Employees at social media giant Snap have been abusing internal tools for accessing user data in order to spy on Snapchat users, according to an investigative report by Motherboard, which interviewed multiple current and former employees and viewed internal Snap communications.
“employees have used data access processes for illegitimate reasons to spy on users, according to two former employees.” –Motherboard
Snapchat, which boasts over 186 million users, is a mobile app for Android and iOS devices which allows people to send ‘self-destructing’ photos or videos to another person. The ‘snap’ can be set to expire within a few seconds of the receiver opening it, or the sender can elect not to delete it at all.
As such, the app has fueled an explosion in sexting – the exchange of sexually explicit messages over electronic devices, which has consequently led to legal trouble for those breaking the law. Earlier this month, five Fairfax County, VA students were hit with nine felony child porn charges and one charge for unlawful filming tied to a sexting case in which the students were trading naked pictures of female students over Snapchat.
One of the tools Snap employees use to access sensitive user information, often for law enforcement purposes, is called SnapLion. Originally designed to comply with court orders and other valid law enforcement requests, SnapLion can reveal a user’s location data (when enabled) and message metadata, as well as photos or videos backed up by Snap users.
Snap’s publicly available guide to law enforcement for requesting information about users elaborates on the sort of data available from the company, including the phone number linked to an account; the user’s location data (such as when the user has turned on that setting on their phone and enabled location services on Snapchat); their message metadata, which may show who they spoke to and when; and in some cases limited Snap content, such as the user’s “Memories,” which are saved versions of their usually ephemeral Snaps, as well as other photos or videos the user backs-up. –Motherboard
According to the report, Snap’s entire “Spam and Abuse” team has access to the program according to one of the former employees, along with a department called “Customer Ops.” One current employee suggested that the tool is also used to combat bullying or harassment on the platform.
One of the former employees said that data access abuse occurred “a few times” at Snap. That source and another former employee specified the abuse was carried out by multiple individuals. A Snapchat email obtained by Motherboard also shows employees broadly discussing the issue of insider threats and access to data, and how they need to be combatted. –Motherboard
While Motherboard was able to view internal communications, the investigation “was unable to verify exactly how the data abuse occurred, or what specific system or process the employees leveraged to access Snapchat user data.“
You’ll just have to use your imagination – and always keep in mind that whatever you send over somebody else’s network is always subject to internal abuse.
Leonie Tanczer, a lecturer in International Security and Emerging Technologies at University College London, said in an online chat this episode “really resonates with the idea that one should not perceive companies as monolithic entities but rather set together by individuals all who have flaws and biases of their own. Thus, it is important that access to data is strictly regulated internally and that there are proper oversights and checks and balances needed.” –Motherboard
“For the normal user, they need to understand that anything they’re doing that is not encrypted is, at some point, available to humans,” said former Facebook chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, who added that insider data access abuse ‘is not exceptionally rare.’
As Motherboard notes – that while Snap has taken measures to introduce strict access controls over user data, and takes abuse an user privacy very seriously, “the news highlights something that many users may forget: behind the products we use everyday there are people with access to highly sensitive customer data, who need it to perform essential work on the service.”
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2JZQfQV Tyler Durden
The co-founder of Skype, Jaan Tallinn, is on a desperate mission to save the human race from the destruction of artificial intelligence. Since 2007, Tallinn’s dedicated more than $1 million toward preventing super-smart AIs from replacing humans as Earth’s dominant species and from destroying humanity in the process.
According to an interesting Popular Science article, the programmer discovered AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky’s essay “Staring into the Singularity” in 2007, two years after cashing in his Skype shares following the startup’s sale to eBay. That’s when Tallinn started pouring money into the cause of saving humanity from AI.
So far, [Tallinn has] given more than $600,000 to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, the nonprofit where Yudkowsky is a research fellow. He’s also given $310,000 to the University of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, which PopSci quotes him as calling “the most interesting place in the universe.” –Futurism
It’s a lofty goal, and it may not be having much of an effect. Tallinn is strategic about his donations, however. He spreads his money among 11 organizations, each working on different approaches to AI safety, in the hope that one might stick. In 2012, he co-founded the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) with an initial outlay of close to $200,000.
Tallinn says that super-intelligent AI brings unique threats to the human race.
Ultimately, he hopes that the AI community might follow the lead of the anti-nuclear movement in the 1940s. In the wake of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists realized what a destructive force nuclear weapons had become and joined together to try to limit further nuclear testing.
“The Manhattan Project scientists could have said, ‘Look, we are doing innovation here, and innovation is always good, so let’s just plunge ahead,’” he tells me.
“But they were more responsible than that.”
Tallinn says that we need to take responsibility for what we create and AI, once it reaches the singularity, has the potential to overpower and outsmart human beings. If an AI is sufficiently smart, he explains, it might have a better understanding of the constraints placed on it than its creators do.
Imagine, he says, “waking up in a prison built by a bunch of blind 5-year-olds.”
That is very likely what it could be like for a super-intelligent AI that is confined by humans.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2YKZMiW Tyler Durden
As homes in the US become increasingly unaffordable, those who can afford to buy probably chafe at the insanely high commissions paid to agents and brokers, which can amount to 6% of the sales price.
And as more buyers balk at these fees, turning instead to ‘iBuyers’ like Open Door and Zillow (which will buy a home with the intention of flipping it), it appears the DoJ has finally taken an interest in the phenomenon.
According to Bloomberg, anti-trust authorities are looking into allegations that members of the Realtors Association conspired with brokerage companies like Realogy Holdings Corp and Re/Max Holdings to stop home sellers from negotiating their commissions. Bloomberg learned about the investigation from sources at CoreLogic, a data provider that offers real-estate data to government agencies, lenders and brokers.
CoreLogic spokeswoman Alyson Austin confirmed the company received a civil investigative demand “relating to an investigation of practices of residential real estate brokerages.” CoreLogic is not the focus of the investigation, she said.
If anything, the investigation is long overdue. The DoJ has been trying to lower real-estate commissions for the past 10 years.
The U.S. residential real estate industry has long faced criticism that it stifles competition among brokerages, protecting agent commissions that are higher than those paid by sellers in many other countries. In 2008, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the National Association of Realtors, a trade group, that was designed to lower commissions paid by consumers by opening the industry to internet-based brokers.
While CoreLogic couldn’t provide any specifics beyond disclosing that the investigative demand sought information about the ability to search real estate listings on multiple platforms, the DoJ declined to comment, and BBG noted that a lawsuit filed against real-estate broker franchisors and the Realtors association might hold a few more clues.
The investigative demand to CoreLogic, dated last month, follows a lawsuit filed against the Realtors association and real estate broker franchisors, including Realogy Holdings Corp., claiming they conspired to prevent home sellers from negotiating commissions they pay to buyers’ agents.
The Realtors association filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it misunderstands the role of brokers. The trade group didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit or the Department of Justice investigation.
“We believe this case has no merit and have moved jointly with the other corporate defendants to dismiss the case,” Realogy spokesman Trey Sarten said in an email. “Additionally, we have joined in NAR’s motion to dismiss.”
The Internet has made it easy for anybody to look up listings, so why have commissions for real-estate agents remained so high? Though, while lower commissions could lead to lower prices, for most millennials, a mere 6% differential likely won’t be enough to revive the lost dream of homeownership.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30IcUrc Tyler Durden
In the information age, propaganda has become one of the most powerful forces in the world. And political factions, legacy news outlets, and special interest groups looking to manipulate societies to their wills use propaganda’s various tactics to advance their goals.
Yet, if we can manage to understand the inner workings of these propaganda tactics, their effects can be blunted. Like watching a magician at work, the tricks lose their charm when we can recognize the sleight of hand.
Among the most common methods used by legacy news outlets and political factions to manipulate public opinion is to deceive people into interpreting their adversaries as “symbols” of intended emotions and concepts.
Edward Bernays, whose 1928 book “Propaganda” directed modern tactics for advertising and politics, wrote that the intentional manipulation of societies, and of the habits and opinions of people, “is an important element in democratic society.”
“Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society,” he wrote, “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
The manipulation of symbols is one of the tactics at the foundation of many other tactics. And to understand how these broader tactics work, we first need to understand how propagandists break down how a person views the world, and how they can trigger people’s emotions. This ties to one’s “mythos” and “cycle of meaning.”
The “mythos” is used to describe a person’s system of values and perceptions of the world. It can be your interpretation of right and wrong, your beliefs shaped by religion, and your worldview shaped by stories and experiences.
Propagandists look to alter a person’s “mythos” by subverting what’s described as your “cycle of meaning.”This is the cycle that makes people interpret things as symbols. It holds that people don’t interpret reality directly, but instead interpret reality through a series of symbols onto which they attach meaning. Through the cycle of meaning, it’s held that a person can alter the way people interpret these symbols through things including ritual, myth, art, and experience.
The concept isn’t necessarily a bad thing. As an example, a crucifix has no meaning in and of itself. It would carry no meaning if shown to someone unfamiliar with the story of Jesus. For people with the story, however, the crucifix is seen as a symbol of salvation.
The same concept of symbology ties to people in your life, and how your past experiences with them shape your perceptions of them. When you encounter a person, you may feel the past emotions they caused in you. Some people may evoke love, others resentment, depending on how your perceptions have been shaped by experience.
Propagandists look to subvert your cycle of meaning, and your mythos, in order to alter the way you react emotionally to things and how you interpret reality.
Bernays wrote that when people desire something, it’s often not for that thing’s actual worth or usefulness, but instead because they interpret surface meanings as symbols of deeper unspoken desires. He explained, a person desires something “because he has unconsciously come to see in it a symbol of something else, the desire for which he is ashamed to admit to himself.”
“A man buying a car may think he wants it for purposes of locomotion… He may really want it because it is a symbol of social position, an evidence of his success in business, or a means of pleasing his wife.”
These deeper desires, or surface meanings, then become tools for propagandists to manipulate—since using them can directly trigger a person’s emotional responses.
If people find insects disgusting, then a propagandist looking to make a target appear disgusting will name that target alongside insects. If people find a group reprehensible, a propagandist will mention that group in relation to a target that they want to paint as reprehensible.
We’ve seen this tactic used heavily, for example, by legacy news outlets and politicians attempting to paint conservatives badly. To do this, they try to associate in people’s minds all conservatives with negative emotions by always naming them alongside words such as “fascist,” “alt-right,” or “racist.”
This is of course done through a jump in logic.
Mussolini was a socialist, as was Adolf Hitler’s “National Socialist” (NAZI) party. The concept that they were “far right” came about through a re-framing of political spectrums done under the Marxist Frankfurt School, which looked only at the ideas of nationalism versus internationalism to separate their systems from the full body of socialism (a necessary move for the survival of socialism, since its association with Hitler’s National Socialists would have been devastating to socialist movements during the denazification movement after World War II).
Yet, using this tactic, legacy news outlets have convinced their followers to interpret “MAGA” hats as “symbols” of hate. Conservatives are seen as being “symbols” of “fascism” and are targeted for violence by leftist radical groups like Antifa. It’s a “guilty by association” concept – only the propagandists pulling the strings are fabricating what the symbolic “associations” are.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VKVjeu Tyler Durden
One of the major barriers that keeps the Mississippi River on its course could be opened for only the third time in its history. The opening would be the result of rising river levels and could also flood parts of Louisiana, which would affect businesses in the region, according to Bloomberg.
The Army Corps of Engineers may be forced to open the Morganza Floodway, a lengthy dam-like barrier that redirects 600,000 cubic feet, or 17 million liters of water, per second to take pressure off the Mississippi. The river has been at high levels since last October as a result of massive rainfalls that have also had a negative effect on crops in the region.
The floodway is about 45 miles northwest of Baton Rouge and, when opened, sends water into the “rural area between the Atchafalaya and Mississippi Rivers in central Louisiana.”
The area along the river between New Orleans and Baton Rogue is littered with refineries, chemical plants and grain elevators. High water on the river has already caused delays for shipments of raw materials in and out of these businesses and, due to the high levels, traffic through Vicksburg was shut down earlier this year already.
Exacerbating things further is the fact that meteorologists are calling for a new deluge into the river as a result of thunderstorms across the Great Plains and the Midwest this week. A large amount of this water will flow into the Mississippi, coupled with water from the Arkansas river.
Jeff Graschel, service coordination hydrologist with the Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center said: “We are really close to the trigger levels.” Speaking to Bloomberg, he added that while the Mississippi could dip lower in the next few days, forecasters are expecting a new deluge caused by a week’s worth of thunderstorms across the Great Plains and Midwest to send the river rising again by the end of next week.
John Bel Edwards, the state’s governor will be holding a press conference to explain the action he will take.
The floods occurring now are not as severe as they were in 2011, which was the last time the floodway was forced open. River levels are about 2 feet lower than they were during 2011.
The Bonnet Carre Spillway, about 28 miles downstream, was opened in February to help prevent flood risk in New Orleans.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30Heppi Tyler Durden
An entirely decentralized network of self-defense rights advocates have taken to the internet to provide plans for 3D-printed guns. It looks like the 3D guns are unregulatable and unstoppable. They’re anonymously sharing the blueprints and advice while simultaneously building an unstoppable community.
Unlike previous attempts to popularize 3D-printed guns, this newer operation is entirely decentralized. There’s no headquarters, no trademarks, and no real leader. The people behind it already understand that this means they can’t be stopped by governments and their laws or regulations.
“If they [the government] were to come after me, they’d first have to find my identity,” says Ivan the Troll, a member of the group. “I’m one of many, many like-minded individuals who’re doing this sort of work.”
According to Wired UK, Ivan the Troll is the de facto spokesman of an underground wave of 3D-printing gunsmiths. Ivan says he knows of at least 100 people who are actively developing 3D-printed gun technology, and he claims there are thousands taking part in the network. This loose-knit community spans the entire globe.
They communicate across several digital platforms, including Signal, Twitter, IRC, and Discord. They critique each other’s work, exchange 3D gun CAD files, offer advice, talk theory, and collaborate on future blueprints. These 3D-printed gun enthusiasts – who share similar ideas and political viewpoints on gun control – mostly found each other online via gun control subreddits and forums.
Ivan is just one small part of this network. He says he is from Illinois, and is of “college age”, but otherwise he remains mostly anonymous, to lie low. At the same time though, he’s launched bombastic PR videos demonstrating the new 3D-printed gun parts he’s created in his garage, including a Glock 17 handgun frame.-Wired UK,
Much to the chagrin of authoritarians worldwide, coming for an entire network of people is virtually impossible. And in all honesty, 3D guns wouldn’t be such a popular market if governments stopped trying to take rights away from people and enslave them. Ivan the Troll and others like him continue to help people regain their freedom from the violent authoritarians running the world’s governments.
One of his most recent videos shows the polymer Glock 17 frame in various stages of production in his workshop. The footage is set to fast-paced synthwave music and is run through a trendy VHS filter – the aesthetics are important. Toward the end, Ivan fires several rounds with the fully built handgun, as text flashes up saying “ANYONE CAN MAKE IT”, “LIVE FREE OR DIE”, and “GO AHEAD TRY TO STOP THIS YOU FILTHY STATISTS”. He’s also uploaded the complete CAD reference model designs for a 3D-printed AR-15 assault rifle to his file-sharing space online. –Wired UK
*As of this writing, Ivan’s video is no longer available on YouTube, however, there are probably many other places online it can be found. It doesn’t appear that censorship is going to hold people back any longer.
Earlier this year, in February, Ivan and his group decided to name themselves “Deterrence Dispensed”, which is a tongue-in-cheek nod to the notorious Defence Distributed – a 3D-printing gun company formerly run by Texan crypto-anarchist Cody Wilson. (Wilson was accused of paying a 16-year-old for sex). For Ivan’s group, Deterrence Dispensed, Wilson’s arrest is irrelevant. They are uploading files individually on services such as Spee.ch, a media-hosting site underpinned by the LBRY blockchain, and they already know that as human beings, they don’t require permission from any other human to do so.
Ivan the Troll says that America’s police state is part of the problem, and why everyone should be considering protection from the enforcers.
“The cops killed more people alone last year than all active shooter incidents in the last ten years,” he says. “We live in a society, in America, where you run the risk of a cop blowing your ass up for no specific reason. You don’t even have to present a threat to them. A cop can kill you and get away with it just because he really wanted to do it.”
He then went on to cite the many police shootings of unarmed black men in American, specifically mentioning Stephon Clark. Clark, 22, was shot to death by police in his own back garden while holding nothing but a mobile phone. “I believe it is inherently important that … you should be able to own a gun,” Ivan continued. “You should be able to own the same legal force that the cops are using to control you.” –Wired UK
There is no way to stop the anonymous file sharing of 3D-printed guns online.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2JWTzfK Tyler Durden
Outspoken Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has ordered that containers carrying trash from Canada should be shipped back to the country. It is the latest chapter in a disagreement over more than 100 containers of trash that were shipped to the Philippines between 2013 and 2014, illegally, by a Canadian company.
Canada had previously agreed to take the trash back, but has been slow in making arrangements for its return. Duterte threatened to leave the trash in Canadian waters if Ottawa refuses to take it back, according to Salvador Panelo, spokesman for the President. Quoted by RT, Panelo said Duterte was “upset” by Ottawa’s “inordinate delay” in shipping the garbage back after they missed a May 15 deadline to do so. Officials in the Philippines are now looking to hire a private shipping company to move the waste back to Canada, with Manilla bearing the expenses.
Panelo continued: “Obviously, Canada is not taking this issue nor our country seriously.” He continued, saying that the trash would be dumped in Canada’s territorial waters, or 12 miles from the country’s shore.
“The Philippines is an independent sovereign nation [and] must not be treated as trash by other foreign nations. We hope this message resonates well with other countries of the world,” Panelo concluded.
The containers had previously been listed as containing plastics intended for recycling, however, upon delivery, the shipment was found to contain newspapers, water bottles, diapers and other trash. Back in April, Duterte had said of the argument: “They have been sending their trash to us. Well, not this time. We will quarrel with each other. So what if we quarrel with Canada? We’ll declare war against them, we can beat them.”
Duterte warned Canada to “prepare a grand reception” for the trash and said he didn’t care what Canada did with it. He even suggested that Canadians could “eat it” if they wanted to.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X1Um2T Tyler Durden
Back in January 2018, I wrote this piece about The War on Dissent, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is going gangbusters. As predicted, the global capitalist ruling classes have been using every weapon in their arsenal to marginalize, stigmatize, delegitimize, and otherwise eliminate any and all forms of dissent from neoliberal ideology, and in particular from their new official narrative … “Democracy versus The Putin-Nazis.”
For over two years, the corporate media have been pounding out an endless series of variations on this major theme, namely, that “democracy is under attack” by a conspiracy of Russians and neo-Nazis that magically materialized out of the ether during the Summer of 2016. The intelligence agencies, political elites, academia, celebrities, social media personalities, and other organs of the culture industry have been systematically reifying this official narrative through constant repetition. The Western masses have been inundated with innumerable articles, editorials, television news and talk show segments, books, social media posts, and various other forms of messaging whipping up hysteria over “Russians” and “fascists.” At this point, it is no longer just propaganda. It has become the new “truth.” It has become “reality.”
Becoming “reality” is, of course, the ultimate goal of every ideology. An ideology is just a system of ideas, and is thus fair game for critique and dissent. “Reality” is not fair game for dissent. It is not up for debate or challenge, not by “serious,” “legitimate” people. “Reality” is simply “the way it is.” It is axiomatic. It is apothegmatic. It’s not a belief or an interpretation. It is not subject to change or revision. It is the immortal, immutable Word of God … or whatever deity or deity-like concept the ruling classes and the masses they rule accept as the Final Arbiter of Truth. In our case, this would be Science, or Reason, rather than some supernatural being, but in terms of ideology there isn’t much difference. Every system of belief, regardless of its nature, ultimately depends on political power and power relations to enforce its beliefs, which is to say, to make them “real.”
OK, whenever I write about “reality” and “truth,” I get a few rather angry responses from folks who appear to think I’m denying the existence of objective reality. I’m not … for example, this chair I’m sitting on is absolutely part of objective reality, a physical object that actually exists. The screen you’re probably reading these words on is also part of objective reality. I am not saying there is no reality. What I’m saying is, “reality” is a concept, a concept invented and developed by people … a concept that serves a variety of purposes, some philosophical, some political. It’s the political purposes I’m interested in.
Think of “reality” as an ideological tool … a tool in the hands of those with the power to designate what is “real” and what isn’t. Doctors, teachers, politicians, police, scientists, priests, pundits, experts, parents — these are the enforcers of “reality.” The powerless do not get to decide what is “real.” Ask someone suffering from schizophrenia. Or … I’m sorry, is it bipolar disorder? Or oppositional defiant disorder? I can’t keep all these new disorders psychiatrists keep “discovering” straight.
Or ask a Palestinian living in Gaza. Or the mother of a Black kid the cops shot for no reason. Ask Julian Assange. Ask the families of all those “enemy combatants” Obama droned. Ask the “conspiracy theorists” on Twitter digitally screaming at anyone who will listen about what is and isn’t “the truth.” Each of them will give you their version of “reality,” and you and I may agree with some of them, and some of their beliefs may be supported with facts, but that will not make what they believe “reality.”
Power is what makes “reality” “reality.” Not facts. Not evidence. Not knowledge. Power.
Those in power, or aligned with those in power, or parroting the narratives of those in power, understand this (whether consciously or not). Those without power mostly do not, and thus we continue to “speak truth to power,” as if those in power gave a shit. They don’t. The powerful are not arguing with us. They are not attempting to win a debate about what is and isn’t “true,” or what did or didn’t “really” happen. They are declaring what did or didn’t happen. They are telling us what is and is not “reality,” and demonstrating what happens to those who disagree.
The “Democracy versus The Putin-Nazis” narrative is our new “reality,” whether we like it or not. It does not matter one iota that there is zero evidence to support this narrative, other than the claims of intelligence agencies, politicians, the corporate media, and other servants of the ruling classes. The Russians are “attacking democracy” because the ruling classes tell us they are. “Fascism is on the march again” because the ruling classes say it is. Anyone who disagrees is a “Putin-sympathizer,” a “Putin-apologist,” or “linked to Russia,” or “favored by Russia,” or an “anti-Semite,” or a “fascist apologist.”
This post-Orwellian, neo-McCarthyite mass hysteria is not going to stop… not until the global capitalist ruling classes have suppressed the current “populist” insurgency and restored “normality” throughout the Western world. Until then, it’s going to be pretty much non-stop “Democracy versus the Putin-Nazis.”
So, unless you’re enjoying our new “reality,” or are willing to conform to it for some other reason, prepare to be smeared as “a Russia-loving, Putin-apologizing conspiracy theorist,” or a “fascism-enabling, Trump-loving Nazi,” or some other type of insidiously Slavic, white supremacist, mass-murder enthusiast.
Things are only going to get uglier as the American election season ramps up. I mean, come on … you don’t really believe that the global capitalist ruling classes are going to let Trump serve a second term, do you?
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2VL3h72 Tyler Durden
Today is the official launch date of the EU Parliamentary elections in Europe, which as Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid writes, used to be fairly dull affairs but with the rise of anti-EU and populist party support, and the bizarre situation where the UK is taking part but likely to leave the Union this year, “the next few days should be a fascinating political backdrop for a turbulent few years ahead for Europe.”
First some logistics: the EP elections actually take place over the next four days, with each of the 28 countries voting on the day they normally hold national elections. The UK and the Netherlands will kick off proceedings today, but most of the big EU countries (including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland) don’t vote until Sunday. In spite of some countries finishing before then, the votes won’t actually be counted until the polls right across Europe have closed, so as Reid notes, Sunday night is when we can start to expect results, with the final outcome on Monday.
Here Deutsche Bank makes an interesting (or worrying depending on your view) fact about the EP elections: in every vote since they began in 1979, EU-wide turnout has fallen, from a high of 62% at the first set in 1979 to just 43% last time round in 2014. As a result of the EU’s crackdown on unpopular, if democratic, choices, the votes are simply not seen as anywhere near as important as national elections but for the EU to succeed it will be difficult if Eurosceptic politics dominate in Brussels. Indeed, populists are expected to perform strongly in the first EP election since the migrant crisis and Britain’s vote to leave the EU in 2016.
As the chart below shows, while nowhere near a majority yet, EU-sceptics are rapidly approaching the critical threshold level, and away from Hungary, where the anto-immigration Fidesz party is expected to hit just about 50%, the most critical country to track will be Italy, where the League is expected to win roughly 33% of the Projected Europarliament seats.
What to look forward to?
According to the polls, we can expect to see some pretty striking results across the continent, with Eurosceptic parties of both left and right expected get more than 35% of the seats if the current polls are correct, while for the first time ever the two main centre-right and centre-left groupings are projected to not have a majority between them, although pro-European forces as a whole are expected to.
In the UK, Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, which explicitly backs a no-deal Brexit, is polling in first place, while polls have put the governing Conservatives as low as fifth, something for which there is quite literally no precedent. The Brexit party, having only been formed a few months ago, are now poised to come first in a national election, prompting the following question from Deutsche Bank: “Has a political party ever gone from non-existence to first place in a national poll so quickly?” (The answer is no)
Meanwhile, and just as important, in Italy the right-wing Lega is expected to come first, with its leader Deputy Prime Minister Salvini having railed against EU deficit rules and clashed with other countries over taking in migrants. In France, President Macron’s party has been running neck-and-neck with Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, with the final polls putting Le Pen’s party marginally ahead. This will be one to watch when results come through Sunday night/ Monday morning.
With the big picture in place, here courtesy of RanSquawk are the full details to look for in the next 4 days:
May 23rd-26th will see EU citizens take to the polls to elect 751 MEPs from the 28 member states (inc. UK) with the election taking place against a backdrop of increasing populism across the continent and rising anti-EU sentiment. Investors will be watching the election for any signs of European disintegration.
Voting system
As part of a five-year cycle, EU citizens will be electing 751 MEPs to the European Parliament with each individual nation’s seat allocation based largely on population size. Note, if the UK had been able to ratify a Brexit deal by May 22nd, out of its current 73 seat allocation, 27 seats would have been re-allocated to member states with the remainder reserved for future enlargements.
There is no uniform voting system across the process, however, all nations use some form of proportional representation. In terms of the order of play, the vote count in each nation will commence when polls close in each member state with the results to be released from Sunday 26th May at 2100BST when polling stations in all countries have shut. Note, exit polls will be published after all polling stations have closed with results updated throughout the night.
Current Parliamentary Composition
Given the multi-national composition of the European Parliament, there is a wide-range of political views held by MEPs, however, lawmakers broadly fit into one of 9 Parliamentary groups (one of which is non-attached members). These Parliamentary groups are divided by political leaning and not necessarily geographical location. These groups are as follows (in order of current Parliamentary representation):
European People’s Party (EPP): 217 MEPs. Leader: Manfred Weber. Stance: This is the biggest group in the European Parliament, containing some of the EU’s longest-established political parties. It is broadly centre-right and enthusiastic about deeper EU integration. Around half of the European Commission is comprised of members of the EPP party.
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D): 189 MEPs. Leader: Gianni Pittella. Stance: The main center-left group in the Parliament and for many years was the biggest group in Brussels, although that crown has since been taken by the EPP. (MUEZ)
European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR): 74 MEPs. Leader: Syed Kamall. Stance: Broadly centre-right and Eurosceptic, it contains a mixture of groups that are more socially conservative and those that promote economic liberalism.
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE): 68 MEPs. Leader: Guy Verhofstadt. Stance: It is the main centrist group in the Parliament. One of the most Euro-enthusiastic groups in the Parliament and has often held the balance of power in key votes and has been courted by both the Socialists and the EPP when majorities are sought.
European United Left–Nordic Green Left (GUE-NGL): 52 MEPs. Leader: Gabriele Zimmer. Stance: Group sits on the far left of the political spectrum, containing members from a number of Communist and traditional Socialist parties. It is broadly Eurosceptic but from an anti-austerity or anti-capitalist point of view, rather than specifically on issues of national sovereignty.
Greens–European Free Alliance (Greens–EFA): 51 MEPs. Leader: Rebecca Harms and Philippe Lamberts. Stance: As its name suggests, this group is an alliance of two parties – the European Greens and the European Free Alliance. The group generally takes a left of centre position on most issues.
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD): 45 MEPs. Leader: Nigel Farage. Stance: Contains MEPs who disagree with the idea of European integration from a broadly, but not exclusively, right-wing perspective. The UK provides the largest number of MEPs in this group.
Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF): 37 MEPs. Leader: Marine le Pen. Stance: The bulk of the group’s MEPs come from the French Front National (FN), The far-right FN had previously struggled to find members from enough countries to form a group. The bloc also includes Italy’s Northern League and MEPs from the Dutch Freedom Party.
Non-Inscrits (NI): 18 MEPs. Leader: N/A. Stance: Generally speaking, this cohort is made up of MEPs who have not been able to find enough allies to form a group of their own, or who have been rejected by other parties.
Please see below for a useful graphic from Danske Bank depicting the political leanings of various groups
Polling
Polling for the election is somewhat opaque as there is no pan-EU polling for the elections within all member states. Instead, pollsters project theoretical seat allocations for the EU Parliament on the basis of national polls within member states. A bulk of the polling up until recently had excluded the UK from the election race, however, since the extension of the Brexit deadline to October 31st, UK parties have been reworked back into forecasting models. Given this development and the sheer scale of the data required to build polling models, it is possible that there could be a larger margin of error than seen with previous polling. Furthermore, participation rates could also pose some issues for pollsters with HSBC highlighting that the increased press coverage and political debate across Europe could see a marked pickup in Europeans heading to the polls vs. the record-low 2014 turnout of just 42.6%.
Please see below for the latest polling data via the FT:
Overall, Danske Bank concludes that the EPP will remain the largest faction in Parliament with the S&D to remain in second place. However, the EPP and S&D will likely lose their absolute majority (for the first time since the 1970s) amid the backdrop of populism and French President Macron throwing his weight behind the ALDE. That said, Danske Bank notes that this might not be perceived as too much of a negative as it could spark broader debates within Brussels. Furthermore, doubts over whether or not the populist factions will be able to provide a united front under the potential leadership of Italian Deputy PM Salvini, could help limit the influence of anti-EU sentiment within the decision-making process. Furthermore, when/if the UK leaves Parliament after securing a Brexit deal with the EU, this will also limit the scope of the Eurosceptic reach. Additionally, HSBC suggest that Eurosceptic parties could be further isolated if the EPP and S&D opt to reach out to ALDE and the Greens.
Market Impact
Overall Impact
In terms of the overall market impact, given the potential outcomes discussed above which will most likely see the preserving of some sort of status-quo between pro-EU parties, analysts broadly believe that the elections will not be too much of a market-mover; a view backed by Goldman Sachs. However, any surge in allocations for anti-EU parties would likely challenge this view, albeit, Danske Bank believe that any impact on the periphery wouldn’t be particularly significant.
A somewhat cynical view comes from the Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:
”The election of 170 part-time dilettantes from the eurosceptic Left and Right might shake up French or Italian politics. It will change absolutely nothing in the governing structure of the EU…The EU’s permanent machinery will reassert iron control once the noise has subsided. Few euro-rebels ever learn where the light switches are at the Espace Leopold in Brussels. They do not master procedure or lay siege to the powerful committees that ‘codecide’ – i.e., can veto or rewrite – 60% of new legislation descending on national parliaments. Their vocation is criticism.
Day-to-day matters are left to Team Germany and its satellites. This is not to make an anti-German point but simply to state a fact of European life. German MEPs are career legislators. Election is the path to a lifelong job. Protest movements barely scratch the surface of this regime. They take up their seats – and salaries – but their influence over daily governance is scarcely greater than Sinn Fein’s at Westminster. The game is symbolism. European elections are to promote the brand at home and gain fungible funding – if you can slip the money past the Strasbourg police or Questors.
Nigel Farage, France’s Marine Le Pen, and Italy’s Beppe Grillo, and Greece’s Syriza (before it was co-opted) all levered gains in the 2014 elections into uprisings of sorts in their own countries, but they did not deflect the EU juggernaut one inch from its rigid, imperial, integrationist course. Not even Brexit has done that. Au contraire. Perhaps it will be different this time. Matteo Salvini and Hungary’s Viktor Orban are not outsiders any more. They are in government. Yet as a grizzled, scarred veteran of EU trench warfare for almost thirty years, I remain deeply sceptical. My working premise is that nothing of substance will change unless or until Germany loses faith in the euro project or – much the same thing – Italy’s corrosive debt dynamics finally compel the Bundesbank to cut off Target2 support for the Bank of Italy. Winning elections is never quite enough in the European Union.”
National Impact
ING attribute greater market relevance towards the potential national fallout of the election with the Dutch Bank citing the fragility of the German government “which could eventually fall in case of severe defeats for at least one of the coalition parties”. This view is also backed by BNP Paribas who suggest a potential change in government from a CDU/SPD coalition to a ‘Jamaica’ coalition of CDU/FDP/Greens. Elsewhere, ING highlight France as another area of potential interest whereby “voters could use the elections to voice their assessment of recent policy announcements”.
However, BNP Paribas downplay the likelihood of a snap election in France and instead suggest the fallout of the EU elections will be more pertinent for the 2022 Presidential race. Furthermore, a strong showing for Italian Deputy PM Salvini could heighten the likelihood of a domestic election with the League and 5SM currently at loggerheads and the League’s polling numbers having increased markedly since last year’s election. However, HSBC caution that potential delays to passing the Italian budget from an election could make the President (who is responsible for dissolving Parliament) reluctant to send Italian voters to the polls once again. From a UK perspective, the 2019 elections will be of great importance given that the nation was not initially intending to partake in them, with the outcome of the vote likely to reflect the leave/remain divide in Britain. In terms of the fallout from the election for UK politics, the situation very much remains a moving target with PM May aiming to once again put her deal before Parliament at the beginning of June. However, recent polling suggests a victory for the Brexit Party and a dismal performance from the Conservatives which could provide Tories with enough ammunition to finally remove their leader. Obviously, the election could have a follow-through for all EU28 members, however, for the purpose of this report, our analysis has largely been placed on Germany, France, UK and Italy.
Spitzenkandidaten
Of greater importance for the election could be the knock-on effect to top-level appointments within the EU/Eurozone. Firstly, there is the Spitzenkandidaten process (introduced in 2014), whereby “each party on the European level can publicly announce who their transnational spitzenkandidat will be, informally making them the face of their election bid. The spitzenkandidat who can secure a majority governing coalition in the European Parliament (353 MEPs) will become European Commission President if approved by the European Council (Heads of national governments and states)”, as explained by Europe Elects. At the time of writing the process will likely be used at the 2019 election, however, objections from French President Macron could see this process scrapped. The French President has stated that his party will not support any political group that backs the process as believes it strips politicians of “the power to pick Europe’s most senior official”, as reported by Politico. Nonetheless, should the system be used, please see below for the current list of Spitzenkandidatens
European Peoples Party (EPP) – Manfred Weber (National party: German CSU); Current EPP Chair and therefore polling suggests he could have the greatest chance of becoming European Commission President if Spitzenkandidaten process is used. Hardliner on immigration.
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D): Frans Timmermans (National party: Dutch Labour Party); First Vice-President of the European Commission and said to have the next best chance of success after Weber. Key figure in the fight against nationalism and Euroscepticism.
European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR): Jan Zahradli (National party: Czech Civic Democratic Party); Yet to be officially confirmed and has a very slim chance of victory. Supports a multi-speed EU which is responsible for protection of external borders and the single market. However, believes member states should remain in charge of migration, taxation and currencies.
Greens–European Free Alliance (Greens–EFA): Ska Keller and Bas Eickhout (National parties respectively: German Greens and Dutch GreenLeft). Want to impose higher environmental standards on the EU with focus also on issues such as immigration, social justice and equality.
Other notables: Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), EU Commissioner Vestager, Luis Garicano (ALDE), Nicola Beer (FDP MP) (Sources Europe elects, Danske Bank)
ECB
Once the Spitzenkandidaten or equivalent process for naming the European Commission President has been carried out, focus will then turn towards what appointments that President will make to key positions. From a market perspective, a lot of focus will be on the ECB with Mario Draghi’s term due to come to an end on October 31st. Please see below for HSBC’s illustration of how this process will unfold:
HSBC highlights that ultimately the appointment of the European Commission President will likely impact who becomes ECB President with it unlikely that both the EC and ECB President will be from the same nation amid fears of over-representation. For example, should Manfred Weber replace Juncker, it is unlikely that the top job at the ECB will end up being awarded to a German. With this in mind, the current two front-runners to succeed Draghi, according to a Bloomberg News poll (here) are Francois Villeroy de Galhau (FR) and Erkki Liikanen (FI). If Weber fails in his bid to be elected European Commission President, Germany could look to push for Jens Weidmann to become ECB President, a move which could lead to a slightly more hawkish stance at the central bank.
Please see below for an overview of key positions in Europe that will need to be filled following the election via Bloomberg News:
Budgeting
In terms of the broader fallout from the elections for the EU-wide economy, HSBC reminds us that overall, Parliament is relatively limited in terms of economic powers, albeit have had a greater role in recent years on matters such as trade deals, taxation and climate change. For the purpose of this report, we will not place too much emphasis on more medium-term measures such as the 2021-2027 budgetary framework as it is unlikely to have too much of an impact in the near-term for European assets. Instead, greater attention should be placed on the European Commission’s assessment in June, which will see the body potentially make some country-specific recommendations for the likes of Italy, Spain and France. Given the ongoing tensions between Rome and Brussels since the 5SM/League alliance came to power, markets will be bracing themselves for any further conflict.
Recommendations will come in the context of the EC recently forecasting the Italian deficit/GDP ratio to hit 2.5% this year and 3.5% next year. SocGen outlines that the EC could opt to re-launch the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) following the election or extend Italy’s deadline to correct its deficit deviation until around 2022. The path chosen by the EC will likely be a by-product of how intent the newly formed body will be on dispelling populism across the continent, or as suggested by HSBC, the EC might not actually be fully formed by this point or if they are, might not feel legitimised at that stage to take action on Italy. Elsewhere, France and Spain will pose some food for thought in Brussels with the former forecast to enter into a temporary excessive deficit, albeit SocGen believes that the temporary nature of their excess should see the nation avoid EDP. With regards to Spain, a deterioration in the nation’s structural balance has been flagged by the EC, however, Brussels is likely to wait for a government to be formed before considering their next course of action.
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2EtEgYl Tyler Durden
The US Department of Defense’s bloated budget, along with CIA venture capital, helped to create tech giants, including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and PayPal. The government then contracts those companies to help its military and intelligence operations. In doing so, it makes the tech giants even bigger.
In recent years, the traditional banking, energy and industrial Fortune 500 companies have been losing ground to tech giants like Apple and Facebook. But the technology on which they rely emerged from the taxpayer-funded research and development of bygone decades. The internet started as ARPANET, an invention of Honeywell-Raytheon working under a Department of Defense (DoD) contract. The same satellites that enable modern internet communications also enable US jets to bomb their enemies, as does the GPS that enables online retailers to deliver products with pinpoint accuracy. Apple’s touchscreen technology originated as a US Air Force tool. The same drones that record breath-taking video are modified versions of Reapers and Predators.
Tax-funded DoD research is the backbone of the modern, hi-tech economy. But these technologies are dual-use. The companies that many of us take for granted–including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and PayPal–are connected indirectly and sometimes very directly to the US military-intelligence complex.
A recent report by Open the Government, a bipartisan advocate of transparency, reveals the extent of Amazon’s contracts with the Pentagon. Founded in 1994 by Jeff Bezos, the company is now valuedat $1 trillion, giving Bezos a personal fortune of $131 billion. Open the Government’s report notes that much of the US government “now runs on Amazon,” so much so that the tech giant is opening a branch near Washington, DC. Services provided by Amazon include cloud contracts, machine learning and biometric data systems. But more than this, Amazon is set to enjoy a lucrative Pentagon IT contract under the $10bn, Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure program, or JEDI. The Pentagon says that it hopes Amazon technology will “support lethality and enhanced operational efficiency.”
The report reveals what it can, but much is protected from public scrutiny under the twin veils of national security and corporate secrecy. For instance, all prospective host cities for Amazon’s second headquarters were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.
But it doesn’t end there. According to the report, Amazon supplied surveillance and facial Rekognition software to the police and FBI, and it has pitched the reportedly inaccurate and race/gender-biasedtechnology to the Department of Homeland Security for its counter-immigration operations. Ten percent of the subsidiary Amazon Web Services’ profits come from government contracts. Departments include the State Department, NASA, Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2013, Amazon won a $600m Commercial Cloud Services (C2S) contract with the CIA. C2S will enable deep learning and data fingerprinting. Amazon’s second headquarters will be built in Virginia, the CIA’s home-state. Despite repeated requests, the company refuses to disclose how its personal devices, like Amazon Echo, connect with the CIA.
But Amazon is just the tip of the iceberg.
According to one thorough research article:In the mid-90s, future Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin used indirect Pentagon and other government funding to develop web crawlers and page ranking applications. Around the same time, the CIA, Directorate of Intelligence and National Security Agency–under the auspices of the National Science Foundation–funded the Massive Data Digital Systems (MDDS) program. A publication by Sergey Brin acknowledges that he received funding from the MDDS program. According to Professor Bhavani Thuraisingham, who worked on the project, “The intelligence community … essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.” The Query Flocks part of Google’s patented PageRank system was developed as part of the MDDS program. Two entrepreneurs, Andreas Bechtolsheim (who set up Sun Microsystems) and David Cheriton, both of whom had previously received Pentagon money, were early investors in Google.
Like Bezos, Brin and Page became billionaires.
The Pentagon’s Project Maven (or Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Function Team) was launched in 2017 as a machine-learning application to help drones differentiate humans from objects. Technology and staff were provided by Google, many of whom quit in protest after it was revealed that the project had targeted Iraqis and Syrians for death.
In 1999, the CIA established a venture capital firm, Peleus; later In-Q-Tel. One of In-Q-Tel’s companies was the mapping firm Keyhole, bought by Google in the mid-2000s and developed into Google Earth. Within a few years, military personnel were using Google Earth to target sites in Afghanistan. In 2005, In-Q-Tel invested $2.2m in Google. In 2010, the CIA and Google both invested in Recorded Futures, a social media tracking company.
Another billionaire, Peter Thiel, created both PayPal and Palantir. With $2m of In-Q-Tel investment, Palantir was launched in 2004 and provided data analysis for the CIA in Afghanistan and Iraq. Recently, it was tested in New Orleans as part of local law enforcement’s “predictive policing” program. Palantir creates digital webs of citizens whose personal data are gleaned from various sources. Palantir’s webs show police images of alleged, potential, future suspects along with captions such as, “Colleague of…,” “Lives with…,” “Owner of…,” “Sibling of…,” and “Lover of…”. Palantir is also used by US immigration authorities. For all the accusations of Russian meddling in both the US elections and Brexit referendum in the UK, mainstream Western media have underplayed Palantir employees’ role in working with Facebook to create psychographic profiles of potential voters.
These and other examples show that in addition to trying to shape the world in the interests of American elites, the Pentagon’s ulterior motive is to fund hi-tech industry to stimulate new economies. That same hi-technology, which exists in a so-called system of “free enterprise,” not only creates monopolies, it does so with taxpayer money. Spied on and manipulated by the technologies they fund, the public, as consumers, then pay for services provided by those tech giants. Talk about a vicious cycle…
via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Qm9KVi Tyler Durden
