harassment women face is quite often more problematic than what men face because it can be particularly vicious for the women.

If a journalist is working on exposing corruption and taking a very critical lens to aspects of society, I would not say this is an easy job even in places like the UK. However, it is still a lot easier than in authoritarian countries.

A worrying trend especially in Turkey is broadcasting bans, particularly when it comes to sensitive topics like femicide or child abuse. Almost every time there is an incident concerning women or children, the media is not allowed to broadcast details of the news. Why is it that authorities issue such bans? Doesnt the public have a right to know, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable members of society?

They [the authorities] often make out that theres some moral reason behind broadcasting bans, but its often quite convenient for them. They dont want such news to be shown because maybe it reflects badly on the government in some way, or because theyre trying to control, and police, society.

Index on Censorship condones broadcast bans. We dont think that just anything should be broadcast at any time. I wouldnt want my three-year-old son to be watching certain things. So Im absolutely fine for certain things to come on at an hour when kids will probably be in bed so that theyre not exposed.

But I think that broadcasting bans need to go through a rigorous, open, transparent decision-making process. There should be external regulators as part of the decision-making process as well. One of the biggest problems with many countries where there are broadcast bans is that the broadcasters are often tied to the state. So the decisions are directly linked to the government.

Essentially, if the decision is made in a transparent way from an external regulator that has no vested political interest, then that is less problematic than the reverse, which is what quite often happens with these bans.

Turkey is currently one of the worlds biggest jailers of professional journalists and is ranked 153rd among 180 countries in terms of press freedom, according to Reporters Without Borders. Would you like to reflect on the current state of journalism in Turkey?

Turkey has been one of our focus countries for several years at Index on Censorship. By several years, I mean at least 10 years. We have a wonderful contributing editor to the magazine called Kaya Gen, who writes in every issue. What is happening in Turkey has obviously been very upsetting.

As you rightly point out Turkey is one of the main jailers of journalists. Its not the most dangerous country in the world to be a journalist. Such places usually include Mexico, for instance, where a journalist is more likely to get killed.

But in countries like Turkey there is of course a lack of plurality of the press, and the circumstances are very challenging. We will continue to monitor Turkey and highlight problems associated with press freedom in the future.

Many journalists critical of the Turkish government and its regime are being imprisoned for terrorism. When we look at the accusations, they usually include aspects of their journalistic work. What can the international community, civil society and journalists outside of Turkey do to protect their colleagues and make their plight heard?

People can sign petitions and raise their voices. We also publish work from Turkish journalists on our website. We try to offer them outlets for their stories, because sometimes writing for non-Turkish outlets may be easier and less dangerous. We also want to make sure they can still find work through these outlets and their stories are heard.

One of the worrying things in such countries where media freedom is in peril is that people stop hearing about the countries and the terrible things that are going on. As people hear less about it, the situation gets worse, and we see a vicious cycle.

How important are social media platforms and online news sitesin ensuring that the public stays informed? Do Twitter, Facebook and other platforms really have a positive impact on peoples access to news and also their access a variety of coverage of the news?

I think social media is one hundred percent important in ensuring the public stays informed. Especially with Twitter, we cannot underestimate its news sourcing. Also, young people are increasingly using social media.

Twitter and Facebook have been instrumental in changing the proliferation and the access to news. And that puts them in such a difficult place because they are both serving the public and acting as a publishing platform. So they have to straddle being both private and public. While this is quite troublesome, its also exciting as we try and figure out what role they have and how we should work with them to ensure that all the brilliant stuff can stay and be celebrated, whereas the more challenging aspects are improved.

How has feminism reshaped media, or has it? Is feminist journalism possible and what would it look like?

Thanks to the Me Too movement there has been quite an awakening. Also, 40 to 50 years ago there werent many female journalists in the UK. The entire feminist awakening has helped women get into journalism. But there are still important problems. For instance, some aspects of journalism, such as political and foreign correspondence is very punishing on family life. This creates quite a pressure on female journalists because unfortunately we do not live in an equal world, and women still do more of the housework. This means that they might not always be in a position to take those jobs.

We work with lots of countries where its still very hard to work in media as a woman. We are doing quite a lot on Afghanistan at the moment. Since the Taliban takeover in August, the number of women in the workforce has dwindled. Change is not always linear. So although Me Too and feminism have improved some conditions for women, there is still a lot of work to do.

Finally, it is important that we are holding conversations about [online] harassment against female journalists and other forms of pressure.

In a previous article you say that we need to increase awareness around the world about the current state of press freedom during the coronavirus crisis, as well as to raise awareness more broadly about the importance of media freedom and the challenges that journalists face.But how can we do this? How can we mobilize to protect freedom of the media, especially in contexts where violence against journalists is commonplace and journalists face serious risks of being prosecuted for their journalistic activities?

Well, thats the million-dollar question, isnt it? As I said earlier journalists are often first in the firing line. This is usually because someone very powerful, high up, is worried what they will expose, such as corruption and inconsistencies. What happened, especially at the beginning of COVID-19, was that people were being told things they didnt want to hear.

As a result, it was very easy to target the media. The government obviously doesnt want journalists in the room because if they are mishandling the situation, then journalists can expose them. There were plenty of countries that were claiming they had no COVID-19 cases. There were journalists who proved this to be wrong. Of course, governments were furious about this. However, ordinary people, too, blamed the media and accused them of blowing the issue out of proportion. They said that the media was stirring this up and it was the media to blame for the crises.

I think as a solution one of the main things to do is to educate people in media literacy. Ideally, it should be something thats taught at a young age in school. I hate it when people use the term, the media is one monolithic group, because there is a huge difference between all the different newspapers and magazines that are out there. And they have very different editorial processes, although the majority of them are brilliant. So even if you just assume all media is great, people need to see the rich diversity within the media. Some media has a less rigorous editorial process than others. There is a tendency that if there is one bad news story amongst millions, then all the media gets dragged down by that one news story.

And this is again where it comes back to media literacy. If people were trained even for a short period to know what to trust or not trust and to know what to be looking for in a news source, that would really be helpful.

We should also keep praising media organizations and stressing the importance of media freedom. We clapped for healthcare workers during the pandemic. In a similar way we could clap for journalists who are out there day in and day out reporting stories and putting themselves on the line. I think people dont necessarily see this. They dont associate what theyre reading with these challenging situations.

The Nobel Peace Prize this year went to journalists, which shows that what journalists are doing is amazing.

How can ordinary people support organizations like Index on Censorship?

People can support organizations like ours in two main ways. They can donate to our organization. We are a not-for-profit and nongovernmental organization, and we therefore rely on charitable donations, grants and the goodwill of people.

So we encourage people to give as little or as much as they can. These donations go to keeping Index in business.

The other way is to subscribe to our magazine, and you will be supporting the magazine and also getting a really good read. Apart from its importance in human rights advocacy, the magazine also includes some of the worlds best writers, such as Margaret Atwood. There are other less famous but equally good writers who also contribute to the magazine.

Finally, people can support our causes by following us on Twitter or Facebook, and sharing our content. People can sign our petitions when we mention a petition.

Do you think press freedom can rebound after an authoritarian rule is over?

I said earlier that change is not always linear so it can go backwards but it can also go forward. One of the ironies of Index on Censorship is that were all a generally cheerful bunch. We, work with these really depressing stories, but we work with the most brilliant people all around the world in really hard situations.

But whilst there are brilliant people, we can always dream there will be progress. Weve seen plenty of places that have come out of authoritarianism to have more freedoms. For instance, ever since Donald Trump left office, have we heard a story about a journalist being kicked out of the press room?

This is not to say that everything is perfect. There were problems in the US with press freedoms prior to Donald Trump. And there are problems still today. But we can go into dark times and can come out. So we shouldnt give up hope.

Hope is what moves us forward, its the human condition.

Related

Read more:

[Interview] Index on Censorship will continue to monitor government suppression of the media in Turkey: Jemimah Steinfeld - Stockholm Center for...

The Rise Of Far-Right Educational Censorship And Corruption In Cyprus – Rantt Media

The corruption-plagued Cyprus government is tearing up textbook pages and seeking to censor artist Giorgos Gavriel.

Dr. Miranda Christou is a Senior Fellow at CARR and Associate Professor in Sociology of Education at the University of Cyprus.

The far-right party of ELAM is growing in Cyprus, the government is mired in corruption scandals and the Ministry of Education is tearing up textbook pages because they mention Atatrk. The artist and teacher, Giorgos Gavriel, has been capturing the spirit of the times in his provocative art, only to face disciplinary action for offending national figures. His artwork is featured in this article

The National Popular Front in Cyprus (Ethniko Laiko Metopo) ELAM doubled its representation in the Cyprus Parliamentary elections in May 2021, with a share of 6,78% (4 MPs). ELAM, an offshoot of Golden Dawn in Greece, is an ultra-nationalist, nativist and anti-immigrant party that maintains a hardline opposition to the bizonal, bicommunal federation as a solution to the division of Cyprus despite this being the official, established framework since the 1970s. More importantly, it has kept itself under the radar by avoiding the brazen neo-Nazi symbolism and violent outbursts of Golden Dawn, focusing instead on building an image of the good kids as the Cyprus Archbishop once called them.

This serious Golden Dawn of Cyprus is now heading an ad hoc parliamentary group on the demographic problem after tipping the scale to help the centre-right party of Democratic Rally (DISY), currently in power, win leadership in the Parliament. This move reflects a mainstreaming of ELAMs alarmist rhetoric on the arrival of refugees and asylum seekers whom they refer to as illegal migrants.

In their Fascism is website article, ELAM claims that: Fascism is when your country is in danger because of low fertility rates, when citizens are deprived of basic things but you continue to accept illegal immigrants, and, on top of that, to give them money when you have clearly exhausted the limits of your hospitality.

This twisting and upending of words by ELAM pushes further to the right the boundaries of public discourse on human suffering in a country that has constructed its ethnic identity around the pain and trauma of 1974 refugees. Recently, the Minister of Interior rushed to defend the government amidst reports that the authorities have been illegally pushing boats of asylum seekers back to the Lebanon shores or callously endangering children and minors by keeping them waiting at sea, under the harsh Cyprus sun. This same Minister had dabbled in apartheid politics and the Great Replacement language when he issued a decree that asylum seekers were not allowed to settle in a village area because their arrival caused social problems and demographic change.

Moments like these require unrelenting truthtelling. We take pride in being reader-funded. If you like our work, support our journalism.

The hypocrisy of those who proclaim faith in Christian values but maintain racist posturesELAMs slogan is country, religion, familyis called out by one of Giorgos Gavriels paintings which shows Christ in a refugee holding facility. Much of his work is provocative: a painting of Christ naked or a dog urinating on the Archbishop.

In September 2021, the Ministry of Education and Culture announced that Gavriel had to appear before the Educational Service Committee to apologize for an array of disciplinary charges, including insult to civil-religious institutions, religious symbols and historical-national figures of Cyprus. Following intense public outcry, the Presidents cabinet called off the investigation. The government was already exposed since the issue went all the way to the European Parliament and the Chair of the Committee on Culture and Education had raised concerns about violations of Gavriels freedom of expression.

Around the same time, officials at the Ministry of Education spotted a blurb in the English Language Textbooks (Oxford University Press) for Lyceum which read Turkeys greatest hero, and included a photo of Atatrk. This apparently rattled some high-ranking officials who issued a memo to schools to tear off that particular page. As the Ministry scrambled to save face, they decided to withdraw the book and order an investigation into decision-making procedures. Throughout all of these, ELAM insisted on censuring Gavriel and ridiculed those who condemned tearing off the pages of the book.

In Al-Jazeeras scathing video The Cyprus Papers, the (now former) head of the Cyprus Parliament was secretly recorded raising his wine glass and winking to seal the deal as a prominent lawyer explains in another scene: This is Cyprus! The context was the orchestration of a fake backroom deal where undercover journalists investigated whether Cypriot lawyers and officials would break the law in order to provide a passport to a shady billionaire character through the so-called Cyprus Investment Program. The answer was: absolutely.

After Al-Jazeera dropped the video, Anastasiades government scuttled to cancel the program and run an investigation. While the President distanced himself from the fiasco, his Golden Passports connections through the family law firm have been called out by anti-corruption groups.

But Anastasiades remains fully exposed: a European Parliament draft resolution on the Pandora Papers deplored his specific naming in the papers which provide financial documents linking political leaders to fishy transactions. The depth of the corruption problem in Cyprus has been duly recorded in Makarios Drousiotis book The Gang. An investigative journalist, Drousiotis had a front seat at the 2013 Eurogroup deals and argues that Anastasiades prioritized the interests of his Russian oligarch clients instead of the well-being of his own people.

Drousiotis was scheduled to appear on a national TV program after the Pandora Papers revelations strengthened his argument in The Gang which is still curiously ignored by the local mediahis appearance was canceled at the last minute due to scheduling conflicts.

Interestingly, in the summer of 2020, a few months before publication of The Gang, Drousiotis reported that he had been the victim of years-long surveillance into his documents and home security system. Drousiotis upcoming book Crime in Crans-Montana seals the deal: it argues that Anastasiades tanked the talks and that he was the one who proposed the two-state solution; an anathema to Greek Cypriots.

These revelations are not your average type of clientelism that has been battering Cypriot life and politics for centuries. They put Cyprus squarely on the level of a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government the way Sarah Kendzior describes USA politics in Hiding in Plain Sight. Notably, ELAM voted with Anastasiades party against registering the issue of Pandora Papers for Parliamentary discussion.

There have been glimpses of hope: Os Dame, (meaning enough!) a loosely connected network of progressive youth groups, organized rallies condemning government corruption and racist politics. In February 2021, the police used a water cannon to disperse their peaceful protest causing severe injuries and the partial blindness of a singer. Gavriel captured the scene: the Minister of Justice and Public Order (until recently, a close friend of Anastasiades daughters) standing over the singers wounded body.

All of these find ELAM in prime position: their rhetoric infiltrates the highest levels of government while they maintain their opposition to Anastasiades handling of the Cyprus problem. In the meantime, they can continue feeding off of the nihilism and disillusionment that has been eroding Greek Cypriot society that comes with the realization that the national interest is secondary to some politicians own self-interest.

This article is brought to you by the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR). Through their research, CARR intends to lead discussions on the development of radical right extremism around the world. Rantt has been partnered with CARR for 3 years. Weve published over 150 articles from CARRs network of PhDs, historians, professors, and experts analyzing extremism and combating disinformation.

Excerpt from:

The Rise Of Far-Right Educational Censorship And Corruption In Cyprus - Rantt Media

Covid-19: Twitter will now ban users that repeatedly claim vaccinated people can spread the virus – The Rio Times

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL Twitter has quietly updated its COVID-19 misleading information policy to impose new sanctions on tweets about vaccines, PCR tests, and health authorities.

These sanctions include removing and labeling tweets. Both types of sanctions also result in Twitter users accruing strikes on their account, leading to a permanent suspension.

While the top of Twitters COVID-19 misleading information policy page currently states Overview November 2021, a December 2 archive of the page shows that the page was updated, and the Overview November 2021 text was added after December 2.

One of the most notable changes to this COVID-19 misleading information policy the reclaimthenet site noticed is related to claims about whether vaccinated people can spread the coronavirus.

The policy now states that Twitter will label tweets with corrective information and give users a strike if they:

Another change is that Twitter will start giving a strike to and labeling the tweets of users that use research and statistical findings to make claims contrary to health authorities if it decides that their claims misrepresent research or statistical findings pertaining to the severity of the disease, prevalence of the virus, or effectiveness of widely accepted preventative measures, treatments, or vaccines.

Previously, Twitter would sanction what it deemed false or misleading information about research findings, but there was no provision about contradicting health authorities.

In addition to this, Twitter will give users two strikes and remove their tweets if they claim that vaccines approved by health agencies (such as Pfizers Comirnaty vaccine in the United States) did not receive full approval/authorization, and therefore that the vaccines are untested, experimental or somehow unsafe.

This appears to be a reference to criticism of a footnote in the Federal Drug Administration (FDAs) full authorization documents for the Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) vaccine, which revealed that the FDA had extended the emergency-use authorization for the same vaccine.

Furthermore, users that claim that vaccines are part of a global surveillance effort will have their tweets removed and be given two strikes. The introduction of this provision follows vaccine-related surveillance tech, such as vaccine passports, being introduced in many countries.

Some of the other claims that will be sanctioned under Twitters updated policy include:

Under Twitters current strikes system, two or three strikes results in a 12-hour account lock, four strikes result in a seven-day account lock, and five or more strikes result in a permanent suspension.

This means users with three tweets removed or five tweets labeled under this updated COVID-19 misleading information policy will have their accounts permanently suspended.

And as part of this policy update, Twitter has added new provisions that can result in accounts being permanently suspended, even if they dont have strikes.

We may immediately permanently suspend accountsif we determine that the account repeatedly violates the COVID-19 misinformation policy over 30 days, or if we have determined that the account has been set up for the expressed purpose of Tweeting false or misleading information about COVID-19, the updated policy states.

Labeled tweets may also be subject to additional restrictions, which include:

Agrawal has served as CEO, Twitter has censored several high-profile accounts, prohibited the sharing of photos and videos of people without their permission, and censored a link to the American Heart Association. A secret Twitter program that fast-tracks elite users takedown demands were also made public in the last few days.

Here is what the CDC says:

Also CDC:

Although it was clear from the beginning of the pandemic that symptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs, presymptomatic transmission has also been described (16).

Furthermore, transmission from asymptomatic cases was deemed possible based on findings that the viral load of asymptomatic cases was similar to that of symptomatic cases

So according to the CDC

With information from Reclaimthenet

Read the original:

Covid-19: Twitter will now ban users that repeatedly claim vaccinated people can spread the virus - The Rio Times

Inside the hypocrisy of media manipulators, censors who claim to fight misinformation – New York Post

There is a new scourge befouling the media landscape, one that our self-appointed mandarins have declared themselves eager to combat: misinformation.

The Aspen Institutes Commission on Information Disorder recently released a report that blamed misinformation for a range of social problems: Information disorder is a crisis that exacerbates all other crises Information disorder makes any health crisis more deadly. It slows down our response time on climate change. It undermines democracy. It creates a culture in which racist, ethnic, and gender attacks are seen as solutions, not problems. Today, mis- and disinformation have become a force multiplier for exacerbating our worst problems as a society. Hundreds of millions of people pay the price, every single day, for a world disordered by lies.

With $65 million in backing from investors such as George Soros and Reid Hoffman, the newly organized Project for Good Information also vows to fight fake news wherever it roams. As Recode reported, the groups marketing materials claim, Traditional media is failing. Disinformation is flourishing. Its time for a new kind of media. The project is run by Democratic operative Tara Hoffman, whose company ACRONYM created the app that spectacularly bungled the Iowa Democratic caucus vote in 2020.

And as Ben Smith reported in the New York Times, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University has been hosting a series of meetings with major media executives to help newsroom leaders fight misinformation and media manipulation. Even Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has apologized for his platforms role in spreading misinformation.

The origin of this new wave of portentous declarations and hand-wringing can be found in the Trump years. In an insightful piece in Harpers, Joseph Bernstein labels this effort Big Disinfo.

Its a new field of knowledge production that emerged during the Trump years at the juncture of media, academia, and policy research, he writes. A kind of EPA for content, it seeks to expose the spread of various sorts of toxicity on social-media platforms, the downstream effects of this spread, and the platforms clumsy, dishonest, and half-hearted attempts to halt it.

As Bernstein argues, As an environmental cleanup project, it presumes a harm model of content consumption. Just as, say, smoking causes cancer, consuming bad information must cause changes in belief or behavior that are bad, by some standard.

Big Disinfo has gained in popularity in mainstream media outlets in part because it claims to solve the problem of bad information while placing blame for it on anyone other than mainstream media. In fact, those diagnosing our illness and prescribing the cure are themselves purveyors of the infodemic they claim is upon us.

The Aspen Institutes commission, for example, includes several people who have actively engaged in misinformation efforts. As the Washington Free Beacon reported, one of the commissions advisers, Yoel Roth, was the Twitter executive who blocked his sites users from sharing the New York Post story about Hunter Bidens laptop just before the 2020 election.

Adviser Renee DiResta is something of a misinformation wunderkind as well: She was an adviser to American Engagement Technologies, which, the Beacon reports, is a tech company that created fake online personas to stifle the Republican vote in the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama.

The commissions co-chair, Katie Couric, is also familiar with manipulating facts to yield favorable outcomes. She admitted in her recently published memoir that she had removed and edited statements made by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about athletes protesting the playing of the national anthem. Ginsburgs criticism of the practice might have angered her fellow liberals, Couric feared.

Commissioner Rashad Robinson, head of the activist group Color of Change, also helped spread misinformation by promoting the hate-crime hoax of actor Jussie Smollett even after it was clear Smollett, who last week was convicted on criminal charges related to the staging of the attack, was lying. And then there is commission member Prince Harry, an expat British ex-royal with few qualifications but a lifetime of evidence of his own questionable judgment (such as dressing up as a Nazi and, more recently, whining to Oprah about the family that funds his lavish lifestyle).

Earlier this year, Harry declared the First Amendment bonkers.

The Aspen Commissions report says there is no such thing as an arbiter of truth, and yet our media gatekeepers have claimed that mantle for themselves with decidedly mixed results for some time.

Consider the fact that Russiagate, a yearslong effort to prove that Donald Trump was being blackmailed and controlled, proved untrue yet was given constant media attention, while the story of Hunter Bidens laptop and its contents, which proved true, was actively suppressed with the explicit purpose of protecting Joe Bidens chances of becoming president. We live in a surreal information moment when the lie was given ample airtime and featured prominently in print, while the truth was smothered and labeled disinformation.

And yet our self-appointed misinformation warriors have proven unwilling to engage in self-reflection. Harvards Shorenstein Center used the New York Posts story on Hunter Bidens laptop computer as the basis for one of its case studies during its recent misinformation sessions.

The lesson that the centers leaders drew, however, was not the one anyone who values the truth should follow. According to the Times, the Shorenstein Center claimed that the Hunter Biden story offered an instructive case study on the power of social media and news organizations to mitigate media manipulation campaigns. In other words, the suppression of information deemed by experts to be misinformation was precisely the kind of Good Information objective we should be pursuing. The research director of the center, Joan Donovan, told the Times that the Hunter Biden case study was designed to cause conversation its not supposed to leave you resolved as a reader.

But what is there to resolve about the fact that the Fourth Estate eagerly embraced the role of chief information censor on behalf of a Democratic candidate for president?

Misinformation and disinformation are nothing new. Propaganda, political dirty tricks, and deliberate lies have been with us a while and have often been a point of pride for their practitioners. It was not that long ago that Ben Rhodes, then a top aide to President Barack Obama, boasted about creating an echo chamber in the media to spread falsehoods about the details of Obamas Iran nuclear deal.

It is true that misinformation has taken on greater significance thanks to the scale and speed of the social-media platforms that spread it. But the new sanctimony about misinformation should be leavened with some healthy skepticism about the movements major actors.

As Bernstein noted, in some sense the disinformation project is simply an unofficial partnership between Big Tech, corporate media, elite universities, and cash-rich foundations. The crusade against misinformation is an approximate mirror image of Donald Trumps war against fake news.

Control of information is control of one of the most valuable commodities in the developed world: peoples attention. And people want their confirmation biases affirmed. But scholars and commissioners studying misinformation also suffer from confirmation bias. Contra the proposals made by panels and commissions on misinformation, the most radical thing we could do right now isnt to give more power to elites or the federal government to control information.

Their record of late Russiagate, Hunter Biden, the Covington kids, the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis, Border Patrol officers with whips, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial has not been stellar. It would be far better for the health of the information ecosystem that these supposed experts are always invoking if reporters focused on shoring up what were once unassailable tenets of journalism balance, iron-clad sourcing, and critical independence from and skepticism about the powerful. Instead, they are powers handmaidens.

From Commentary

See the article here:

Inside the hypocrisy of media manipulators, censors who claim to fight misinformation - New York Post