James Gandolfini was an incredible actor that left us far too soon. Join us in remembering his most memorable moments in film. As we all know his big break came in 1999 when he scored the part of modern-day Godfather, Tony Soprano. But there was plenty more to Jimmy's career than killing, baked ziti and therapy sessions. His role in 1993's True Romance as Virgil the psychotic Sicilian mobster and alongside John Travolta in the 1995 mobster comedy, Get Shorty--sensing the trend? Come 2001 it was the role of a bounty hunter in the Mexican. Last year James took on the role of CIA director Leon Panetta in best picture nominee, Zero Dark Thirty. It's clear from the dozens of celeb tributes on Twitter that James was not only a pleasure to watch, but to work with as well. We will certainly miss this gentle giant.
international hass associates news blog
Administrasjonen har lagt ut et executive bestille på cybersecurity for kritisk infrastruktur. Kongressen er ikke fornøyd. Men jeg tror at denne rekkefølgen i stor grad får ting riktig.
Rekkefølgen fokuserer på systemer og eiendeler, enten fysisk eller virtuell, hvis ødeleggelsene ville ha en ødeleggende effekt på sikkerhet, nasjonal sikkerhet, nasjonale økonomiske sikkerhet, nasjonale offentlige helse og sikkerhet, eller en kombinasjon. Det er riktig sett med problemer- og en langt gråte fra noen tidligere klassifisering av kritisk infrastruktur som hadde med alt fra en miniatyr golfbane i San Jose for å i vedtektene for Liberty i New York Harbor.
Ordren krever direktør for National Intelligence å dele Uklassifisert informasjon på cyberthreats med den Department of Homeland Security (DHS) i tide, og for DHS "raskt" formidle det samme til de målrettede enheten. Helt riktig.
Rekkefølgen setter direktør for National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) ansvarlig for å koordinere en "ramme" for å redusere risikoen for cyber mot kritisk infrastruktur. Det er rett byrået for jobben. DHS har rettshåndhevende organer i avdelingen, og disse gruppene har noen ganger komplisert forbindelser med den private sektoren. Sikring av kritisk infrastruktur-nettverk krever smir samarbeidsforbindelser med privat næringsliv. Begge NISTand sin overordnede avdeling, Department of Commerce, har masse erfaring med å utvikle slike frivillig innsats. Så var dette en god samtale.
Rammen er ment for å være "prioritert, fleksibel, repeterbare prestasjonsbasert og kostnadseffektiv"--alle viktige aspekter. Rammen er å "ta metoder for å identifisere og redusere [negative] virkninger" på business konfidensialitet og personvern og borgerrettigheter. Og det er å bli gjennomgått og oppdatert med jevne mellomrom. DHS Sekretær vil etablere en frivillig program for å støtte innføringen av rammen. Alle gode.
Sektor-spesifikk byråer er å gå gjennom rammen og utvikle implementere veiledning. Dette er veldig viktig. Cyber-beskyttelse som gir mening for power grid er ikke de som vil fungere for telekommunikasjon, og ingen av de passer behovene til den finansielle sektoren. Sette på plass beskyttelsene som fungerer for hver sektor er en kritisk del av å få cybersecurity høyre. (Dette er noe kolleger og jeg har skrevet om her.) Montering kur til problemet er viktig, og det er viktig at dette har blitt anerkjent helt fra starten.
Det vil være årsrapport og insentiver for deltakelse. Det er nødvendig, og godt å se på plass.
Rekkefølgen er svakere enn det kunne være på innkjøp, ber bare om anbefalinger på "trinn [at] kan tas for å harmonisere og gjøre konsekvent eksisterende anskaffelser krav knyttet til cybersecurity." Dette problemet saker. Opp til nå, har vært en ettertanke: vi ønsker bjeller og fløyter, og oh, ja, hvis du kan gjøre det samtidig som man bygger et sikkert system, det er bra. Dette er ett sted administrasjonen kunne ha reell innflytelse, og det gjenstår for å se hvor alvorlig anskaffelser aspekt vil være.
Det er bra at DHS Sekretær må bruke en risikobasert tilnærming i å bestemme hvilke kritiske infrastruktursystemer trenger oppmerksomhet først.
Dokumentet er ikke uten problemer. På papir kommer personvern og borgerrettigheter tidlig (seksjon 5 i rekkefølgen). I praksis, det er noen fare for at personvern og borgerrettigheter kunne bli dyttet av bordet.
Beskyttelsene er å bli bygget på den rettferdig informasjon prinsipper, selv basis forprivacy beskyttelse rundt om i verden. Hva er trolig det viktigste i denne sammenhengen er rettferdig informasjon prinsipper beskyttelse mot "sekundær bruk" av informasjon uten eksplisitt velge i. Som er den gode del.
Den dårlige nyheten er at mangel på tennene på rettshåndhevelse side. Samsvar vurderinger vil komme fra DHS Chief Privacy Officer, DHS offiser for sivile rettigheter og borgerrettigheter, Office of Management og budsjett, og personvern og borgerrettigheter forglemmelse styret. Men mens man kan argumentere for at den nåværende DHS Chief Privacy Officer har en interesse i personvern, gjeldende DHS offiser for sivile rettigheter og borgerrettigheter er bare en fungerende avtale. Personvern og borgerrettigheter forglemmelse styret møtte fjor høst for første gang på fem år, og det fortsatt mangler en stol.
Administrasjonen har nå hatt en god post på aspekter av personvern. Nasjonal strategi for klarerte identiteter i Cyberspace har satt personvern front og senter i sin ID-innsats. I en årrekke har Federal Trade Commission aggressivt jage saker mot selskaper som bryter deres egne retningslinjer. Denne håndhevelse har vært sterk nok til at på minst de større bedriftene arbeider hardt å ikke bli neste. Og den gode nyheten på executive order er at dens fokus er på informasjonsdeling fra regjeringen til privat sektor.
Men om det er screening-enheter på flyplasser, den økende samlingen av telefon transaksjonsdata, eller regjeringen tilgang til alt fra forretningsoppføringer til biblioteket lån med en enkel bokstav for nasjonal sikkerhet (og uten juridisk overoppsyn), det er rikelig med grunner for publikum å tvile på den amerikanske regjeringens forpliktelse til personvern. Det er derfor denne ellers utmerkede dokumentet har noen måter å gå.
Hva mangler? For en start er det ingen styrende prinsipper i dokumentet. Vurdere hvordan det amerikanske forsvarsdepartementet har reagert på bekymringer om sin rolle i å beskytte cyber verden. Mens direktør for National Intelligence General Alexander ikke ønsker å være låste ned om hvor hans makt ender, var forsvarsminister Leon Panetta veldig klar på Dods rolle i cybersecurity. Sekretær sa at beskytte nasjonen mot cyberwar, "ikke betyr at det amerikanske forsvarsdepartementet vil overvåke citizens' personlige datamaskiner. Vi er ikke interessert i personlig kommunikasjon eller i e-post eller å sørge for den daglige sikkerheten av private og kommersielle nettverk. Det er ikke vårt mål. Det er ikke vår jobb. Det er ikke vår misjon."
Den gjeldende executive ordren, diskuterer imidlertid prosessen, men ikke prinsippene. Presidenten kan ha samme intensjoner som sekretær Panetta, men slike beskyttelse må være tydelig stavet ut. Hvor gjør det sier at overvåket skal bare brukes til å hindre aktive skade på datasystemer? Den personlig kommunikasjonen vil bare bli overvåket av regjeringen, hvis det er en avlytting for?
Executive order må være støttet av eksplisitt handlinger. Det inkluderer en aktiv personvern og borgerrettigheter Board, en permanent DHS offiser for sivile rettigheter og borgerrettigheter.
Som for Kongressen er opprørt med ordren, som har mer å gjøre med pique enn innhold. I år har den lovgivende organ dilly-dallyed på cybersecurity. Nå har presidenten tilegnes dem. Det er ikke en god grunn til å motsette seg rekkefølgen-- men det er en god grunn for Kongressen å komme bak cybersecurity. Støtte NIST i sin innsats (finansiere programmet!), få eksplisitt forpliktelser fra administrasjonen på sivile frihet beskyttelse, insisterer på årlige rapportering på samme, gjennomføre overvåking for å sikre rammens hensikt er egentlig fulgte. Som tilsyn fungerer er viktig - og Kongressen bør gjøre det.
Denne executive order treff til høyre peker. Det setter ansvar for cybersecurity framework i Department of Commerce, som kan arbeide med privat næringsliv, det fokuserer på bransjespesifikke løsninger, lover det betimelig anmeldelser av cybersecurity rammen, det setter risiko og kostnader effektiviteten først å bestemme beskyttelse. Styrke federal anskaffelser og sivile friheter aspekter, og vi har en arbeider cybersecurity planlegger her.
Det er på tide.
international hass associates news blog
BY JENNIFER MECKLES
You're watching multisource politics news analysis from Newsy.
Following the take-down of Osama bin Laden, the media- and their audiences- are scrambling for every little detail. But at what point does the sharing of information put national security at risk?
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld posed that question on CBS’s Face the Nation:
“Intelligence has come out of the White House by people who later had to change their mind because of the fog of war, and not out of the Pentagon... And the more information that goes out about intelligence, the greater the risks to our people... and the less likely we are going to be to capture and kill some of the people that would result from the intelligence case. So I would have preferred a lot less discussion out of the White House about intelligence.”
A reporter for WTXF in Philadelphia had similar concerns. She discusses the White House’s handing of information following Bin Laden’s death with a political analyst.
REPORTER: “Do you get the feeling that maybe... almost... the administration released too much information too quickly and then they had to kind of rethink their strategy for putting that out there?”
JEFF JUBELIRER: “That's a really fair question -- they don’t want to look like they’re wobbling.”
But not all government officials are secret-sharers. During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, White House Security Advisor Tom Donilon was tight-lipped on matters of security and intelligence. Here are a few excerpts:
DAVID GREGORY: “Where is that actually happening and when? Do you have any idea?”
TOM DONILON: “I don’t have an idea, with respect to the timing, that I can share with you at this point.”
GREGORY: “There were references to specific plots?"
DONILON: “I don’t want to get into the details.”
DONILON: “You know me well enough to know, David, that I don’t want to say anything I haven’t fully had the chance to study at this point.”
According to Fox News, the rest of the administration realized --- it might be a good idea to make mum the word.
“... The administration officials have held a series of briefings to go over the details of the raid, review the decade-long investigation that led to it and disclose some information about the evidence seized from the compound. The White House last week indicated it would stop providing details about the raid itself -- officials have since kept their comments mostly to the subject of the evidence being analyzed by the CIA.”
Following years of publicized intelligence failures, Al Jazeera suggests sharing parts of the U.S.’s latest success could be beneficial for a few members of the administration.
“The CIA can finally not be the subject of Congressional ‘What Went Wrong’ hearings over this intelligence success... All the positive press for the CIA will be good for Director Leon Panetta, who has been nominated by President Barack Obama to a new role as Secretary of Defence, pending Congressional approval... Now he might just get unanimously confirmed.”
So what do you think? Should the public be privy to intelligence details following the raid? Or is there a limit to what can safely be released?
'Like Newsy on Facebook for updates in your newsfeed.
Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy.
Transcript by Newsy
video is about 9/11 attack mystery which open eyes of people
BY HARUMENDHAH HELMY
ANCHOR CHRISTINA HARTMAN
You're watching multisource US video news analysis from Newsy.
A little game of high-ranking musical chairs in U.S. President Barack Obama’s defense team. Incumbent Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is retiring by the end of the year, and the word is out on how the cabinet will shuffle.
KSWB: “...major shake up of President Obama’s security team, CIA Director Leon Panetta will become the new US defense secretary and General David Petraeus will replace him. This is all according to U.S. officials today of course.”
WTXF: “...A big shake up of jobs, so to speak...”
KNBC: “...big shake up to the nation's top military and intelligence post...”
WFTV: “...a major shake up in the president’s national security team...”
Hmm. But, is it really a shake up? A writer for The Atlantic says... not really.
“It's more like a lay-up. President Obama's decision … reflects continuity more than change. It also responds to the vagaries of politics: All [the] men are popular with Congress, and though tough questions will be asked of each, they are probably going to be confirmed without incident.”
So is Petraeus the right fit for CIA director? CNN says the general certainly has some experience with intelligence work from his tenure as top commander in Afghanistan.
Reporter: “General Petraeus has been working with a lot of those CIA station agents, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, so he has some very real experience with those folks already on the ground.”
But a former top intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, tells ABC’s Jonathan Karl, he thinks Petraeus is not the right choice.
“The decision was made, he says, by the White House with no serious input from the Director of National Intelligence, who oversees the CIA. … This source insists Petraeus would not have been the choice of the DNI. … The appointment looks like a consolation prize – given to Petraeus because he wasn’t going to be nominated to be Joint Chiefs chairman.”
So what does Petraeus’ move to CIA mean for Afghanistan? MSNBC host Joe Scarborough speculates.
Joe Scarborough: “One of the fascinating things about the Petraeus pick for the CIA, suggests that Barack Obama is getting ready, his administration is getting ready, we’ve heard about this, there have been whispers for months about a more aggressive draw down in Afghanistan. Petraeus going to the CIA makes that an easier sell.”
Also getting a new job -- Lt. General John Allen, who will replace Petraeus as commander in Afghanistan. The White House is expected to officially announce the changes on Thursday, but the Senate will then have to approve the selections.
Follow Newsy on Twitter Newsy_Videos for updates in your stream.
Get more multisource US video news analysis from Newsy.
Transcript by Newsy.
BY ERIK SHUTE AND HARUMENDHAH HELMY
You're watching multisource headline news analysis from Newsy.
This is Newsy Now and here are the headlines you need to know.
In U.S. news — word of a major shuffle in President Barack Obama’s defense team, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates plans to retire by the end of the year. WTXF has the details.
“The Associated Press is reporting CIA Director Leon Panetta will become U.S. Defense Secretary. So then what happens? The AP reports he will be replaced by General David Petraeus, speaking of Afghanistan, he is the current head of military operations over there, the positions would require senate confirmation of during the summer months.”
In world news — An Afghan military officer opened fire at the Kabul International Airport earlier today, killing at least eight NATO troops. The Taliban is now claiming the gunman was an insurgent infiltrator. The BBC has more on the attack.
“The military officer, who we think is a pilot who had 20 years experience in Afghan, became involved in an argument with some foreign troops, and then drew his weapon and there was a gunfight. Six foreigners were killed in that gunfight, and we believe that the Afghan pilot also died. This happened right inside the military side of the Kabul airport."
Still in world news — the besieged Libyan city of Misrata witnessed what rebels call -- its heaviest shelling yet -- from forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi on Tuesday night. Al Jazeera reports those forces retreated only after NATO intervened with air strikes.
“This Tripoli Street, on the world map of the world’s most dangerous places at the start of this whole siege. But now, cleared. The fighters here are in good spirits, but this is not a celebration. This is not a liberation process. They feel that NATO has to do more.”
In U.S. news — The Federal Reserve will make history today. Chairman Ben Bernanke will hold the Fed’s first ever press conference, in its 95-year life span. He’s expected to answer the press’ questions for 45 minutes. Here’s NBC.
“Today, moving towards greater transparency, Ben Bernanke will hold the first ever news conference for a Fed chief. He's expected to confirm the end of the fed's bond buying program and continued rock bottom borrowing rates.”
In tech news -- millions of gamers await the return of Sony’s online Playstation network after it was hacked last week. Now, Sony says PS3 fanatics could be waiting to get back their stolen personal information as well? KXAN explains more.
“Thousands of gamers and game-lovers who use Playstation may have had their credit card information stolen. Sony admitted that was the reason they took their network offline last week. So far they haven't revealed subscribers had their information compromised - but they say hackers could have Addresses, birth dates, email addresses, passwords and log- in names.”
In entertainment -- Lindsay Lohan’s guest appearance on The Tonight Show allowed the actress to address her fans before she serves 120 days on skid row. She swore before Jay and a studio audience -- this time will be different -- more focus, hard work, and an Oscar?
REPORTER: “Lindsay just boned out and b-lined it for Jay Leno's late-night TV studio for a little rehab. I should say, that's image rehab. It’s not very often a criminal, who has been sentenced to jail four times, gets a standing ovation.”
LENO: “You were in court on Friday.”
LOHAN: “Yes, Good Friday. Wasn't good for me.”
LENO: “It wasn't a Good Friday all over.”
LOHAN: “I was kind of shocked. I didn’t really expect the outcome to be what it was. I’m a big girl and I’m going to do what I’m told to do and that’s what I need to do to continue on with working in my life. I’m taking responsibility.”
Stay with Newsy**** for more analysis on news throughout the day. For Newsy Now, I’m Jim Flink -- highlighting the top headlines making you smarter, faster.
Follow Newsy_Videos on Twitter
Get more multisource video news analysis from Newsy
Transcript by Newsy
Hon. James David Manning, PhD speaks about Eric Holder, Bill O'Reilly, Brian Ross, Leon Panetta. This message comes from The Manning Report on Thursday, 27 August 2009. Follow us on twitter at *******www.twitter****/atlahworldwide Go to *******www.atlah**** for more information. Distributed by Tubemogul.
CIA Misled Congress, Top Democrats Say
WASHINGTON (July 9) - Democrats are accusing senior CIA officials of repeatedly misleading Congress, but Republicans say the allegations are just political maneuvering to protect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The accusations come as lawmakers prepare to debate intelligence legislation — a bill President Barack Obama has threatened to veto.
Letters by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and other members of the panel say CIA Director Leon Panetta told Congress last month that senior CIA officials have concealed significant actions and misled lawmakers repeatedly since 2001.
Exactly what actions Panetta disclosed to the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 is unclear, but committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said the CIA outright lied in one case.
"These notifications have led me to conclude that this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one case) was affirmatively lied to," Reyes wrote to Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the committee's senior Republican. A copy of his letter was obtained by The Associated Press.
Reyes said in the letter that he is considering opening a full investigation.
Hoekstra on Thursday called Reyes' letter "one of the most bizarre episodes in politics that I've seen in my time here in Washington."
"It looks like they're working on the political equation," Hoekstra said on CBS' "The Early Show." ''They're not trying to foster a bipartisan consensus on national security."
Panetta brought the matters to the committee's attention, CIA spokesman George Little said Wednesday.
"It is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress. This agency and this director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta's actions back that up," Little said. "It was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees."
Seven Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee sent a letter to Panetta on June 26 asking that in light of his disclosure he revise a statement he made in May to CIA employees that it was not CIA policy or practice to mislead Congress.
The cryptic letter and CIA statement came on the eve of a House debate on an intelligence bill. The debate is expected to revive a partisan argument that has raged on and off for months about whether Pelosi knew in the fall of 2002 about the CIA's use of waterboarding weeks earlier.
Waterboarding, which simulates drowning, is an interrogation technique the CIA used on three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. Obama has called waterboarding torture.
Much of the debate on the House intelligence bill is expected to be diverted into a discussion of what Pelosi knew about the CIA's harsh interrogation program and why, if she was briefed on it, she didn't formally object to it.
Republicans on the Intelligence Committee say the letters and Obama's threat to veto the legislation are cover-up attempts on behalf of Pelosi and what she knew and didn't do about "enhanced interrogation."
"The blatantly political nature of the Democrats' letters is revealed by their handling," said Jamal Ware, spokesman for Republicans on the committee, in a statement late Wednesday.
Pelosi told reporters in May she had not been informed that waterboarding had been used against terrorism suspects, even though it had been. When asked whether she was accusing the CIA of lying to her, she said, "Yes."
The CIA sent lawmakers a chart in May describing the 40 congressional briefings it gave on the interrogation techniques. But that document was found to include several errors, leaving in question exactly what Pelosi was told.
House Republicans oppose at least one provision in the intelligence authorization bill, and they have an unusual ally: the White House.
Obama's aides have said they will recommend he veto the bill if it includes a Democratic-written provision requiring the president to notify the intelligence committees in their entirety about covert CIA activities.
Under current law, the president is only obligated to notify the top Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate and the senior Democratic and Republican members on each chamber's