Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Anna EshooAnna Georges EshooHillicon Valley: Zuckerberg acknowledges failure to take down Kenosha military group despite warnings | Election officials push back against concerns over mail-in voting, drop boxes Democrat asks intel agencies if they're surveilling members of Congress Overnight Health Care: Supreme Court to hear ObamaCare arguments 1 week after election | NYC positive COVID-19 tests hit record low MORE (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked two intelligence agencies on Friday if surveillance has been conducted on members of Congress in the last decade.

In a letter to the heads of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Eshoo raised alarm over allegations in a book published earlier this year by journalist Barton Gellman. The book includedclaims about an NSA surveillance tool used by former contractor Edward Snowden to allegedly search for communications associated with a House member's publicly listed official email address where constituents can contact their office.

Eshoo further pointed to a claim from Snowden in the book that he wiretapped the internet communications" of the so-called Gang of Eight theheads of the House and Senate Intelligence committees and top party leaders in both chambers as well as the Supreme Court. But the claim appeared to be untrue because Snowden couldn't find the private email addresses belonging to the lawmakers and Supreme Court justices.

Eshoo expressed alarm about the allegations, saying such surveillance could violate constituents' privacy and threatened the separation of powers.

"The surveillance of Congressional and judicial communications by the executive branch seriously threatens the separation of powers principles of our Constitution. While no member of Congress, Supreme Court Justice, or any other individual is above the law, their communications, like those of all Americans, should only be collected by the government pursuant to a specific warrant authorized by an independent court as part of a criminal or intelligence investigation," Eshoo wrote.

Neither the ODNI nor the NSA immediately returned requests for comment.

The California Democrat asked the ODNI and NSA to answer a series of questions by Sept. 28, pressing the agencies on how many times in the last decade an intelligence community employee or contractor has conducted surveillance including "contents of communications, metadata or any other information" on members of Congress, federal judges, Supreme Court justices or any other employees of either the legislative or judicial branches.

She also asked if "technical safeguards" are in place to prevent intelligence community employees or contractors from using databases to search for information about people in the legislative or judicial branches without legal authorization.

"Our system of government is premised on the fundamental idea of separation of powers. Three co-equal branches of government with constitutionally prescribed checks and balances maintain independent spheres of government," Eshoo wrote.

There is precedent of U.S. intelligence agencies spying on members of Congress and their staff.

In 2014, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) inspector general report found that its officers spied on Senate Intelligence Committee investigators preparing a report on the agency's interrogation program.

The CIA also acknowledged in 1975that it had kept files on then-Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.), dating back to when she served as a lawyer for a client that appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The CIA also said that it had kept counterintelligence files on at least three other members of Congress as part of its operations against critics of the Vietnam War.

The Justice Department in 2013 charged Snowden of violating the Espionage Act for disclosing details of highly classified government surveillance programs. Snowden has remained in Russia in the years since then to avoid prosecution.

See the original post here:
Democrat asks intel agencies if they're surveilling members of Congress - The Hill

Businesswoman working in empty office

The weekly "low" new unemployment numbers draw yawns these days. Gone are those omens from the $600 bonus payment end. July's 10-1/2% unemployment rate was down 4% from only three months ago, and August's number undoubtedly will be in the single digits. And, most importantly, the stock market is going gangbusters. So, let's move on.

No, let's not. Let's revisit the unemployment data all the data, not just the one number that the media focused on: "seasonally adjusted initial unemployment claims."

Note: In my previous articles about unemployment, my purpose was to counter the high negativity being supported by the ~50 million cumulative initial claims the media was stressing. I discussed the overlooked good news - the ~15 million continued claims meant that ~35 million had left unemployment. Now, however, we must look at the data to offset the diminished interest in the remaining ~14 million unemployed, still filing continued claims.

The two key items to examine are:

These are the required weekly filings for those that were still unemployed for the week. This measure, compared to the cumulative initial claim filings, shows the proportion of unemployed that remain, even as time moves on.

I believe the best approach to understanding the data is to examine a series of graphs. But, first, a word about seasonally adjusted (SA) data. These are used in normal times because seasonal hiring and firing cycles similarly each year. The purpose is to allow comparison across the seasons. However, in extraordinary times like these, those seasonal influences are overwhelmed by the abnormal forces. Therefore, the data to examine are the "non-seasonally adjusted" (NSA) numbers, otherwise known as the "actual" data. For example, here are the last four weeks of NSA and SA initial claim filings:

Initial claim filings (in thousands)

Week Actual (NSA)Adjusted (SA)

8-01 988 1,191

8-08 839 971

8-15 890 1,104

8-22 822 1,006

So, the three weekly headlines of "still over 1 million" were false. Moreover, the seasonal adjustment created a non-existent ~800 thousand filers almost one week's worth of actual filers. The reason the differences are so large is that we are in the summer period when unemployment fillings are normally low. Therefore, the seasonal adjustments have inflated the 2020s abnormally high, actual numbers by ~20%, as shown in this graph:

Graph #1 Seasonal adjustment factors

Seasonal adjustment factors for initial unemployment claims

Now let's walk through the data graphs:

Graph #2 Cumulative initial claims filed

These data were the source of angst and negative headlines. They certainly were fast-growing, huge numbers, although seasonal adjustment inflated the already sizeable numbers by a non-existent 4-1/2 million.

Cumulative initial unemployment claims NSA and SA

Graph #3 Total initial plus continued claims filed

Here we bring in the continued claims filings. Adding those remaining to those filing their initial claims gives us the total unemployed receiving benefits for the week. Why didn't the media ever show these important numbers? Because the continued claims count was in the next week's report.

Total unemployed receiving benefits

Graph #4 Cumulative initial claims vs. continued claims

Now we can make use of those large cumulative initial claims numbers to show the sizeable number of people who have left unemployment status.

Cumulative initial unemployment claims vs continuing claims

If most people move on within the first three months following becoming unemployed, that is good news. Firing, hiring and transitioning to new jobs is an ongoing and healthy process. However, once many people become unemployed more than three months, it can indicate a weak labor market even more so once unemployment extends beyond six months.

These data are not dependent on unemployment benefit filings because those can run out or people might not qualify. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts a mid-month survey to gather complete statistics on employment and unemployment. One set of data is unemployment duration, and these are now showing that the current unemployment situation has begun to get serious.

Note: I decided to show the data from January 2005 because the comparisons with the Great Recession are important for understanding both the levels we are seeing and the differences in the dynamics.

Graph #1 Number of unemployed for 1 to 14 weeks

The dramatic jump in unemployed from mid-March to mid-April is clear. Then, from the April high of ~21 million, the numbers declined over the next three months to ~9 million in mid-July. (One additional point to note are the normal seasonal fluctuations that clearly show up in this graph. For longer unemployment periods, seasonality disappears because other factors are at work.)

Number of unemployed - 1 to 14 weeks

However, mid-July was over 14 weeks past the initial layoffs, so a large part of the decline above was caused by a shift to the next, longer duration period.

Graph #2 - Number of unemployed for 15 to 26 weeks and 27+ weeks

Number of unemployed - 15 to 26 weeks, and 27+ weeks

Here we arrive at the key graph. These are the unemployment periods that can reveal weakness in the economic growth and business success, as well as financial challenges, consumer pullbacks and social concerns.

Although the current ~8 million total is comparable to the Great Recession's high, the composition is less serious. Most continued unemployed have just moved into the low end of the 15-26 weeks grouping. In 2009/10, most had reached the 27+ weeks category.

But time moves on. The next visible shift will be in the mid-October survey results, when the remaining early wave people cross the 27-week line. Those results won't be available until the mid-November report release, but the continued unemployment claims could give us some insight into what they might be like.

The bottom line

Unemployment remains an important measure of economic health and improvement. To understand and track conditions, we need to go beyond the media reports that focus on one number or, worse, ignore the issue.

The rest is here:
Unemployment Is Still At Work - And Time Is Increasing Its Seriousness - Forbes

The post has high vested powers, so the NSA is a highly prominent and powerful office in the Government of India. All NSAs appointed since the inception of the post in 1998 belong to the either Indian Foreign Service or to the Indian Police Service, and serve at the discretion of the Prime Minister of India.

The National Security Advisor (NSA) is tasked with regularly advising the Prime Minister of India on all matters relating to internal and external threats and opportunities to India, and oversees strategic and sensitive issues on behalf of the Prime Minister. The NSA of India also serves as the Prime Minister's Special Interlocutor with China as well as the envoy to Pakistan and Israel on security affairs.

The NSA receives all intelligence (RAW, IB, NTRO, MI, DIA, NIA) reports and co-ordinates them to present before the Prime Minister. NSA is assisted by the Deputy National Security Advisors, Deputy NSAs. Retired Indian Police Service officer Rajinder Khanna and Indian Foreign Service officer Pankaj Saran[1] currently serve as Deputy National Security Advisors.[2][3][4] The policy group is the main mechanism for inter-ministerial coordination and integration of inputs in forming national security policies. The group members include the NITI Aayog vice chairman, the cabinet secretary, the three military chiefs, the Reserve Bank of India governor, the foreign secretary, home secretary, finance secretary and the defense secretary.[5]

Brajesh Mishra was appointed the first National Security Advisor of India. The post was created on 19 November 1998 by the Government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and has become increasingly influential and powerful over the years with the rise of India on the world stage.

On June 2019 the NSA Ajit Doval was elevated to the rank of Cabinet Minister with a second 5 year term.[6]

Go here to read the rest:
National Security Advisor (India) - Wikipedia

Speak to the business, master Secretary, why are we met in council? Shakespeare, Henry VIII

Prime Minister Boris Johnsonsdecision to appoint his chief EU negotiator and former special adviser as the next national security adviser(NSA) was a surprise. Coming in the middle of the Integrated Review, this sudden change has prompted debate about David Frosts suitability for the role and what it means for Johnsons approach to this vital area of policy.

Underlying these questions is a more basic one what does an NSA actually do? As with any job at the heart of government, the precise shape and weight of the role will reflect the priorities and working style of the prime minister of the day. But the broad parameters will not have changed much since David Cameroninvited me on his arrival in Downing Street in 2010 to become the UKs first NSA and to organise a National Security Council(NSC).

Theintroduction of an NSC systemwas not a revolution. Since the Committee of Imperial Defence wasestablished by the Balfour governmentin 1902, Britain has had a highly effective system for war planning and coordination. This was honed in two world wars and, in the postwar decades, all prime ministers had a Cabinet committee dealing with overseas and defence affairs. But by the time Tony Blair made the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, there was a perception that the system had become less rigorous and more informal. That was, at least, the conclusion of the Butler inquiry into the handling of intelligence in the run-up to that fateful decision. The inquiry reported that they were concerned that the informality and circumscribed character of the governments procedures reduces the scope for informed political judgement.

When he became leader of the opposition in 2005, Cameron pledged that, if elected, he would introduce a fully fledged NSC system. His aims were to tighten up decision-making and improve coordination across government in response to the widening array of national security threats, including mass-casualty terrorism, cyber attacks and disruptive events such as floods and public health emergencies.

That was how I found myself walking across Downing Street in May 2010, having packed up my office in the FCO, to set up a new national security apparatus. Although not a revolution in terms of Whitehall organisation, Cameron was determined that the NSC would mark a clear change in approach. He insisted on regular meetings and used them to make real decisions, in the presence of senior advisers including the intelligence heads and chief of the defence staff, and in an atmosphere of challenge and open debate to avoid groupthink.

The NSA role had and in my view should still have three main elements. First, to act as secretary to the NSC, analogous to the Cabinet Secretarys role organising the work of the Cabinet. The NSA is responsible for setting the agenda including persuading the prime minister to accept a balanced diet of subjects on the NSC agenda. This includes not just the most urgent crises or the prime ministers pet projects, but issues that are a priority for other ministers on the NSC as well.

I saw the role as being notjust the prime ministers national security adviser, as the announcement of Frosts appointment termed it, but working for the whole council, ensuring that all members got some air time and always avoiding coming between the prime minister and individual ministers. Having decided on the agenda, the NSA has to ensure that the NSC gets well-prepared papers, and that action points from meetings are followed up. I convened a group of the permanent secretaries of all departments represented on the NSC to ensure quality control of papers and proper implementation of decisions. This collegial role was important in getting the NSC embedded into the Whitehall system and minimising friction.

The second role is to be the prime ministers closest adviser on foreign, defence and security issues, at their side at all the relevant meetings, doing the overseas travelling with the boss and representing the UK in the international club of NSAs. That meant building relationships with all the key foreign counterparts, starting with the US NSA.

The third element was to lead the sizeable National Security Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. Apart from running the NSC apparatus, there were small teams to give the prime minister ideas and advice across the range of NSC business, and a unit to provide a central focus for the intelligence community, particularly when it came to assembling a collective budget bid to the Treasury. An important innovation, which had been part of the Conservatives plans in opposition, was to bring the Civil Contingencies Secretariat responsible for resilience planning into the National Security Secretariat as part of raising the profile of this issue. One of the top four national security priorities we set out in 2010 was the risk of a pandemic.

I found that this added up to (more than) a full-time job. That is why I considered it a mistake for Sir Mark Sedwill to keep the NSA role when he took over as Cabinet Secretary in 2018. Its against the background of this job description that the appointment of Frost should be considered.

Three problems should be taken into account:

Gove was right. Those advising ministers on national security do need the mastery of deep knowledge at a time when the government is formulating a new national strategy in a dangerous world.But the message of Frosts appointment is that the prime minister accords absolute priority not to expertise and experience, but to political loyalty among his closest advisers.

That is not a reassuring conclusion.

Lord Ricketts GCMG GCVOwas the UKs first National Security Adviser, as well as, previously, British Permanent Representative to NATO, and subsequently Ambassador to France and Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office. He is a Trustee of RUSI.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the author's, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

BANNER IMAGE:Courtesy of Smuconlaw / Wikimedia Commons.

View original post here:
Speaking Truth to Power: The Problem with Prime Minister Johnson's New National Security Adviser - RUSI Analysis

The national hockey team has appealed to the National Sports Authority (NSA) to redeem the promise it made when they won bronze and silver medals in Stellenbosch, South Africa, during the Tokyo 2020 Africa qualifier.

The Director General of the NSA, Prof. Patrick Twumasi, in September 2019 pledged to pay per diem allowances to the national male and female hockey teams as a motivation when they excelled in that tournament.

A member of the female national hockey team, Elizabeth Opoku, in an interview with Accra-based Starr FM last Saturday said they had not received any money from the NSA yet.

People think we are enjoying but within us we are suffering. Since the NSA promised us that money we have not received any penny from the authority, which is very bad.

I can tell you that the hockey players are losing interest in the game because we have been neglected. We are only playing the game because of the love and passion we have for the sport, she revealed

We come home with nothing anytime we travel outside to represent the country in tournaments. We have to borrow money for transportation before we can get to our individual homes. The issue is very pathetic and its a shame to sports, she lamented.

She further revealed that during the qualifiers, the country did not even provide basic equipment here for the team as the players used their individual shin guards, mouth guides, sticks and boots.

She called on the NSA to live up to its promise to encourage athetes to play their hearts out.

She appealed to corporate organisations to consider involving hockey in their sponsorship packages, instead of spending all their sponsorship money only on football.

0

Source: Daily Graphic

Featured Video

The rest is here:
Hockey Team Appeal To NSA To Redeem Its Promise - Peace FM Online