Founder Of Starbucks’ Biggest Indian Rival Goes Missing; Shares Slump

In a missing person’s case, everybody has their theories. But we have to admit, this certainly doesn’t sound good.

Siddhartha asked his driver to stop his car near a bridge in the Southern Indian city of Mangaluru, before going for a walk, local police official Jayant Kumar said by phone. The driver informed police when Siddhartha didn’t return after an hour, Kumar said.

Shares of Coffee Day Enterprises, the owner of Indian coffee chain Coffee Day, slumped 20% after its founder and majority shareholder, V.G. Siddhartha, went missing on Monday in the Southern Indian city of Mangaluru, according to a filing with the exchange. The holding company owns several businesses, including Cafe Coffee Day, which operates nearly 1,700 cafes around India.

Siddhartha

Siddhartha hasn’t been reachable since Monday evening, the company said.

“We are taking the help of concerned authorities. Company is professionally managed and led by competent leadership team, which will ensure continuity of business.”

According to Bloomberg, Siddhartha founded the coffee chain and opened cafes around the country more than a decade before Starbucks started expanding into India. The roots of Siddhartha’s company can be traced back to the IT hub of Bengaluru in 1996.

The company’s leadership team has promised to “ensure continuity of business,” Coffee Day said in a recent filing.

Coffee Day went public in 2015, nearly two decades after opening its first cafe in Bengaluru. A unit of KKR owns 6.07% of the company, while Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Infosys Ltd., has a 2.69% stake.

“We are deeply saddened by the developments and our thoughts are with his family at this time,” KKR spokesperson told Bloomberg via email.

The fund sold 4.25% of its about 10.3% stake last February and haven’t sold any shares before or since, the spokesman said.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LNEPS7 Tyler Durden

How to Read a Legal Opinion—The Article, and Now the Podcast

Regular Volokh Conspiracy readers may be familiar with my 2007 short essay, How to Read A Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students.   For those who like to listen instead of read, I thought I would flag my recent podcast discussion about the article —  and the broader questions of how 1Ls should think about learning law and law school exams.  You can listen here: How to Read a Legal Opinion.

The podcast is 25 minutes long.  It is hosted by law professor Leslie Garfield Tenzer as part of her Law to Fact podcasts on legal education.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YdRm7T
via IFTTT

How to Read a Legal Opinion—The Article, and Now the Podcast

Regular Volokh Conspiracy readers may be familiar with my 2007 short essay, How to Read A Legal Opinion: A Guide for New Law Students.   For those who like to listen instead of read, I thought I would flag my recent podcast discussion about the article —  and the broader questions of how 1Ls should think about learning law and law school exams.  You can listen here: How to Read a Legal Opinion.

The podcast is 25 minutes long.  It is hosted by law professor Leslie Garfield Tenzer as part of her Law to Fact podcasts on legal education.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YdRm7T
via IFTTT

El-Erian: Game Theory Backs Boris Johnson’s Hard Line

Authored by Mohamed El-Erian, op-ed via Bloomberg.com,

In his maiden speech as prime minister on Wednesday, Boris Johnson repeated that the U.K. will “come out of the European Union on October 31st, no ifs or buts.”

Some may view this position as irresponsible — either for prematurely tying the country’s hands in what are likely to be tricky negotiations with the EU or for forcing Johnson to break a very public and oft-repeated promise less than 100 days after assuming office. Yet, in the game theory framework I set out last December to explain why the approach of his predecessor Theresa May risked getting stuck in the muddle-middle, Johnson’s approach may offer both the EU and the U.K. a way out of an impasse that is harming both sides.

Unable to unite her Conservative Party, let alone secure a majority in Parliament, May ended up not having the political clout to shift negotiations with the EU out of a “no-war, no-peace” battle of attrition. As such, it was virtually inevitable that that the U.K. would end up forced to negotiate a series of deadline extensions with its European partners. The EU, for its part, was unable to impose an orderly Brexit on the U.K., let alone a return to the status quo ante (“remain”). Neither was it willing to force a hard Brexit.

Some viewed this “slow Brexit” process as buying time for both sides and, therefore, maintaining the possibility of a better outcome down the road. But, as I argued, it came with notable and mounting costs for both sides. It undermined their ability to address structural impediments to high and more inclusive growth — not just in the U.K., where politics became hostage to a single issue, but also in Europe where the economy has been slowing significantly. It confronted companies with considerable uncertainty regarding the environment in which they would operate, paralyzing investment decisions. And it fed divisive forces in a climate of heightened sensitivity to cultural, identity and migration issues.

By having run on a less ambiguous Brexit platform, and by having been elected leader of his party by an overwhelming majority, Johnson has put down a clear come-what-may marker for the EU. If he can also convey a sense of parliamentary unity behind his position, he should be able to force the EU into compromise — that is, the EU agreeing to a multi-stage process that combines a formal Brexit on Oct. 31 with various transitional agreements to minimize the risks of a disorderly exit process.

While he is better placed than his predecessor, Johnson’s all-or-nothing approach is far from obstacle-free. Indeed, we need only look back at how last spring’s European Parliament elections — which neither side wished to contest while negotiations remained paralyzed — failed to force resolution. Also, the British Parliament remains divided, as does the nation.

Perhaps the additional realization that the costs over time of a continued slow Brexit process could end up being higher than that associated with either a hard Brexit or a decision to pursue a second and potentially indeterminate U.K. referendum will provide that final element that tips both sides into a workable and durable compromise.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LNI6AY Tyler Durden

Brickbat: Suspicious Minds

The Chicago Police Department has apologized after a local newspaper reported it had been running background checks on people who speak at meetings of the Chicago Police Board. Cops have been searching not only police databases, looking for outstanding warrants and criminal history, but also the social media accounts of speakers. They had been doing this since at least 2013. In a statement, the department apologized for “any mistrust that this practice may have caused.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YthT0l
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Suspicious Minds

The Chicago Police Department has apologized after a local newspaper reported it had been running background checks on people who speak at meetings of the Chicago Police Board. Cops have been searching not only police databases, looking for outstanding warrants and criminal history, but also the social media accounts of speakers. They had been doing this since at least 2013. In a statement, the department apologized for “any mistrust that this practice may have caused.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YthT0l
via IFTTT

In ‘Major Compliance Blunder’, Laid Of Deutsche Bankers Retained Access To Corporate Email For Weeks

In its rush to reduce its headcount, Deutsche Bank apparently forgot which employees it laid off, and which employees still worked at the bank.

The FT reports that DB has launched an internal investigation into whether “confidential client data were compromised” after the bank realized that some former employees retained access to company systems and their corporate email accounts for weeks after being laid off.

DB

One former equity sales person reportedly sent 450 messages via the company’s system after she was let go…and we doubt those messages were her merely saying one last goodbye to her treasured clients.

Around 50 traders in the London and New York offices were still able to access the bank’s systems and their emails for weeks after the first round of lay-offs started on July 8, according to people briefed on the compliance blunder. One equity salesperson sent 450 messages via remote access after she was let go.

News of the oversight doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the lender, which is trying to convince shareholders that it can pull off one of the most radical restructurings since the financial crisis.

The investigation, which is being led by head of compliance Jeremy Kirk, will examine whether there has been any collusion between laid off staff and those who remain at the bank.

So far, they haven’t found anything incriminating.

“Access to trading systems was turned off immediately for employees being put at risk of redundancy,” the bank said. “A small number of employees continued to have access to their work emails through personal devices for a limited period.”

“We have reviewed nearly all emails sent and have so far found no evidence of any price sensitive information being communicated or of any other wrongdoing,” he added.

“Access to work emails has now been fully revoked.”

The 50 equity traders in NYC and London who retained access to company email were just some of the 900 employees who have been let go. Over the next few years, DB intends to shrink its global headcount by 18,000.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/331uozS Tyler Durden

Will Silicon Valley have to choose between end-to-end crypto and shutting down speech it hates?

Our guests this week are Paul Scharre from the Center for a New American Security and Greg Allen from the Defense Department’s newly formed Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Paul and Greg have a lot to say about AI policy, especially with an eye toward national security and strategic competition with China. Greg sheds some light on DOD’s activity, and Paul helps us understand how the military and policymakers are grappling with this emerging technology. But at the end of the day, I want to know: Are we at risk of losing the AI race with China? Paul and Greg tell me not all hope’s lost – and how we can retain technological leadership.

In what initially seemed like a dog-bites-man story, Attorney General Barr revived the “warrant-proof” encryption debate. He brings some thoughtful arguments to the table, including references to practical proposals by GCHQ, Ray Ozzie, and Matt Tait. Nick Weaver is skeptical toward GCHQ’s proposal. But I think the future of the debate will be driven by Facebook’s apparent plan to drastically undermine end-to-end encryption by introducing content moderation to its encrypted messaging services. I argue that Silicon Valley is so intent on censoring its users that it is willing to sacrifice confidentiality and security (at least for anyone to the right of George W. Bush). News Roundup newcomer Dave Aitel thinks I’m wrong, at least in my attribution of Facebook’s motivations.

Mieke Eoyang, another News Roundup newcomer, brings us up to date on all the happenings in election security. Bob Mueller’s testimony brought Russian election meddling to the fore. His mistake, I argue, was testifying first to the hopelessly ideological House Judiciary Committee. Speaking of Congress, Mieke notes that the Senate Intel Committee released a redacted report finding that every state was targeted by Russian hackers in the 2016 election – and argues that we’re still not prepared to handle their ongoing efforts.

Congress is attempting to create a federal election security mandate through several different election security bills, but they likely will continue to languish in the Senate, despite what Mieke sees as a bipartisan consensus. Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, now on his way out, has established a new office to oversee and coordinate election security intelligence. Nick adds an extra reason to double down on election security: How else can we convince the loser that he is indeed the loser?

In other news, NSA is going back to the future by establishing a new Cybersecurity Directorate. Dave sheds light on the NSA’s history of reorganizations and what this new effort means for the Agency. Dave and I think there’s hope that this move will help NSA better reach the private sector – and even give DHS a run for its money.

I also offer Dave the opportunity to respond to critics who argued that his firm, Immunity Inc., was wrong to include a version of the BlueKeep exploit in its commercial pentesting software. The long and the short of it: If a vulnerability has been patched, then that patch gives an adversary everything they need to know to exploit that vulnerability. It only makes sense, then, to make sure your clients are able to protect themselves by testing exploits against that vulnerability.

Mieke brings us up to speed on the cybercrime blotter. Marcus Hutchins, one of Dave’s critics, pled guilty to distributing the Kronos malware but was sentenced to time served thanks in part to his work to stop the spread of the WannaCry ransomware. Mieke says that Hutchins’s case is a good example that not all black hat hackers are irredeemable. I note that it was good for him that he made his transition before he was arrested. Dave and Nick support the verdict while lamenting how badly hackers are treated by US law.

We round out the News Roundup with quick hits: Facebook had a very bad week, not least because of the multibillion dollar fine imposed by the FTC; the Department of Justice is going to launch a sweeping antitrust investigation into Big Tech; there was a wild hacking conspiracy in Brazil involving cell phones, bribes, and carwashes; Equifax reached a settlement with the FTC regarding its epic data breach. Speaking of which, we make a special offer to loyal listeners who can now claim a $125 check (or free credit monitoring, if you really prefer). Just go here, and be sure to tell them the Cyberlaw Podcast sent you. Oh, and an anti-robocall bill finally made it through both houses of Congress.

Download the 274th Episode (mp3).

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!

As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yn2Oin
via IFTTT

An Increasingly Dangerous Stand-off Between Civilizations

Authored by Denis MacEoin via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Not all people who worry about a replacement of civilizations are necessarily violent or even incorrect. They appear to be frightened folk, sent over the edge by matters they may feel beyond control. In Europe and the United States, they have witnessed wave upon wave of attacks by individuals and groups openly espousing violence in the name of religion. They seem to fear that their own governments are doing too little to protect them and their families from future attacks.

  • “What unites these groups ideologically is a belief that Europe is facing a ‘great replacement’ by Muslim and African immigrants. And they want something done about it.” — Marion MacGregor, “The push from Europe’s young new right”, Infomigrants.net; May 5, 2018.

  • Political correctness, often an extreme form of denial of reality, has made it increasingly hard for even the most reasonable and careful of thinkers to say anything critical about Islam… efforts to block fair criticism of aspects of Islam can become unjust forms of censorship.

The number of deaths is not always a guide to the impact of a tragedy. One of the most recent tragedies had a high, but far from record-making, toll of fatalities. First, and as a basis for comparison, it is worth noting that the November 2015 Islamic State attacks in Paris slaughtered 90 people in the Bataclan Theatre and more elsewhere in the city, for a total of 130 deaths. The Islamist truck attack on a single stretch of road in Nice on 14 July 2016 took no fewer than 86 lives. On Easter Sunday, 21 April 2019, around 253 innocent people, including many children, were slaughtered during radical Muslim attacks on churches and three hotels in Sri Lanka, the largest death toll since the nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001.

Pictured: The wreckage of St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo, Sri Lanka, on 21 April 2019, following a bomb attack earlier that day. (Photo by Stringer/Getty Images)

These all took their toll and will not soon be forgotten. Another attack recently took place that may have left a lasting impression, already changing how people think and act about our responses to these attacks and the people who perpetrate them, as we move more forcefully into a state of concerns on both sides of an increasingly dangerous stand-off between civilizations.

Most recently, 50 people were killed and another 50 were injured during an armed attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand on March 15, 2019.

The alleged killer was a 28-year-old Australian man, apparently a far-right activist named Brenton Harrison Tarrant. He was arrested while driving away from the second attack, possibly headed for another Islamic centre. Police Commissioner Mike Bush said that authorities “absolutely” believe they stopped the suspect “on the way to a further attack.” One target may have been the Ashburton Mosque, about an hour’s drive away. According to New Zealand’s News Hub:

There are several other targets within Christchurch that Tarrant may have considered while plotting his alleged crime. There are two Halal food outlets – a butchery and a supermarket – in the vicinity of the immobilised car. The most chilling possible target en route to Ashburton is the An-Nur Child Care Centre on Springs Road in Hornby in the city’s far west. The Centre is described as “the only Islamic early learning service in Christchurch”.

The same source said that Tarrant, in his written manifesto, identified the Ashburton Mosque as the next outlet for his hatred. He called the place a “desecration” because it had been converted from a church.

We must all be grateful that Tarrant was found and arrested before he could carry out further killings. But, as it stands, what he did in Christchurch will go down in history as the second — but largest — major attack in the West on Muslims peacefully at prayer in their house of worship.

When Baruch Goldstein, a far-right American-Israeli, killed 29 Muslim worshippers and wounded 125 in a 1994 massacre in the Ibrahimi Mosque inside the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, Israel, he was condemned outright by the Israeli government, the Israeli population, and Jews across the diaspora.

According to the New York Times, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin “declared murderous settlers to be outcasts, alien to Israel and to Judaism.” Rabin even called Goldstein a “villainous Jew,” and a “Jewish Hamas member.”

“I am shamed over the disgrace imposed upon us by a degenerate murderer,” Rabin continued. “You are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism.”

As for Australia’s Brenton Tarrant, in early April, reports appeared concerning his close ties to some European anti-Muslim groups. According to the Washington Post:

The probes currently concentrate on any money trails leading back to the suspect…

But it also reflects wider examinations into a new crop of far-right groups whose rise has paralleled the increasing use of anti-immigrant fears to buoy right-wing political parties in the West.

Among the groups most adept at stitching together the various strands of nativist anger and suspicion is the French-rooted Identitarian Movement, which promotes an alarmist message that Muslim migrants will one day overrun Western culture…

The Identitarian Movement apparently echoed Tarrant’s anger toward Muslim migrants, and is now at the center of international investigations as authorities try to piece together the elements that shaped Tarrant’s views.

The Identitarian Movement may have seemed to many a minor and obscure political trend that came to public attention only after the revelation of Tarrant’s links to its French and Austrian branches.

Jason Wilson describes it as follows, starting with its Austrian movement:

Identitäre Bewegung Österreichs (IBÖ) is part of a larger far-right Identitarian movement, with branches in most western European countries, North America and New Zealand

Organisations that affiliate themselves with Identitarianism include Génération Identitaire in France and Generazione Identitaria in Italy. The American Identity Movement in the United States (recently renamed from Identity Evropa and banned from Facebook on Thursday) participated in the Charlottesville rally, and recently leaked chat logs showed that their ranks include serving members of the US military. Identity Australia appears little more than a grouplet for now and the Dominion Movement in New Zealand claimed on its website to have disbanded in the wake of the mass murder at Christchurch.

The Charlottesville reference draws attention to another disturbing feature of Identitarianism: it is not just anti-Muslim, but anti-Jewish. White supremacists in the Charlottesville rally chanted “Jews will not replace us”:

The demonstration was suffused with anti-black racism, but also with anti-Semitism. Marchers displayed swastikas on banners and shouted slogans like “blood and soil,” a phrase drawn from Nazi ideology….”

It gets more complex: In Europe, antisemitism is most often found within socialist and Muslim groups, but while Identitarians and their affiliates hold that as part of their philosophy, their attention is mainly focussed on Muslims, in particular on refugees and immigrants: “What unites these groups ideologically is a belief that Europe is facing a ‘great replacement’ by Muslim and African immigrants. And they want something done about it.”

These movements are mainly made up of young white men, like Tarrant. With regard to Muslims, they see themselves as modern heirs to the Christians who fought wars against Muslim invaders such as the Ottoman Turks. In 2012, French Génération Identitaire members briefly occupied a mosque in Poitiers. They did so on the anniversary of the famous 732 Battle of Poitiers (better known as the Battle of Tours), the game-changing occasion when the Frankish Prince Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, defeated a raiding force of Arab Muslims sent north from the Umayyad Caliphate that controlled the Iberian Peninsula. That battle has come to be regarded as the event that blocked the entry of Muslim invaders into the rest of Europe.

Tarrant clearly took concerns about Muslims to a pathological extreme, and was ordered to undergo testing for mental illness. According to the Associated Press, however:

Tarrant’s rifles contained the names of legendary Serbs and Montenegrins who fought against the 500-year-rule of the Muslim Ottomans in the Balkans, written in the Cyrillic alphabet used by the two Orthodox Christian nations.

Elsewhere, it is noted that:

In photographs from a now deleted Twitter account associated with the suspect that match the weaponry seen in his live-streamed video, there is a reference to “Vienna 1683”, the year the Ottoman Empire suffered a defeat in its siege of the city at the Battle of Kahlenberg. “Acre 1189”, a reference to the Crusades, is also written on the guns.

Four names of legendary Serbs who fought against the 500-year-rule of the Muslim Ottomans in the Balkans, written in the Cyrillic alphabet, are also seen on the gunman’s rifles….

The name Charles Martel, who white supremacists are said to credit with saving Europe from invading Muslims in 734, was also on the weapons.

These are not the only names or references on the rifles and ammunition; what is striking is that Tarrant had obviously done his homework. He knew where to visit, whom to celebrate, and the historical context into which to situate his own attacks.

Not all people who worry about a replacement of civilizations are necessarily violent or even incorrect. They appear to be frightened folk, sent over the edge by matters they may feel beyond control. In Europe and the United States, they have witnessed wave upon wave of attacks by individuals and groups openly espousing violence in the name of religion. They seem to fear that their own governments are doing too little to protect them and their families from future attacks.

Political correctness, often an extreme form of denial of reality, has made it increasingly hard for even the most reasonable and careful of thinkers to say anything critical about Islam. While it is reasonable to call out overt racism or brutal hate for Muslims — or anyone else — efforts to block fair criticism of aspects of Islam can become unjust forms of censorship.

Many members of society might well see this censorship as a denial of their concerns on topics such as Islamist terrorism, unintegrated newcomers entering what they consider “their” territory, and their anxieties about what seems to be uncontrolled mass immigration into their native countries.

When governments dismiss these fears and do not seem to offer positive solutions to manifest problems, many people might understandably feel helpless. While many Muslims protest the violence in Islam, when presidents and priests say, “Islam is a religion of peace”, events that people see around them (such as hereherehere and here), combined with indisputable facts about fundamentalist doctrine and political demands, seem to have convinced increasing members of the public that such a statement is simply not true.

Freedom of speech, the most readily available alternative to violence, is, in many places, being ruled illegal. When it is, social dislocation is likely to follow.

Many immigrants who do make efforts to fit in play vital roles to the point where many are indispensable. If, however, as some may claim, there has been failure to work hard for the full integration of Muslims, what should be done if many seem to want not to be integrated?

In 2015, on behalf of the British government, Dame Louise Casey produced a report on integration in the UK, in which she concluded that Muslims were the hardest ethnic and religious community to integrate. By 2017, she openly declaredthat government ministers had done absolutely nothing to advance social cohesion and integration.

Both extremist Muslims and all agitators seem to suffer from the same issue in their communities and personal lives: an unwillingness to change or to want to change.

Values considered Western — such as democracy, which is rejected as man-maderather than divinely made; adherence to human rights, unless they align with sharia; and equal justice under the law — simply do not seem to be among the highest priorities of many newcomers. Those who might disagree often seem unable to speak out.

Until extremists on all sides wish to adjust to life as it has developed in the past century, it seems as if both the hatred and violence will continue.

Our security services, already strained by Islamic terrorism, now face growing threats at a time when many former fighters from Islamic State, bitter from their defeat, have returned, or are trying to return, to several countries in Europe. Is it necessary to say how far this convergence of opposing views threatens Western civilization?

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has lived in both worlds, states:

“These efforts are well meaning, but they arise from a misguided conviction, held by many Western liberals, that retaliation against Muslims is more to be feared than Islamist violence itself…. In the process, we… marginalized dissident Muslims who were attempting to pursue real reform.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MrshiM Tyler Durden

Will Silicon Valley have to choose between end-to-end crypto and shutting down speech it hates?

Our guests this week are Paul Scharre from the Center for a New American Security and Greg Allen from the Defense Department’s newly formed Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Paul and Greg have a lot to say about AI policy, especially with an eye toward national security and strategic competition with China. Greg sheds some light on DOD’s activity, and Paul helps us understand how the military and policymakers are grappling with this emerging technology. But at the end of the day, I want to know: Are we at risk of losing the AI race with China? Paul and Greg tell me not all hope’s lost – and how we can retain technological leadership.

In what initially seemed like a dog-bites-man story, Attorney General Barr revived the “warrant-proof” encryption debate. He brings some thoughtful arguments to the table, including references to practical proposals by GCHQ, Ray Ozzie, and Matt Tait. Nick Weaver is skeptical toward GCHQ’s proposal. But I think the future of the debate will be driven by Facebook’s apparent plan to drastically undermine end-to-end encryption by introducing content moderation to its encrypted messaging services. I argue that Silicon Valley is so intent on censoring its users that it is willing to sacrifice confidentiality and security (at least for anyone to the right of George W. Bush). News Roundup newcomer Dave Aitel thinks I’m wrong, at least in my attribution of Facebook’s motivations.

Mieke Eoyang, another News Roundup newcomer, brings us up to date on all the happenings in election security. Bob Mueller’s testimony brought Russian election meddling to the fore. His mistake, I argue, was testifying first to the hopelessly ideological House Judiciary Committee. Speaking of Congress, Mieke notes that the Senate Intel Committee released a redacted report finding that every state was targeted by Russian hackers in the 2016 election – and argues that we’re still not prepared to handle their ongoing efforts.

Congress is attempting to create a federal election security mandate through several different election security bills, but they likely will continue to languish in the Senate, despite what Mieke sees as a bipartisan consensus. Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, now on his way out, has established a new office to oversee and coordinate election security intelligence. Nick adds an extra reason to double down on election security: How else can we convince the loser that he is indeed the loser?

In other news, NSA is going back to the future by establishing a new Cybersecurity Directorate. Dave sheds light on the NSA’s history of reorganizations and what this new effort means for the Agency. Dave and I think there’s hope that this move will help NSA better reach the private sector – and even give DHS a run for its money.

I also offer Dave the opportunity to respond to critics who argued that his firm, Immunity Inc., was wrong to include a version of the BlueKeep exploit in its commercial pentesting software. The long and the short of it: If a vulnerability has been patched, then that patch gives an adversary everything they need to know to exploit that vulnerability. It only makes sense, then, to make sure your clients are able to protect themselves by testing exploits against that vulnerability.

Mieke brings us up to speed on the cybercrime blotter. Marcus Hutchins, one of Dave’s critics, pled guilty to distributing the Kronos malware but was sentenced to time served thanks in part to his work to stop the spread of the WannaCry ransomware. Mieke says that Hutchins’s case is a good example that not all black hat hackers are irredeemable. I note that it was good for him that he made his transition before he was arrested. Dave and Nick support the verdict while lamenting how badly hackers are treated by US law.

We round out the News Roundup with quick hits: Facebook had a very bad week, not least because of the multibillion dollar fine imposed by the FTC; the Department of Justice is going to launch a sweeping antitrust investigation into Big Tech; there was a wild hacking conspiracy in Brazil involving cell phones, bribes, and carwashes; Equifax reached a settlement with the FTC regarding its epic data breach. Speaking of which, we make a special offer to loyal listeners who can now claim a $125 check (or free credit monitoring, if you really prefer). Just go here, and be sure to tell them the Cyberlaw Podcast sent you. Oh, and an anti-robocall bill finally made it through both houses of Congress.

Download the 274th Episode (mp3).

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!

As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2yn2Oin
via IFTTT