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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does end-to-end encryption mean?

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

Do all exchanges via WhatsApp remain pvt?

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

View Full Image

Are there safer alternatives to WhatsApp currently?

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

Does WhatsApp have built-in backdoors?

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

How much can one trust Facebook?

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

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

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

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

Stream It Here

Unthinkable (2010)

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

Stream It Here

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

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

Stream It Here

Enemy of the State (1998)

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

Stream It Here

Munich (2005)

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

Stream It Here

A Most Wanted Man (2014)

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

Stream It Here

Snowden (2016)

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

Stream It Here

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

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

Stream It Here

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

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

Stream It Here

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)

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

Stream It Here

Burn After Reading (2008)

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

Stream It Here

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

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

Stream It Here

Day of the Jackal (1973)

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

Stream It Here

The Good Shepherd (2006)

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

Stream It Here

Argo (2012)

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

Stream It Here

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)

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

Stream It Here

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011)

The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1965)

Eastern Promises (2007)

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

Stream It Here

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

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

Stream It Here

Notorious (1946)

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

Stream It Here

North by Northwest (1959)

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

Stream It Here

Goldfinger (1964)

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

Stream It Here

The Lives of Others (2006)

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

Stream It Here

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

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there is more, so much more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At an appearance at a tech conference last September, Facebook's Zuckerberg expressed his disgust. "The government blew it," he said. But the consequences of the government's actionsand the spectacular leak that informed the world about itwas now plopped into the problem set of Zuckerberg, Page, Tim Cook, Marissa Mayer, Steve Ballmer, and anyone else who worked for or invested in a company that held customer data on its servers.

Not just revenue was at stake. So were ideals that have sustained the tech world since the Internet exploded from a Department of Defense project into an interconnected global web that spurred promises of a new era of comity. The Snowden leaks called into question the Internet's role as a symbol of free speech and empowerment. If the net were seen as a means of widespread surveillance, the resulting paranoia might affect the way people used it. Nations outraged at US intelligence-gathering practices used the disclosures to justify a push to require data generated in their countries to remain there, where it could not easily be hoovered by American spies. Implementing such a scheme could balkanize the web, destroying its open essence and dramatically raising the cost of doing business.

Ask Me One Thing

Corey writes, You said we are allowed to ask for anything. and I have many, many tech questions. But what I need the most is the press contact information to Bill and Melinda Gates.

Corey, do I look like Google? But you are correctI invite readers to ask me anything. So heres the contact page for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of particular interest to you will be the section about media inquiries. I do hope that either Bill or Melinda gives an interview to your TV station.

While were on the subject, let me take the chance to say that, in general, reporters arent the best conduit to the subjects they interview. Its not like we hang out with our billionaire interviewees all the time, and late in our evenings with them, after weve drained the choicest bottles from their data-center-sized wine cellars, Bill or Jeff or Zuck will ask us, Hey, did you get any emails recently from people who have come up with inventions that will make me more billions? Or a totally novel and foolproof idea for world peace? I hope this clears up this apparently widely held misconception. And Corey, you are welcome to ask me those tech questions now.

See original here:
The Business of the Internet Is Stuck in Trump's Swamp - WIRED