Exploring the future of modern software development – ComputerWeekly.com

Modern software development is about building cloud-native, cloud-first and multi-cloud applications. But its also about embracing data-driven big data insights and making use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). The definition of modern software development encompasses granular code reuse and low coding tools and a whole lot more, too.

The hidden question is really: what does it take to be a software developer in 2020 and beyond?

First, lets revisit a well-known phrase that has become somewhat of a recognised principle in the creation, deployment, operation and management of software solutions: its about people, processes, tools and technology.

Take technology for instance. An overriding theme throughout myriad market sectors is the spectrum of digital technologies enabling new levels of operational capacity and business reach. The list is long. By no means comprehensive, it can span from cloud and mobile through to internet-connected products, integration strategies of application programming interfaces (APIs) and new application models such as blockchain and microservices.

Organisations are looking to take advantage of digital technologies to innovate and deliver solutions and products faster. These technologies also enable more engaging experiences and interactions while driving greater levels of productivity and personalisation.

The boundaries of an organisation are no longer confined to physical bricks but out to an edge that flexes according to its end points. Underpinning processes, such as DevOps, focus on finding a new working relationship that benefits the entire software process. Implicit in that goal is the quick, stable and repeatable release of software into the field with greater frequency and control.

Todays software developer has access to a wealth of tools and services that have evolved and adapted with a new wave of guardrails keeping them in check. These tools incorporate greater support for automation, self-service provisioning and broader scope of training services. There is flexibility with features that abstract complexity and provide the necessary plumbing that makes things work.

With low and no code tooling support, businesses are not limited by their access to traditional developer skills. They can broaden the scope of participation to include more employees.

Give the people what they want when they want it has become a first principle when it comes to software delivery. Ultimately, the outcome matters. A defining feature of modern software development for all ages is the delivery of software solutions and products that simply dont suck but are intuitive to modern needs and concerns.

In short, modern software development means the development of applications and apps that take advantage of all that current technology has to offer. It uses the different architectures, services and capabilities available to maximise the benefits. It requires interpersonal skills and a collaborative approach that is attuned to the context of use and the customer.

Its important to pay attention to driving concerns such as security, privacy and ethical responsibility. The challenge to being modern is navigating and selecting that which wont hold you back people, tools and technology. The good news is that open extensibility and interoperability is the modern lingua franca that will keep you current.

Bola Rotibi is a research director at CCS Insight.

Read the original:
Exploring the future of modern software development - ComputerWeekly.com

The persecution of Assange matters…your opinion of him does not – The Big Smoke Australia

The unjust persecution of Julian Assange (and the knock-on effects the media will feel) should be the point were discussing not your personal opinion of him.

Whenever you voice concerns aboutthe persecution of Julian Assangeon any public forum, you will be met by those calling Assange a stinky Nazi rapist Putin puppet Trump supporter who deserves to be in prison forever.

Whats striking about these responses, which by now are as familiar to me as the keyboard I type these words on, is how extremely emotional they always are. If you talk about economic policy or foreign policy, for example, you might get a few angry troglodytes who take internet arguments far too seriously, but youll also typically get people calmly explaining why they believe youre wrong and laying out ostensibly fact-based arguments for why this is so.

This is literally never the case with people who want to see Assange imprisoned, in my extensive experience. Theres never, ever any calm, fact-based rationale for why the benefits of prosecuting and imprisoning him for his publications outweigh the risks and costs of doing so. Its always vitriolic, hyperbolic, frequently profanity-riddled arguments from pure emotion, usually something to the effect of He collaborated with Russia/helped Trump win the election, therefore and I want him punished because I hate him. Which is just another way of saying, I want Assange imprisoned because of the way my feelings feel.

The completely baseless claim that Assange is not a journalist is used in an attempt to defuse the argument that his prosecution by the US government could lead to the same fate for any news media outlet which publishes leaks on the US government anywhere in the world. If hes not a journalist, then his prosecution sets no precedent for real journalists.

This argument, if you can call it that, is fallacious for a number of reasons. For starters, asThe Intercepts Glenn Greenwaldexplained, theres not any legal distinction in the US Constitution between news media outlets like theNew York Times and an outlet which solely focuses on publishing leaks. If you set the precedent with any publisher, youre necessarily setting it for all of them. Greenwald writes the following: To begin with, the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment isnt confined to legitimate news outletswhatever that might mean. The First Amendment isnt available only to a certain class of people licensed as journalists. It protects not a privileged group of people called professional journalists but rather an activity: namely, using the press (which at the time of the First Amendments enactment meant the literal printing press) to inform the public about what the government was doing. Everyone is entitled to that constitutional protection equally: there is no cogent way to justify why the Guardian, ex-DOJ-officials-turned-bloggers, or Marcy Wheeler are free to publish classified information but Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are not.

Now, aside from theestablished factthat the US governments agenda to prosecute Assange has nothing to do with the 2016 election but with the exposure of US war crimes six years earlier, this is also a completely fallacious argument from top to bottom. Claiming that something ought to happen because of how your feelings feel is very obviouslya logical fallacy, but this kind of argument comprises the entirety of support for Assanges imprisonment that Assange defenders encounter on a regular basis.

I believe this happens becausethe smear campaignthat has been used by the western political/media class to manufacture support for Assanges silencing and imprisonment has its foundation not in fact, but in emotion. Smear campaigns are by their nature emotional at their core, because they are intended to elicit public disgust, disdain and hatred for their target. Thats why youll see so many mainstream news media articlesclaiming that Assange smells bad, for example, despite that having nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Assanges work. The goal is not to present a factual case for why it would be more helpful than harmful to prosecute the WikiLeaks founder, the goal is to make people feel disgust for him, and, by extension, disgust for his work as well.

Another reason the Assange smears focus on emotion rather than facts is that the facts are very contrary to the interests of the smear merchants. The facts are that prosecuting Julian Assange under the Espionage Act for exposing US war crimes, as the Trump administration is attempting to do, would strike a devastating blow to press freedoms around the world. This is because there are no legal distinctions in place separating an outlet like WikiLeaks from outlets like theNew York Times, theWashington Post, or theGuardian, meaning that a precedent would be set allowing for the prosecution of those outlets on the same grounds, who also publish anonymous government leaks. Which is why theNew York Times, theWashington PostandtheGuardianhave all warned sternly of this precedent, which has also beenrecognised by the Obama administration.

We all need the ability to hold power to account, and the prosecution of Assange will necessarily cripple our ability to do that. This is a fact. Regardless of how your feelings feel.

Read more from the original source:
The persecution of Assange matters...your opinion of him does not - The Big Smoke Australia

Assange extradition proceedings are illegal and should end, 100s of lawyers tell government – The Canary

154 lawyers and legal academics worldwide and hundreds more represented by their professional associations have written to UK government heads to request that extradition proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange end immediately. The letter is addressed to prime minister Boris Johnson, the lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice Robert Buckland QC, the secretary of state for foreign affairs Dominic Raab, and home secretary Priti Patel.

One of the lawyers who signed the letter is Australian barrister Greg Barns (featured in main image alongside Assange).

The letter begins:

We write to you as legal practitioners and legal academics to express our collective concerns about the violations of Mr Julian Assanges fundamental human, civil and political rights and the precedent his persecution is setting.

We call on you to act in accordance with national and international law, human rights and the rule of law by bringing an end to the ongoing extradition proceedings and granting Mr Assange his long overdue freedom freedom from torture, arbitrary detention and deprivation of liberty, and political persecution

The signatories argue that the extradition of Assange would be illegal for several reasons:

Regarding the first point, the signatories point out that the surveillance conducted on Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy was unlawful:

Mr Assanges legal privilege, a right enshrined in Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and long recognised under English common law, was grossly violated through constant and criminal video and audio surveillance at the Ecuadorian embassy carried out by the Spanish security firm, UC Global. This surveillance was, according to witness testimony, ordered by the CIA.

The Council of Bar and Law Societies of Europe, which represents more than a million European lawyers, has expressed its concerns that these illegal recordings may be used openly or secretly in proceedings against Mr Assange in the event of successful extradition to the US. The Council states that if the information merely became known to the prosecutors, this would present an irremediable breach of Mr Assanges fundamental rights to a fair trial under Art. 6 of the ECHR and due process under the US Constitution. Furthermore, the prosecuting state obtained the totality of Mr Assanges legal papers after their unlawful seizure in the Embassy.

Regarding the second point, the signatories observe that Charges 1-17 [raised against Assange] are brought under the Espionage Act 1917, which, in name alone, reveals the political and antiquated nature of the charges. The letter adds: The UK-US Extradition Treaty, which provides the very basis of the extradition request, specifically prohibits extradition for political offences in Art. 4(1).

Also:

there is broad international consensus that political offences should not be the basis of extradition.[ix] This is reflected in Art. 3 of the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, Art. 3 ECHR, Art. 3(a) of the UN Model Treaty on Extradition, the Interpol Constitution and every bilateral treaty ratified by the US for over a century.

Regarding the third point and what awaits Assange in the US, the letter notes:

Under the principle of non-refoulement, it is not permissible to extradite a person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be subjected to torture. This principle is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, specifically Art. 33(1) from which no derogations are permitted. Also relevant are Art. 3(1) UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum 1967, Art. 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and Art. 2 of the Resolution on Asylum to Persons in Danger of Persecution, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1967. As an obligation arising from the prohibition of torture, the principle of non-refoulement in this area is absolute and also takes on the character of a peremptory norm of customary international law, i.e. jus cogens.

The letter also points out that the US prosecution of Assange would be a violation of the freedom of the press and the right to know:

Counts 1-17 of the indictment under the Espionage Act violate the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of the press and the right to know. These counts present standard and necessary investigative journalistic practices as criminal.[xvi] Such practices include indicating availability to receive information, indicating what information is of interest, encouraging the provision of information, receipt of information for the purpose of publication, and publication of information in the public interest.

Under the charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, the initial indictment criminalised also Mr Assanges alleged attempt at helping his source to maintain their anonymity while providing the documents in question, which falls squarely under the standard journalistic practice and duty of protecting the source.

The letter adds that Extradition on the basis of the indictment would gravely endanger freedom of the press, a cornerstone of European democracies enshrined in Art. 10 ECHR.

There are other implications:

The extradition to the US of a publisher and journalist, for engaging in journalistic activities while in Europe, would set a very dangerous precedent for the extra-territorialisation of state secrecy laws and would post an invitation to other states to follow suit, severely threatening the ability of journalists, publishers and human rights organisations to safely reveal information about serious international issues.

The letter further argues that the treatment of Assange and the conditions under which he is imprisoned amounts to torture. It notes:

Although Mr Assange has now served the sentence [for skipping bail], he remains imprisoned without conviction or legal basis for the purpose of a political, and thereby illegal, extradition to the US

The signatories add:

We would like to remind the UK government:

The letter refers to more violations and in particular conflicts of interest. In this respect, the letter points out that:

Senior District Judge (Magistrates Courts) Emma Arbuthnot, who as Chief Magistrate oversees Mr Assanges extradition proceedings, has been shown to have financial links to institutions and individuals whose wrongdoings have been exposed by WikiLeaks, the organisation which Mr Assange founded.[xxxviii] This seemingly clear conflict of interest was, however, not disclosed by the District Judge. District Judge Arbuthnot did not recuse herself and was permitted to make rulings to Mr Assanges detriment, despite the perceived lack of judicial impartiality and independence.

The letter indicates further violations, such as denial of adequate resources to Assange to help in his defence.

The letters signatories number 154 individuals and 15 professional associations which in turn represent hundreds more practitioners of law.

The letter ends: we respectfully request that the UK government bring an end to the US extradition proceedings against Mr Assange and ensure his immediate release from custody. Indeed, the extradition proceedings against Assange are not only arguably a violation of his legal rights, but arguably a violation of legal procedure.

Assange should be freed now and the extradition farce halted.

Featured image supplied

See the original post here:
Assange extradition proceedings are illegal and should end, 100s of lawyers tell government - The Canary

OBrien: Bipartisan Senate report on Trump and Russia is a triumph for truth – The Denver Post

One of Trumpisms enduring scars will be the social fissures its widened by waging war on objective reality and public faith in bedrock institutions. Its also fostered a cult of personality around Donald Trump, allowing him to posture as the final arbiter of truth and guardian of the downtrodden. But division, chaos and disrepair and the corruption of the American experiment are the long-term consequences.

So its encouraging when a bipartisan group of federal legislators reminds us that facts matter.

A966-page Senate reportpublished Tuesday leaves no doubt that an extensive network of Russian operatives with intelligence ties workedwith Trumps operatives to torpedo Hillary Clintons campaign four years ago. Russian President Vladimir Putin oversaw the effort, including a successful hack of Democratic Party computer systems. Why? To smear Clinton and hobble her administration if she won, and to gain leverage with Trump if he won.

The Republican-led committee that produced the report said that Trumps former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was so steeped in the effort with Russia that he posed a grave counterintelligence threat. It said that Donald Trump Jr., the presidents son, participated in a covert effort by the Russian government to help his father in 2016. It said the president himself may have been a possible target of Russian blackmail. It said that Putin was aware that Trump during his presidential campaign was secretly pursuing a deal to build a skyscraper in Moscow.

The committee also found that Roger Stone, Trumps longtime political hatchet man, made elaborate efforts to learn about Russian leaks of confidential Democratic emails through Julian Assanges hacking collective, Wikileaks. And in the course of that discovery, the committee learned that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone aboutWikileaksand with members of his campaign about Stones access toWikileakson multiple occasions. Thats interesting, because the president himself, in written testimony to former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, said he couldnt recall those conversations.

Mueller concluded his work last year by saying he hadnt found enough evidence to charge Team Trump with a criminal conspiracy. He clearly found evidence that the Trump camp tried to obstruct justice, however, and he left it to Congress to hash out the matter. For its part, the Senate report said that the Trump campaigns intersection with Putins underlings didnt amount to a coordinated conspiracy and that in some cases the sheer dimwittedness of the people working for Trump exposed them to manipulation.

You may remember that Trump and his GOP backers tried to spin Muellers findings by saying that no collusion meant that Trump and those around him did nothing wrong. Republicans on Tuesday resurrected the no collusion mantra, working hard to convey the idea that the Senate report somehow meant that everythings all right, everythings fine, and we want you to sleep well tonight.

But, of course, everything isnt all right. The Russia scandal wasnt a hoax. It was reality.

Even if the skullduggery the Senate documented didnt amount to a formal conspiracy, sabotage and malfeasance took place. Russia got its hooks into a presidential election, Trump used his campaign to try to make business deals in Moscow, the people around Trump invited foreign influence into an election, and the president apparently lied to Mueller. Its not a mystery why Trump has cultivated and coddled Putin throughout his presidency, even if the Senate didnt chart the money trail all the way to Russia. The president, who spent his business career consorting with mobsters, has always had an affinity with grifters and those, like Putin, who he thinks might help him grift.

Trumps supporters have worked overtime focusing on tangential aspects of the Russia scandal to keep Trumps presidency in play, confirm their own biases or soften any guilt they might feel for looking the other way in the face of overt corruption. Right-wing media and Republican apologists have argued that a minor piece of evidence used by federal investigators an unreliable dossier about Trumps Russia ties prepared by a former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele meant that the entire Russian probe was improper.

AsI noted at greater lengthlast year, the Steele dossier wasnt the reason the Russia probe began, and its shortcomings simply werent pivotal enough to demonstrate that the probe was ill-considered. The Senate report points out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation mishandled the Steele dossier and gave it too much credence. More important, however, the report doesnt dismiss the far greater weight of all the other evidence of Trumps corrosive and dangerous game of patty-cake with Russia.

Russias threats to American elections and national security are ongoing, and thats another reason the Senate report is valuable. Because facts are fundamental, and its impossible to make good decisions without them. Mother Nature has reminded us of this truth with the coronavirus pandemic. The Senates report teaches the same lesson in its assessment of Russia, the Trump administration and White House propaganda.

Timothy L. OBrien is the executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Continued here:
OBrien: Bipartisan Senate report on Trump and Russia is a triumph for truth - The Denver Post

Karma is a b****: Roger Stone responds to Steve Bannons arrest – The Independent

Former political consultant for the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, replied karma is a b**** when he was asked his reaction to Steve Bannons arrest.

Stone, a veteran Republican operative who has a tattoo of Richard Nixon on his back, served as an adviser to Mr Trump during the 2016 campaign. He has been accused of collaborating with WikiLeaks to discredit Hillary Clinton in the build up to that election.

In November 2019, following Robert Muellers investigation into the Trump campaigns involvement in Russia hacking the 2016 election, Stone was indicted by federal prosecutors on seven counts, including witness tampering and lying to federal investigators.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

He was found guilty and sentenced to 40 months in federal prison, but on 10 July 2020, Mr Trump commuted Stones sentence after he publicly pleaded for him to do so.

Bannon, who previously served as the presidents campaign chairman in 2016, was indicted on Thursday, alongside two others, for allegedly funnelling hundreds of thousands of dollars from the We Build the Wall online fundraising campaign to the founder of the organisation Brian Kolfage, who was also indicted.

We Build the Wall started as a GoFundMe campaign in 2018, and was created to help raise money from public funding to go directly towards building the the US-Mexico border wall at a time when the president was struggling with Congress pushback.

In a press release, acting US attorney Audrey Strauss said: As alleged, the defendants defrauded hundreds of thousands of donors, capitalising on their interest in funding a border wall to raise millions of dollars, under the false pretence that all of that money would be spent on construction.

After Bannon was arrested, New York Magazine asked Stone his thoughts, to which he replied: Karma is a b****. But I am praying for him.

Bannon, who worked with Stone during the 2016 election, testified during the former advisers trial in November 2019, and contradicted his testimony in regards to WikiLeaks.

Stone had denied to the investigation and to Congress about being in contact with WikiLeaks, prior to the group releasing emails of Ms Clintons campaign chairman John Podesta.

No hype, just the advice and analysis you need

However, during his testimony, Bannon said: He had a relationship, or told me he had a relationship with WikiLeaks, and added: I was led to believe he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

In reaction to the arrests on Thursday, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany released a statement, where she attempted to distance the president from the campaign and Bannon.

As everyone knows, President Trump has no involvement in this project and felt it was only being done in order to showboat, and perhaps raise funds, she said.

A follow up statement from the White House read: President Trump has not been involved with Steve Bannon since the campaign and the early part of the administration, and he does not know the people involved with this project.

However, Trump ally Kris Kobach told the New York Times last year that he had spoken to Mr Trump about the project, and added that the president said the project has my blessing, and you can tell the media that.

Link:
Karma is a b****: Roger Stone responds to Steve Bannons arrest - The Independent

The nomination of Kamala Harris and the right-wing logic of identity politics – WSWS

20 August 2020

The Democratic Party concluded the third night of its convention on Wednesday, culminating in the official nomination of California Senator Kamala Harris as the vice-presidential candidate of Joe Biden.

Wednesdays proceedings were in line with the inane and insipid character of the event as a whole. Various reactionaries and multi-millionaires, from Hillary Clinton to Nancy Pelosi, declared the urgent need to elect Biden, the corrupt corporate shill from Delaware recast as a living saint, to right all wrongs and restore America to the path of prosperity and righteousness.

No actual program was advanced to deal with the massive social and economic catastrophe produced by the coronavirus pandemic and the bipartisan response of the ruling class to it. Everything was reduced to the fictionalized narrative of the life of Biden and his comrade in arms, Kamala Harris.

The selection of Harris was presented as a historic moment in American politics. This appraisal was based entirely on the fact that Harris is the first African American and Indian American woman selected by the worlds oldest political party to run for vice president. There were the inevitable proclamations that young girls throughout the country will conclude from this fact that they too can someday be vice president of the United States of America.

All of this is, if we can be permitted to use Bidens catchphrase, malarkey. Harris has already proven herself as a trusted servant of the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the working class. The Wall Street Journal wrote last week that Wall Street financers had breathed a sigh of relief at Bidens pick of Harris. Industry publication American Banker noted that her steadiest stream of campaign funding has come from financial industry professionals and their most trusted law firms.

Just before she ended her bid for the presidency in December 2019, Harris campaign boasted the most billionaire backers, including oil fortune heir Gordon Getty and vulture capitalist Dean Metropoulos.

As San Francisco District Attorney from 2004 to 2011, Harris pursued an agenda that included the implementation of a law to fine and jail the parents of truant students for up to a year. As Californias attorney general from 2011 to 2017, she warned parents across the state that they would face the full force and consequences of the law if their children missed out on too many days of school.

During her tenure, Harris also oversaw Californias resistance to a Supreme Court order that it release prisoners from the states overcrowded prisons. Her attorneys (for the people, as Harris put it last night) argued in court that releasing too many prisoners would deplete the cheap labor pool of inmates who fight the states notorious wildfires for less than $2 a day.

Serving as the junior senator from California since 2017, Harris sits on the committees overseeing the federal budget, the judiciary, homeland security and the intelligence agencies.

Through her position on the Intelligence Committee, Harris has been privy to the most sensitive information about American imperialisms criminal operations all over the world. In this role, she has backed the Democrats anti-Russia campaign aimed at pressuring the Trump administration into taking a more hostile posture towards Moscow.

She also supports the persecution of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, who faces 175 years in a US prison for exposing American military war crimes, declaring that the organization had done considerable harm to the US.

While feinting to the left as a proponent of cutting the Pentagons $750 billion-plus annual budget, in July Harris voted against a proposal by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that would have cut funding by a meager 10 percent, saying she supported the idea but that any cuts to the military should be done strategically.

Harris represents the Democratic Party, a party of Wall Street billionaires, the intelligence agencies and the military. Her nomination Wednesday came just one day after the Democrats paraded a number of Republicans who endorsed Biden, including Colin Powellthe first African American chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and a chief architect of the 2003 war in Iraqand the widow of the notorious warmonger, Senator John McCain.

Harris closing remarks at the convention last night were preceded by those of Obama, of which we will have more to say later. Suffice it to say that Obama, the first African American to be nominated by the Democrats and win the presidency, proceeded to bail out the banks, continue the wars of George W. Bush, implement a policy of drone murder, and deport more immigrants than any of his predecessors.

It was the right-wing policies of the Obama administration that paved the way for the ascension of Trump to the presidency.

The Democrats hope that the endless celebration of the trite, empty symbolism of Harris candidacy will serve as a repeat of Barack Obamas run for president in 2008, deploying identity politics to cover over the right-wing content of her record and that of the Democratic Party. This is the logic of the reactionary politics of racial, ethnic and gender identity, promoted incessantly by the pseudo-left opponents of Marxism.

However, the elevation of an increasing number of women, African Americans and other ethnic minorities into positions of power, from city councils, to mayoral offices, police departments and the presidency itself, has done nothing to advance the interests of the working class. In fact, over the last four decades wealth inequality has grown most rapidly within racial groups, as a small layer of the population has been elevated into positions of power and privilege while conditions for those of all races and genders in the bottom 90 percent have deteriorated.

In addition to Obama, the likes of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, national security advisors Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice, and Secretary of State Hillary Clintonand, one might add, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and German Chancellor Angela Merkelhave shown that women and racial minorities can pursue the interests of the financial oligarchy as ruthlessly as any other representative of the ruling class.

There is something fitting in the selection of Harris to co-lead the Democrats ticket. The response of the Democrats to the mass multi-racial and multi-ethnic protests against police violence that erupted earlier this year was to divert them into the politics of racial division, using the reactionary and false claim that what was involved was a conflict between white America and black America, rather than a conflict between the working class and capitalism. This effort now culminates in the selection of the former top cop of California as the Democrats vice presidential candidate.

This is aimed at blocking the emergence of a powerful, united movement of the working class. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the criminal indifference of the entire ruling elite to the lives of the working class. As was shown with the near unanimous passage of the trillion-dollar CARES Act bailout, their concern is for their stock portfolios and corporate profits at the expense of more than 175,000 people who have now died and the more than 5.5 million who have been infected by coronavirus.

The fight to advance the interests of the working class will have to be waged through the methods of class struggle, in opposition to the Democrats and Republicans and the capitalist system which they defend.

Niles Niemuth

Go here to read the rest:
The nomination of Kamala Harris and the right-wing logic of identity politics - WSWS

Gas Lighting the First Amendment – Eugene Weekly

He wasnt with the crowd. He was holding up a press pass.

On May 31, Eugene Weekly staff writer Henry Houston says his constitutional rights were violated when the Eugene Police Department shot pepper balls and threw a tear gas canister at him from 30 feet away, hitting him in the chest with the canister as he held up that press pass yelling that he was a journalist.

Outraged by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, protesters in Eugene marched through the streets during the last weekend of May, the events leading to a riot and then curfews the following nights. In reporting on the events, journalists followed along.

After the incident, EPD refused to release records on the correct use of tear gas and other riot control weapons, instead sending a heavily redacted PDF and referencing general policies found on the citys website.

Houston and the Civil Liberties Defense Center have filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Federal District Court against EPD, claiming a violation of constitutional rights.

Despite the lack of transparency, EWs investigation found that the officers may have violated policies on correct uses of gas munitions, which could have caused extensive injury, and directly violated Houstons First Amendment rights of the freedom of the press.

Credentialed Media

After the chaotic first nights of protests, City Manager Sarah Medary enacted a curfew of midnight for downtown Eugene on May 31, which was suddenly changed to 11 pm only minutes before it went into effect. It encompassed the entire city. The curfew specifically exempted credentialed media.

People continued to protest after curfew, and that night, journalists followed EPDs armored BearCat while officers told protesters to disperse over a loudspeaker and shot them with rubber bullets and pepperballs.

But even then it was clear EPD would not distinguish between reporters and others. In a video recorded by The Register-Guard, an EPD officer tells a group of journalists to roll out.

An RG reporter can be heard saying that they are journalists.

Doesnt matter, the police responded.

Later that night, Houston began following the BearCat in a parking lot near the University of Oregon campus on Alder Street, holding up his press pass as a group of about 20 protesters ran away. The loudspeaker told him to disperse and he yelled back that he was a journalist, filming and continuing to show his press pass seen in the distance on the RG video.

The BearCat drove near Houston, and was less than 30 feet away as measured by the width and number of parking spots, visible in the video. He was hit in the chest with a tear gas canister as it spewed gas, and shot at with pepper balls weapons that are similar to paintballs, but release pepper spray. When the canister hit the ground, sparks flew around and Houston jumped back. In the video taken on his phone, he shouted again that he was a journalist. The lights were on inside the vehicle.

I can see you smiling at me, he said in horror as he ran back towards the other journalists. Houston says EPD threw more tear gas canisters at the group of reporters as the BearCat drove away.

Reporters, were reporters, they yell in the video.

No Accountability

After Houston was tear gassed, he reached out to EPD, asking why police were ignoring the media exception for the curfew. In response, EPD spokesperson Melinda McLaughlin wrote in an email to EW that he was subject to risk by being out with protesters.

While I feel it unfortunate you have experienced this, there is no way to discern whether or not someone is credentialed media if they are embedded or mixed in with a large group violating curfew, she wrote.

Police Commissioner Sean Shivers says that allegations against officer behavior must be reviewed every 60 days. Back in June, he told EW that the commissioners and Civilian Review Board have requested an expedited process. But its been more than two months, and no information has been released.

The day after he was gassed, Houston called and spoke with Chief Chris Skinner, who apologized for the incident. Medary reached out to EW and also apologized. Seeking accountability for police actions and use of tear gas on May 31, EW filed a public records request with EPD, asking for their training and guidance for the correct usage of such weapons.

The record received was a PowerPoint PDF, with most of the bullet points redacted. EPD cited ORS 192.345 which exempts the release of records or information that would reveal or otherwise identify security measures, or weaknesses or potential weaknesses in security measures, taken or recommended to be taken to protect an individual, buildings or other property.

That public records exemption was changed in 2003 from public buildings to all buildings and individuals. The reasoning for expanding this was explained in a Oregon House Judiciary Committee meeting.The bill was meant to protect buildings after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, specifically infrastructure and utilities. The committee said it did not want to go too far with the exemption, because people need these records.

Police policies are not mentioned in the context of the records exemption, and the records request was not geared towards individuals or buildings. The public would be served by having the information on EPDs training and guidelines for the use of tear gas. If the public knew the information, such as the de-escalation processes and when an officer would be required to use tear gas, it could potentially help deter a riot or similar instance.

By not releasing the information to be disseminated to the public, EPD shows a lack of transparency. To redact the document without considering the public interest or citing the security reasons for doing so is to hide key information that can hold authorities accountable.

Incorrect Usage

Without records from EPD explaining the correct usage of those weapons, EW set out to find its own information about what happened.

Commissioner Shivers says that he wouldnt be surprised if policies werent followed that night:

It wouldnt be surprising if officers arent following policies. Forty percent of our officers are under five years of experience.

During a June 5 EPD press conference, officers explained some of the weapons they use in crowd control. EPD buys its weapons from Combined Systems, a weapons company based in Pennsylvania. One of the main munitions they use is a CS canister grenade, which after the pin is pulled, breaks into three separate sections, releasing gas from all three.

Michelle Heiser is the medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, a global non-governmental organization that uses medicine to promote human rights. She says that because of the chemicals in tear gas, it should always be used as a last resort. She adds that canisters themselves can be used as a weapon.

That is absolutely against international and national guidelines. Tear gas canisters are never supposed to hit human beings, Heisler says. Whatever officer did that should be held accountable. There should be criminal penalties. She adds that she recently traveled to Portland to conduct research on the Portland Police Bureaus use of gas.

Houston says that he experienced chest bruising from the canister and the after effects of inhaling the tear gas and fumes from the pepper balls. Several days after the incident, he went to the hospital to get his injuries checked out.

The canister can cause organ damage or arrhythmias if it hits someone in the chest, Heisler says. In addition, people inhale the smoke in front of their faces, which causes irritation to the skin, eyes and lungs.

This is also dangerous because, Heisler says, companies that produce weapons often lack transparency when it comes to what chemicals are actually used.

We are not getting information so it is hard to know how to treat it, she says.

There have also been reports of EPD using expired tear gas on protesters. Captain Eric Klinko addressed this at the press conference by explaining that the expired gas is just less potent, comparing it to old medicine. On the label of the canister it clearly says, Do not use after expiration date.

I dont think that is good research, Heiser says. If the chemical makeup of these weapons are unknown, the effects of the expired chemicals are also not understood.

In response to EWs record request, EPD also referenced its policy on tear gas use, which does not explain how it is used, and mostly focuses on who has the authority to use it.

The city of Sacramento has a long list of instructions on when and how to use chemical munitions for controlling crowds. In its instructions for arming a smoke grenade and throwing a riot smoke grenade, it advises never to throw it overhead.

Do not throw the grenade using the overhand lob or overhand baseball throw. This could result in an air-burst, causing unnecessary, accidental injury to individuals in the vicinity of the air-burst, the manual says.

But in the RG video footage, the arc of the canister appears to be thrown overhead from the turret at the top of the BearCat. At the June EPD press conference, Klinko said that it is supposed to be tossed underhand, but someone from the BearCat could potentially need to throw it overhand.

In a turret, for instance, if only this much of your body is out, you might need to overhand toss it, Klinko said. Someone getting hit is not the objective. Its absolutely not.

Read more:

Gas Lighting the First Amendment - Eugene Weekly

Gov. DeWine doesnt support Trump’s Goodyear boycott, but is believer in the First Amendment – News 5 Cleveland

COLUMBUS, Ohio Ohio Governor Mike DeWine said Thursday that he does not support President Trumps call to boycott top Akron employer Goodyear over an image suggesting employees are not allowed to wear MAGA hats, but says he is a believer in the First Amendment and peoples ability to express themselves.

We should not boycott this good Ohio company, DeWine said, responding to a reporters question about the Goodyear boycott during his regular COVID-19 briefing at the Statehouse. They have good Ohio workers and they produce a very good product.

The governor said that he doesnt think that we know all the facts about an image of a presentation slide shown at one of the companys factories in Topeka, Kansas that surfaced earlier this week, prompting the president to tweet a call for a boycott of the tire company.

Although the governor said he did not support the boycott, he said he is a believer in the First Amendment.

And I think as much while any company has a right to run its business the way it wants to run it, I think it's always better if people have the ability to express themselves, he said.There are limits, and I know legally that a company can, you know, can control what goes on in their workplace. But I would just think companies should be as open to First Amendment things as they canthats what kind of country this is.

When asked by another reporter if he would support government employees wearing political attire, Gov. DeWine said there is a difference between state employees and those working in the private sector.

I don't think that we would want, let's say, a state inspector who is out, who might have a political button on on state time and taxpayers paying for that person, DeWine said. So that's not allowed.

The slide, which the company has since said was not part of an official training program and was created by an employee at the Topeka facility, showed a list of acceptable and unacceptable attire in the workplace. The acceptable list included clothing with Black Lives Matter and LGBT on it, while the unacceptable list included Blue Lives Matter, All Lives Matter, MAGA attire and political affiliated slogans or material.

RELATED: Goodyear responds after president calls for boycott of Akron's 4th-largest employer

After the slide was reported on by a Kansas news station, the president tweeted: Dont buy GOODYEAR TIRES - They announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS. Get better tires for far less! (This is what the Radical Left Democrats do. Two can play the same game, and we have to start playing it now!).

On Thursday, Goodyear tweeted a statement from Chairman, CEO and President Rich Kramer, which read, in part: I deeply regret the impression it has created and want to clarify Goodyears position.

Goodyear does not endorse any political organization and has a policy that asks associates to refrain from expressions of support of any candidate or party in the workplace, Kramer stated.

Goodyear supports law enforcement and has supplied tires to police and fire personnel for over 100 years, the statement continues.

We have clarified our policy to make it clear associates can express support for law enforcement through apparel at Goodyear facilities, Kramer said.

Earlier Thursday, dozens of employees and city leaders rallied outside the Akron factory in support of the company.

RELATED: Watch Goodyear tire workers rally after Trump's call for boycott of Akron company

Read the original:

Gov. DeWine doesnt support Trump's Goodyear boycott, but is believer in the First Amendment - News 5 Cleveland

Did Georgia school officials forget that the First Amendment protects students too? – Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

F ifty-one years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that public school students are protected by the First Amendment.

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, the court stated in the landmark decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students.

As indelible and clear as the Tinker decision is in the pantheon of individual rights, school officials still seem to ignore or circumvent it especially, it seems, during the current global pandemic.

The latest example made headlines when two students at North Paulding High School in Dallas, Ga., took cellphone photos of crowded school hallways and posted them online, showing that few students were wearing masks. One of the students who posted the photos, Hannah Watters, reported in her tweet on Aug 4, We were stopped because it was jammed. This is not OK.

That tweet alone has all the elements of free speech it informs the public about what is happening at school. It also heeds the Tinker caveat that students are protected by the First Amendment, but conduct that materially disrupts a school is not. The photos went viral, a sign of the chaotic opening of schools for the new term.

But the tweeting students were swiftly suspended from school for five days for what they did. A school official wrote to parents that the photos did not look good and the students told they violated rules about using cellphones in school without permission. The schools principal announced to students that Anything thats going on social media that is negative or [the like] without permission photography video anything there will be consequences.

After nationwide backlash, the suspensions were both canceled. Watters tweeted, This morning my school called and they have deleted my suspension. To everyone supporting me, I cant thank you enough. In an interview, she said, This was some good and necessary trouble, echoing the words of the late Congressman John Lewis. After the uproar, the high school closed for a period to allow cleaning after at least 35 students and school staffers tested positive for COVID-19.

The Georgia episode points up the persistent avoidance of the Tinker ruling in many public schools.

It truly is mindboggling that more than 50 years after Tinker we are still having to remind principals that students have the right to speak peacefully and lawfully on campus, said Mike Hiestand, senior legal counsel for the Student Press Law Center, which advocates for student speech rights. Its truly not rocket science. But sadly, I think its not so much they dont know about the law as they dont care. The idea that students dare criticize them is just not something many school officials seem able to tolerate.

Hiestand said this persistent avoidance of Tinker has been exacerbated by the pandemic. Schools have clamped down, for example on providing accurate, timely information in response to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and interviews with school officials, he said. Schools are creating barriers to reporters trying to show what Back to School 2020 actually looks like. The other thing were starting to see are cutbacks in school budgets or other COVID-related changes that eliminate or cut back on student journalism programs.

More broadly, school officials seem to be especially antagonistic toward social media, cellphones and other devices that students carry with them every day, says Frank LoMonte, director of The Brechner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications.

There is a pervasive and growing sense among authority figures that social media is somehow so uniquely dangerous that normal First Amendment principles go out the window, LoMonte said. Everyone readily recognizes that complaining about school safety conditions is protected speech. But somehow, the introduction of social media causes an existential panic.

Hadar Harris, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, also said, Students must not be disciplined for exposing health and safety issues at their school, particularly in the midst of a pandemic. The school districts policy related to cellphone and social media use on campus raises serious First Amendment concerns in and of itself. Schools should be on notice that students have the right to report responsibly and lawfully on the situation in their schools, even if it is not the most flattering view of the school.

John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said, Hannah and her schoolmate acted in the best tradition of whistleblowers by bringing to light information that must be considered in making difficult choices.

Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, was especially perturbed by the school officials hostility toward photography. In this case, not only was the taking and posting of photos not seriously disruptive of normal school activities, it served a cardinal purpose enshrined in constitutional protections, namely the free exchange of ideas especially on matters of public concern.

Looking into the future, Osterreicher added, Students must be allowed to continue to photograph and report on conditions in their schools as well as their communities. Anything less creates a chilling effect on the constitutional rights of the next generation of newsgatherers.

Tony Mauro is contributing U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for the National Law Journal and ALM Media, and a special correspondent for the Freedom Forum.

Read more from the original source:

Did Georgia school officials forget that the First Amendment protects students too? - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

Lata Nott: Standing up for the First Amendment and Austin Tice – The Mercury

Earlier this month, I spoke (virtually, of course) with a group of journalism students about how the First Amendment relates to, and protects, the work theyll soon be doing. I walked them through the major legal doctrines that protect freedom of expression in this country:

The government cant create laws that censor or punish people for their speech, unless theres a compelling purpose behind them and those laws are the least restrictive way to achieve them;

It cant apply laws or take actions in a manner that discriminates against people based on the point of view theyre expressing;

It cant engage in prior restraint prevent something from being published unless it can prove that that publication would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the United States.

Its a lecture Ive given many times over the past few years, but afterwards, one of the students asked me a question Id never been asked before. Who makes sure the government isnt doing any of the things it cant be doing? Is there an agency that ensures compliance with the First Amendment?

For the most part, its just us, I replied and made some sort of expansive hand gesture in an effort to let the student know that us encompassed her, me, the other 20 people on the Zoom call and the American people as a whole.

It was an off-the-cuff answer, and if Id had more time and my Wi-Fi connection had been less laggy, I might have said that its the courts that strike down unconstitutional laws and government actions, although executive agencies like the Department of Justice and legislative bodies like Congress can certainly play a role by pushing for and implementing further safeguards for free expression. But my original answer still stands. Courts hear cases when lawsuits are brought by people whose rights have been violated. The executive and legislative branches respond to demands from their constituents. And the public learns about the governments transgressions through the press.

One of the most interesting things about the press is that despite being the only profession actually named in the Constitution, journalists themselves are not defined by any legal document or ordained by any government body. As my colleague Gene Policinski wrote on World Press Freedom Day a few years back, In the larger sense, were all press every time we post, tweet or blog whether we want that title or not. Media critics and advocates alike are fond of noting the press has no more and no less privilege under the First Amendment than any other U.S. citizen.

This is as true for the professional journalists who covered the recent Black Lives Matter protests as it is for the Minneapolis teenager who recorded the killing of George Floyd, which sparked those protests in the first place. Anyone who cares enough to expose wrongdoing people in power is serving as a watchdog. Anyone who wants to make truth known to the public at large wields the power of the press.

But the fact that anyone can do this doesnt detract from its significance, or the risks that it might entail.

On Aug. 14, it has been eight years since Austin Tice went missing. Austin was a Georgetown law student and former U.S. Marine Corps officer who went to Syria as a freelance journalist in 2012. He was also one of the only Western journalists on the ground while the Syrian conflict was unfolding and he made it his mission to report on the impact the conflict was having on civilians. On July 25, 2012, he posted this on his Facebook page, responding to those who told him he was crazy to try to report what was happening in Syria: We kill ourselves every day with McDonalds and alcohol and a thousand other drugs, but weve lost the sense that there actually are things out there worth dying for. Weve given away our freedoms piecemeal to robber barons, but were too complacent to do much but criticize those few who try to point out the obvious.

On Aug. 14, 2012, three days after his 31st birthday, Austin Tice was taken captive as he was preparing to travel from Daraya, near Damascus, Syria, to Beirut, Lebanon. Diverse credible sources report that he is still alive. Austins parents, who have unrelentingly advocated for his return, recently published an open letter in The Washington Posts Press Freedom Partnership newsletter that included this heartbreaking message:

Each year around Austins birthday and the date of his capture, theres a brief moment of renewed attention and media coverage. Our son is imprisoned every single day. Every single day Austin needs his colleagues in journalism to ask questions about what is being done to bring him home, to dig for answers when they meet with obfuscation and to hold U.S. government officials accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

Advocating for Austin and other journalists who have been unjustly targeted or detained is in our hands. So is safeguarding our First Amendment freedoms. As Austin pointed out, we cant afford to be complacent.

Lata Nott is a Freedom Forum Fellow. Contact her via email at lnott@freedomforum.org, or follow her on Twitter at @LataNott.

Read the original here:

Lata Nott: Standing up for the First Amendment and Austin Tice - The Mercury