Thursday, March 10, 2016

Jim Patterson: Privacy, Security & Cyberspace

Commentary: Privacy, security and cyberspace


Commentary
Apple CEO Tim Cook’s continued resistance to a federal court to allow the government access to information on the iPhone of dead ISIS inspired killer Syed Farook has produced a predictable cacophony of opinion. Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik, parents of a newborn, methodically murdered 14 colleagues in San Bernardino, Calif., in December.

Leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump called on consumers to boycott Apple. California’s senior U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein called on Cook to cooperate with federal authorities to determine if the iPhone contains information on other ISIS terrorists and other possible terror attacks.
Cook maintains the killers, both dead, have a right to privacy on the iPhone. It is an argument, like the iPhone, designed to change the ways society and government view technology, privacy and security.

It is an argument that will also cause discussion on the philosophy and management of a prominent and an out-of-the-closet and openly gay CEO. If being openly gay and out-of-the closet is liberating and productive for corporate managers and other professionals across the nation’s business sector, why should Mr. Cook take a position to hide information held by killers from the legitimate concerns of government investigators?

Sexuality as well as security are at the heart of the question. Consumers justifiably use iPhones to manage personal business, legal and questionable, and relationships, gay and straight. If Cook cooperates with government investigators, it could open electronic doors and closets not just to security issues but to relationship issues people would like to keep private.

Privacy, as former National Security Agency contractor and exiled fugitive Edward Snowden demonstrated, is largely an illusion with government agents using wireless networks to illegally listen to conversations and monitor activity of U.S. citizens and allied foreign officials and international businesspeople.  If hackers can access U.S. government communications at the White House, and State and Defense Departments, are we to seriously believe a person’s Apple iPhone is immune from cyber surveillance by Apple employees, government officials, Chinese hackers, or tabloid reporters?
We would all like to think our private information is indeed private. Similarly, we would like to think government agents, like IRS agents, would not target private citizens for their political beliefs but President Obama fooled the nation by going after Tea Party political critics. Tim Cook, Apple shareholders and iPhone owners have similar concerns about the administration’s reach into the privacy of their device.

Despite talk about freedom and a Constitutional Right to Privacy, people have concerns. We have too many examples of government agents intent on punishing former lovers, bosses and political critics by causing legal and bureaucratic nightmares that result in personal bankruptcy, broken relationships and suicides.

In the 1960s a number of international sexual scandals at the United Nations, Westminster and Washington had columnists writing about sin and statecraft. Fast forward to 2016 and the issues are sin, security and cyberspace.

Issues of diplomacy and behavior were difficult to reconcile 60 years ago. They are more complex in the world Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have given us.

Longtime Washington diplomat Jim Patterson writes from Washington and Silicon Valley. JEPCapitolHill@gmail.com
(c) LGBT Weekly, San Diego.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Jim Patterson Commentary: Tim Cook should out Terrorists

Commentary: Tim Cook should out terrorists


With the Apple annual meeting only days away, the spirited event just got more spirited with news from Cupertino the corporation will fight a court order to cooperate with the FBI investigation into the encrypted Apple iPhone of the dead ISIS sympathizers who viciously murdered 14 co-workers Dec. 2. It is a bold move for CEO Tim Cook. Apple stock was up moderately in early trading Wednesday after the announcement.
With the announcement, openly gay Apple CEO Tim Cook has gone back in the closet. In a time when radical Islamic terrorists and sympathizers threaten American lives from San Bernardino to Times Square, Cook places privacy before national security in announcing he will fight a court order to help the FBI access the shooter iPhone of dead ISIS terrorists Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik.
The dead couple left behind their terror tool of choice the Apple iPhone5C which could contain vital information on their plans, contacts and, most importantly, future terror plots by other ISIS sympathizers. The terror weapon is locked with Apple encryption technology that prevents state and federal agents from accessing information that could save lives.
Cook, in a public statement, said a software backdoor to the Apple iPhone is “too dangerous to create.” It may be too dangerous not to create. The government wants a work around to privacy that would allow them to use unlimited random codes to safely access the phone’s information.  Data are ordinarily deleted after minimal random attempts.
The Apple iPhone used by Farook and Malik and millions of others is an incredible communications device that Steve Jobs created and forever changed the world and the way business, legal and otherwise, is done.
It has also become a ubiquitous device for everything from entertainment to time saving apps to a recruiting station for terrorists and as an aid to kill innocent Americans. I believe Jobs would have realized that and cooperated with the FBI.
Cook wants to protect the privacy of two dead terrorists by denying law enforcement officials access to information that could save lives and provide valuable intelligence in the global fight against terror
in the name of good business. He argues it would be bad for the company and its customers to help the FBI with the technology to access user information. It would leave customers open to increased risk of cyber thieves and other criminals.
The risks are great from Cook cooperating with the feds or keeping the closet door shut on his customers. Washington officials, the family members of those killed in San Bernardino and most assuredly ISIS terrorists are looking to Cook to see what the future will look like for them and the rest of us. If only Jobs were here for Cook to consult.
Instead my fellow Alabamian and fellow Auburn University alum must seek counsel technologically and find a way for Apple to balance privacy and security in a time of serious and deadly global terror threats. If Cook finds a way philosophically and technologically to make this bridge, he may become one of America’s great corporate and global leaders like Jobs.
In ordinary times and under different circumstances, Cook would be right to fight access to customer information. But the times are not ordinary and terrorists are always looking for technological ways to attack our country, our families and our way of life.
The terrorists are effectively using our freedoms and laws to their advantage against us and Tim Cook needs to reconsider his strong willed opposition to cooperating with the government that gives him
the economic system and personal freedom to be the wealthy CEO he is.
He needs to find a way to join in the fight against terror not aid it. Failure to do so could lead to more tragedies he could have helped prevent.
The Apple annual meeting is next week. Security will be extremely heavy for Mr. Cook, board members including Al Gore and stockholders.
That is as it should be. Everyone needs to be protected from the constant threat of terror attacks. Just ask the families of those killed in Paris and San Bernardino.  Apple iPhones should be the product Jobs envisioned them to be to make our lives easier not devices of terrorists to create chaos and endanger lives.

Longtime Washington diplomat Jim Patterson writes from Washington and Silicon Valley.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Senator Dianne Feinstein Responds to Jim Patterson




February 19, 2016

Mr. James Patterson
San Francisco, California 94107

Dear Mr. Patterson:

Thank you for contacting me to share your suggestions regarding the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.  I welcome the opportunity to respond.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, there are currently more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees seeking assistance after fleeing five years of conflict in Syria.  Over 2,500 Syrians have lost their lives while taking dangerous journeys to European countries.  The Syrian conflict has led to the world's worst ongoing humanitarian crisis and the worst refugee crisis since World War II. 

I understand you are concerned that the U.S. Department of State may initiate a new program to resettle Syrian refugees in the United States and that you believe this poses a threat to our national security.  The President has said, for fiscal year 2016, the U.S. would accept up to 85,000 refugees, 10,000 of which would be Syrians.  All U.S. refugee applicants, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, or religion, are required to meet strict criteria, including security checks through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence community, and the U.S. Department of State, in order to qualify for admission to the United States.  Additionally, refugees from certain countries must meet additional clearance levels.  For example, biometric information, such as fingerprints and photographs, are collected from refugees coming from Syria and compared to the U.S. vast biometric holdings on foreign nationals. 

Please know that protecting the safety of Americans is my top priority as a United States Senator.  I believe we must be very careful about Syrian refugee admissions and that we must ensure we balance our security with helping those most in need.  However, I believe the Visa Waiver Program is a national security concern.  I am currently working with my colleagues in the Senate to see what changes can be made to the Visa Waiver Program, which I believe is responsible for the largest gap in our national security and can be exploited by dangerous individuals to travel to the United States.  To this end I introduced the "Visa Waiver Program Security Enhancement Act" (S. 2337), which would require travelers from Visa Waiver countries to use the standard visa application process if they have travelled to either Iraq or Syria within the last five years.  This means that those wishing to travel to the U.S. would need to submit biometric information, such as fingerprints and photographs, and have an in person interview with a U.S. consular official.  Additionally, I have advocated for increased intelligence sharing—when possible—with our allies in Europe and across the globe.  

Again, I appreciate hearing your views on these matters.  Please know that I will keep your concerns in mind should the Senate consider related legislation.  Should you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov.

   Sincerely,
                                                                 

Dianne Feinstein

       United States Senator


DF:ar

Sincerely yours,


  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the nation are available at my website, feinstein.senate.gov. And please visit my YouTube, Facebook and Twitter for more ways to communicate with me.

Jim Note: I understand serious and security minded lawmakers want to respond to the concerns of citizens who are concerned for their safety, especially in California and especially and lawless San Francisco but the Visa Waiver and intelligence sharing did not stop San Bernardino where 14 Californians who were giving their ISIS inspired killers gifts for their new baby. Senator Feinstein needed to help enact a law that would have given Justice department agents access to the iPhone owned by the killers. We cannot depend on the patriotic goodwill of Tim Cook or his Board. 

Jim Patterson on Marco Rubio's Foreign Affairs 2015 Article

US Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) writing in Foreign Affairs, S/O 2015, "Member of the Obama administration have signaled a disturbing willingness to ignore human rights violations in the hopes of appeasing the Chinese leadership. In the administration's early days in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that human rights "can't interfere" with other ostensibly more important bilateral issues, and in the months before Xi Jinping ascended to China's top leadership post in 2012, Vice President Joe Biden told him that U.S. support for human rights was merely a matter of domestic political posturing."

Jim Note: I can understand from this passage why Senator Rubio has risen so rapidly in the GOP and why he has grown a national following on foreign policy.

Further, Senator  Rubio wrote: ""[T]he manner in which governments treat their own citizens is indicative of the manner in which they will treat other nations."

Rubio was writing about China's human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Tibet, the Falun Gong practitioners, and the prolonged and unchallenged Chinese cyber attacks against the US and the Chinese multiple violations of multiple international treaties in the South China Seas.

The  senator could have also easily have been writing about Russian President Vladimir Putin's persecution of his LGBT citizens and Russian aggression in the Ukraine and "peace" efforts against ISIS in Syria. Perhaps the Senator if elected will evolve on human rights like Obama and the Clintons did on same-sex marriage.

Of course, the United States is not innocent when it comes to human rights abuses. Native Americans. Japanese Americans. African Americans. Disabled Americans. LGBT Americans. Women. This history, many historians argue, led to colonization, Vietnam, global exploitation by the US government and corporations and by negotiation of "terrible trade deals" GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump argues are made by "political hacks" presumably administration political hacks but also likely "hacks" at State, USTR, Commerce and other agencies.

US history of human rights abuses combined with "political hacks" and traditional government arrogance may have been other contributing factors in decisions made by Pfc,.Chelsea Manning and NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Manning, many supporters believe "had" to "free information" on US war crimes though she allowed her attorneys to tell the military tribunal she was so naive she did not understand what she was doing when she emailed classified government documents to WiKiLieaks.   Criminal Snowden, however, remains defiant he did the right thing by exposing Obama's spying on allies including German PM Angela Merkle, various Japanese government trade minsters, and French President Hollande.

Japanese diplomats in Washington told me both nations learned a lesson from the Snowden disclosures. It was a diplomatic response to an awkward US policy of illegal international spying on the personal handhelds of allied heads of state and other allied government officials  "Yes," I told my Japanese host, "President Obama learned the lesson not to illegally spy on Japanese officials?"  My host smiled, before saying yes.

-30-
Jim Patterson
Member California State Society
JEPDiplomat@gmail.com

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Dismal State of Affairs Politically & Diplomatically

Jim Note at End.
Declassified

Hillary's security clearance is under scrutiny

By Eli Lake & Josh Rogin Bloomberg View
Published Feb. 6, 2016
Hillary's security clearance is under scrutiny
The State Department announced Friday that it would not release 22 emails from Clinton's private server after a review found they contained information designated as top secret. U.S. officials who reviewed the emails tell us they contain the names of U.S. intelligence officers overseas, but not the identities of undercover spies; summaries of sensitive meetings with foreign officials; and information on classified programs like drone strikes and intelligence-collection efforts in North Korea.

The FBI is investigating the use of Clinton's home server when she was secretary of state, which the bureau now has. The New York Times reported in August that Clinton is not a target of that investigation. We reported in September that one goal is to discover whether a foreign intelligence service hacked in.

Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Clinton should not lose her security clearance for receiving information that was not marked classified at the time. "I'm sure she does hold a clearance, and she should," he told us.

Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican member of that committee who also has read the emails, told us, "It's important, given all the information we now know, that the House of Representatives work alongside the executive branch to determine whether it's appropriate for Secretary Clinton to continue to hold her security clearances."

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told us the decision lies with the White House. "I think that's up to what the National Security Council is comfortable with," he said.

Burr, who has also read all 22 emails, said Clinton should have known to better protect the information they contain. "They are definitely sensitive," he said. "Anybody in the intelligence world would know that the content was sensitive."

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who also read them, told us that Clinton didn't originally send any of the emails and that they were largely from her staff, although she did sometimes reply. Feinstein said the intelligence community is being overly cautious by designating the emails as top secret.

"There's no question that they are over-classifying this stuff," she said.


Still, it is forbidden. The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual says "transmitting classified information over a communication channel that is unauthorized for the level of information being transmitted" is a "security violation." Such violations must be investigated by the State Department's own bureaus of human resources and diplomatic security. Punishment can vary from a letter of reprimand to loss of security clearance, according to the manual.

When asked about the status of Clinton's security clearance, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: "The State Department does not comment on individuals' security clearance status. We will say, however, that generally speaking there is a long tradition of secretaries of state making themselves available to future secretaries and presidents. Secretaries are typically allowed to maintain their security clearance and access to their own records for use in writing their memoirs and the like."

The Clinton campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

During the Obama administration, it has not been automatic for officials to lose their security clearance while an investigation is underway. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the chief of naval intelligence, Vice Adm. Ted Branch, had his security clearance suspended because he is wrapped up in a Justice Department investigation into contracting corruption. He has not been able to read, see, or hear classified information since November 2013. Branch has not been charged with any crime and continues to serve in that post.

But when then-CIA director David Petraeus came under FBI investigation at the end of 2012, his security clearance was not formally revoked. After he resigned, his access to classified information was suspended, according to U.S. officials. In that case, Petraeus had provided notebooks with highly classified information to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, whose security clearances did not permit her to receive it.

Unlike Broadwell, officials familiar with the emails tell us that Clinton and her e-mail correspondents were cleared to receive the information that has been classified after the fact. Steven Aftergood, who heads the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told us, "It's entirely possible for information to start out as unclassified and to be classified only when the question of public disclosure arises."

William Leonard, who oversaw the government's security classification process between 2002 and 2008 as the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, told us this kind of "spillage" was common. "The bottom line is this, if you have the opportunity to pore through any cleared individual's unclassified e-mail account, it's almost inevitable you would find material that someone, some way would point out should be classified." He also said that in Clinton's case, "there is no indication that she deliberately disregarded the rules for handling classified information so I see no reason why she should not remain eligible for a security clearance."

Nonetheless, Leonard added that Clinton's decision to use the private e-mail server as secretary of state "reflected exceedingly poor judgment, and those that advised her on this did not serve her well."
The FBI investigation may determine that neither Clinton nor her aides broke the law, but Clinton herself has said she used poor judgment. It's an open question how that poor judgment will affect her access to state secrets, during and after the FBI's investigation.

Eli Lake is a Bloomberg View columnist who writes about politics and foreign affairs. He was previously the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast. Lake also covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI, and was a contributing editor at the New Republic.

Jim Note: Diplomacy, and politics, are all about judgment. Bill Clinton used poor judgment and was impeached for it. And Hillary admits poor judgment in having a server at her home. Hillary, with all her political and foreign policy resume, is struggling for the Democratic presidential nomination against Socialist US Senator Bernie Sanders who has lunatic ideas, if any, on foreign policy. He is intent on solving climate change and terrorism will go with it. 

According to the NYT Saturday Feb. 6, Washington is debating what constitutes a "secret" with regard to Hillary's emails. Really! State seems to be in the process of interpreting policies and regs to justify Hillary's poor judgment. She used poor judgment but she did nothing wrong, is an incredible argument for America in 2016. Akin to Bill used poor judgment with Monica but did nothing wrong because they were both consenting adults. 

It is my observation that diplomacy is not as highly and thoroughly politicized in other highly developed nations. But there is no Arkansas in any other country but the US. And people with the background and track records of poor judgement like Bill and Hillary would not be elevated to positions of president, secretary of state and, maybe, president in any country but the US, So many qualified people have been crowded out  of these high posts so Bill and Hillary could embarrass the country in the 1990s, since and ,maybe for 8 more years. 

Hillary is in a fight with Sanders she will probably win but the Democratic Party has to be concerned about her presidential run against, say Jeb Bush and Chris Christie/Ted Cruz/ Carly Fiorina/Marco Rubio/John Kasich or Donald Trump. In Trump's solo Iowa debate, early on he called State negotiators "political hacks" and suggested business negotiators to political negotiators. This is a view with appeal to voters of both parties. Democrats and unions oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership because they don't trust the negotiators. They suspect shady NAFTA like side letters and side agreements so that TPP is not transparent and sells out the few remaining unionized working Americans. 

Future administrations may find it more expeditious to appoint a 2 member negotiator panel, past SecStates, to work such deals as Iran, TPP, China negotiations, so partisan politics is kept at bay and voters can have some confidence better judgment will prevail than we've seen thus far from Foggy Bottom. 

Can Obama's administration end without an international confrontation? North Korea? China? Russia? ISIS? In sum, voters realize a dismal state of affairs awaits a new president. Can it wait as tensions mount? 


-30-

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Jim Patterson and Alex's Story Bay Area 2015


In 2015, Jim Patterson helped open a two day conference on the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
/
Jim holds Alex's photograph.
IMG_3053 (1)
Photo Courtesy UC Hastings

Alex Baker Patterson was born in 1989 at Georgetown University Hospital. She required immediate cardiac surgery and lived to be 17. She was awaiting a heart transplant.

The case, called family tree discrimination by the Wall Street Journal, was the first of its kind in the federal government. It was a case of associational discrimination based on disability. It was my parental association with Alex that led the US State Department to violate the ADA in 1993 when it attempted to remove me from the diplomatic corps due to the "insurance burden" they said Alex represented. When I told Justin W. Dart Jr. of this, he replied: "The goddamn bastards!" My tribute to Justin is published elsewhere.

Patterson updated Alex's story with Deanna Fei's experience, "Girl in Glass," at AOL in 2011 and the politician in Cornwall England who told citizens disabled kids, like disabled animals, should be "put down." In both cases, "distressed babies" were insurance burdens. A global problem and the remnant "mainstreaming" of  Eastern European institutionalization of disabled kids and adults.

The State Department experience, documented in several newspapers and magazines of the 1990s and in many interviews since, sent a horrible message to the nation that disabled children and their parents were without value. It also sent the message that if State diplomats would take such extreme actions against one of their own, counter to prevailing law, US diplomats might be expected to mistreat disabled people and children in other countries.  It further cast doubt on the compassion, sincerity and honesty, diplomats state they have in negotiating with counterparts abroad and in fairly implementing US programs to diverse international communities.

The ADA contained a provision that barred such discrimination. I knew this because I worked with disability leaders in the years before passage of the ADA. The provision was needed to protect family members with AIDS, it was a case of AIDS activism in the ADA, which "Uncle Jesse" Helms opposed, that protected working parents with disabled family members. In July 1994, Helms, in a long Senate speech broadcast over C-SPAN, attempted to have me fired for "promoting the gay agenda" in the federal workplace. To say those were trying times is to state it mildly.

The ADA became fully applicable to federal employees in late October 1993. The Neal Pike Institute said the government decision finding associational discrimination, in 1995, was consistent with the Federal  Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the direction to disability law.

Patterson's presentation included remembrances of Dart, Even Kemp Jr., Paul Hearn, Alan Reich, Yvonne Duffy (Detroit Free Press), Harold Russell, Helen Keller, George H,. W. Bush, and colleagues and childhood friends with disabilities. And many Miss Wheelchair Americas.

He also quoted some of his supporters including US Senator Charles Grassley, IA-R, Mary Johnson, editor of The Disability Rag, Bill Stothers of Mainstream magazine, Betty Garee of Special Living Magazine in Illinois, and many others.

Late in 2015 while attending a conference in Los Angeles, Jim knelt at Harold Russell's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for a photo in memory of the 2-time Oscar winner. Patterson also posed at the star for the late Billy Barty, a giant of a man. Patterson met Barty at a Little People's Convention in Indianapolis. They were both were kind to me and shared invaluable personal and professional
insights.

Russell told me men were "uncomfortable" shaking hands with him. (He lost both forearms in WWII.) "I am not that kind of man," I told him, as I proudly shook his hand after a meeting in Washington.

-30-

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Jim Patterson Comment on Obama's Late Stage Iran Deal

A comment on the "historic" Iranian deal. Democrats support the deal despite Iran's continued support of terrorists in Syria and Hezbollah, etc. and aggression in other states like Saudi Arabia. Obama got no concessions Iran would cease any of this activity. Further, Obama got no concessions Iran would cease its internal and well documented human rights abuses.

A majority of Democrats oppose President Obama on the Trans Pacific Partnership with Asian nations due to the "likelihood" that US businesses will violate he human rights of workers in these Asian nations and violate the human rights, read union rights, of traditional US supporters of Democratic politicians, unions, Hollywood celebrities, academics who either do not believe in free trade or who seek lucrative government contracts to conduct research to prove the TPP would enrich US corporations at he expense of US and Asian human rights, read union rights.

This observation is based on meetings and rallies I attended in San Francisco and university  communities where the academics, already overpaid by taxpayers in their states, seek additional money, from unions, to prove TPP would economically damage unions.

There are advantages to eliminating Iran's nuclear ambitions and effectively verifying it. This is done through strong diplomacy, strong oversight of negotiated agreements, and real economic and political consequences if the agreement is violated.

The timing of the nuclear agreement with Iran is also suspect coming in the final days of the Obama administration. It fits Mr. Obama's "peace" brand for his presidency and after-presidency speaking fees,  political agenda, and other ambitions.

Jim Patterson
January 19, 2016.