The father of a participant in the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, has published an open letter to his son, denouncing his “hateful opinions” and saying he is no longer welcome at family gatherings.

Peter Tefft of Fargo, North Dakota, attended the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, where white nationalists gathered to protest the removal of a statue of confederate general Robert E. Lee. Participants met with counter-protesters and police in an explosion of chaos and violence that left dozens injured and one killed after a rally participant drove a car through the crowd.

Peter Tefft’s father, Pearce Tefft, published the letter to North Dakota-Minnesota news site Inforum on Monday morning. In the letter, Pearce Tefft writes that he and his family “loudly repudiate” Peter’s white nationalist rhetoric–which he calls “hateful and violent”–and emphasizes that the family does not share these beliefs.

“His hateful opinions are bringing hateful rhetoric to his siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews as well as his parents,” Pearce writes. “None of his beliefs were learned at home. We do not, never have, and never will, accept his twisted worldview.”

In the letter’s closing, Pearce urges his “prodigal son” to renounce his hate and return home, where he will be welcomed only if he decides to “accept and love all.”

“We have been silent up until now, but now we see that this was a mistake,” the letter reads. “It was the silence of good people that allowed the Nazis to flourish the first time around, and it is the silence of good people that is allowing them to flourish now.”

“A Maniac…Crazy Nazi”

Peter became the center of local controversy in Fargo earlier this year, when posters showing his photo and calling him a Nazi and a white supremacist were posted in the city’s downtown area in February.

He spoke with several news organizations about his involvement in the Charlottesville rally and defended his views, which he calls “100 percent pro-white.” Before traveling to Virginia, Peter penned a letter, published on Inforum, encouraging other white conservatives to “advocate for our civil rights” and warning them of “the left’s plan for demographic displacement.”

Peter wrote that he was attending the Unite the Right event in Charlottesville to “stand up for rural, traditional Americans” and rally around the statue of Lee.

“We seek to create a contrast between our position and the left; we like debate and they don’t,” he wrote. “Maybe we will even teach the left a lesson or two about the dangers of censorship and how angry it makes people.”

Peter’s image and participation in Charlottesville went viral this week after the Twitter account @YesYoureRacist posted his photo, garnering thousands of retweets and likes.

This charming Nazi is Pete Tefft of Fargo, ND — spotted in @UR_Ninja‘s video: https://t.co/2oslzXHtRZ #GoodNightAltRight #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/Zqd2gm8mOC

— Yes, You’re Racist (@YesYoureRacist) August 12, 2017

Jacob Scott, Peter Tefft’s nephew, responded to the viral tweet in a statement, calling Peter a “vile person” who has made “violent threats” against his own family. Scott wrote that several family members had been harassed, both in person and online, by strangers who are under the assumption that they also endorse Nazism.

“We are all bleeding-heart liberals who believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings,” Scott wrote in a statement to Inforum. “Peter is a maniac, who has turned away from all of us and gone down some insane internet rabbit-hole, and turned into a crazy Nazi. He scares us all, we don’t feel safe around him, and we don’t know how he came to be this way.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Father of Charlottesville Rally Participant Denounces “Hateful” Son appeared first on Law Street.

In an action that’s been called a “public health power move” and a “step in the right direction,” the federal agency responsible for regulating food safety and drugs is taking on smoking addiction.

Scott Gottlieb, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, announced the agency’s comprehensive plan to reduce nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. Citing smoking’s yearly death toll of 480,000, Gottlieb, appointed by President Donald Trump, said the FDA is “ready to do its share” in preventing smoking addiction in future generations.

“Unless we change course, 5.6 million children alive today will die prematurely later in life from tobacco use,” Gottlieb said in his July 28 remarks. “A renewed focus on nicotine can help us to achieve a world where cigarettes no longer addict future generations of our kids.”

This is the widest use of the FDA’s tobacco regulation power as granted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The act, passed in 2009 under President Barack Obama, gave the FDA regulatory power over tobacco–until now that power has not been used.

The FDA’s announcement comes as more state governments are hopping on the bandwagon to combat teen smoking addiction. New Jersey recently joined Hawaii and California in raising the legal smoking age to 21.

Though the opioid addiction crisis has been a major priority for the government in recent years, Gottlieb said he views the FDA’s opportunity to confront nicotine addiction with the same obligation.

“I’ve pledged a deep commitment to taking aggressive steps to address the epidemic of addiction to opioids,” Gottlieb said. “I’ll pursue efforts to reduce addiction to nicotine with the same vigor.”

We commend @SGottliebFDA & @US_FDA for adopting a common sense, balanced approach to tobacco & nicotine regulation. https://t.co/hOWUntQLhA pic.twitter.com/adf3MabZJx

— Tom Price, M.D. (@SecPriceMD) July 31, 2017

The agency’s next steps include seeking the public’s input on several tobacco and e-cigarette related topics, such as the prevalence of kid-friendly flavors in vaping products.

“Public input on these complex issues will help ensure the agency has the proper science-based policies in place to meaningfully reduce the harms caused by tobacco use,” said Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

The nicotine-reduction plan overshadowed the FDA’s announcement of several compromises on e-cigarette regulations, including the decision to postpone the deadline for companies to submit applications for new products by five years, to 2022.

These revised timelines will give the agency time to evaluate how new products and a changing tobacco market best fit into the agency’s wider goal of fighting smoking addiction, according to an FDA release.

“This action will afford the agency time to explore clear and meaningful measures to make tobacco products less toxic, appealing and addictive,” the release reads.

Anti-smoking advocates have criticized this move, saying Gottlieb’s nicotine-reduction plan was announced to detract from the potential consequences of postponing regulations on products that children and teenagers are using more.

In a statement, Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the delay a “serious error.”

“This long delay will allow egregious, kid-friendly e-cigarettes and cigars, in flavors like gummy bear, cherry crush and banana smash, to stay on the market with little public health oversight,” Myers said. “There is no reason to allow these products to stay on the market while developing and implementing the comprehensive strategy Dr. Gottlieb outlined today.”

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board published a response to Gottlieb’s announcement, calling it “troubling,” and questioning the commissioner’s intentions.

“We want to believe Gottlieb is sincere about regulation limiting nicotine,” the piece reads. “It would be one of the most important accomplishments of the Trump administration, though it would take years to implement. The damage caused by delaying the regulations on other tobacco products, however, will be immediate.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FDA Announces Groundbreaking Plan to Curb Smoking Addiction appeared first on Law Street.

More women than men are paying increased attention to politics after Donald Trump’s election, according to new data about political attentiveness.

Nine months after an election largely defined by its historic gender gap, survey data from the Pew Research Center shows that 58 percent of women say they are “paying increased attention to politics since Trump’s election,” compared with only 46 percent of men.

Overall, 52 percent of the population said they are paying more attention, while 33 percent say they are paying about the same amount of attention, and 13 percent admitted to being less attentive.

“There are similarly wide gender gaps in heightened interest to politics among members of both parties,” according to the Pew. “Sixty-three percent of Democratic women say they are more attentive to politics, compared with 51 percent of Democratic men. Among Republicans, 54 percent of women and 43 percent of men say the same.”

Pew conducted the survey between June 27 and July 9, speaking with 2,505 adults in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

The Gender Gap

Women paying more attention to politics has translated into on-the-ground political activism, according to the data. Seventeen percent of women say they have attended a political rally, event, or protest; 12 percent of men say the same.

It’s likely that a large number of these women were among the estimated 5 million who came out for women’s marches that swept the nation after Inauguration Day.

Education level also appeared to make a difference–the subgroup of the population most likely to have attended a protest is women with post-graduate degrees, with 43 percent having participated.

Out of the total 15 percent of the population who have attended such events, the vast majority (67 percent) did so “in opposition to Trump or his policies,” compared  to the mere 11 percent of those who said they’ve attended a political event in support of the president.

Trump Talk Ending Friendships

The majority of Americans (59 percent) find talking politics with someone who has differing opinions than them on the president to be a “stressful and frustrating” experience. Only 35 percent of the population says it is “interesting and informative” to engage in such conversations.

Women tend to be more frustrated with these conversations–64 percent say they are stressful, compared to 54 percent of men sharing that view.

Going beyond just conversations, about one-in-five survey respondents said that knowing a friend voted for Trump would put a strain on their friendship. However, only 7 percent said that knowing a friend had voted for Hillary Clinton would negatively affect their friendship.

The numbers are even more stark when looking at a breakdown by political affiliation and ideology. Thirty-five percent of Democrats said a friend’s Trump vote would put a strain on the friendship, while only 13 percent of Republicans said the same about a friend #withher. For the Democrats who consider themselves to be liberal, rather than moderate or conservative, 47 percent said their friendships would be strained by a vote for Trump.

A Country Not So Divided

Looking past politics, most Democrats (59 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) said that members of the opposing party probably share their other values and goals.

The ideological group most likely to feel this way is moderate and liberal Republicans, 73 percent of whom said Democrats likely shared their non-political goals and values. These survey questions were only asked of partisan-identifying respondents, not those who said they leaned toward one party.

Click here for the full survey report and methodology explanation from Pew Research Center.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women Are Paying More Attention to Politics in Post-Trump World appeared first on Law Street.

Ten percent of the world’s children aren’t meeting basic global vaccination standards. New data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF estimates that in 2016, nearly 12.9 million infants did not receive any vaccinations. This includes the first dose of the DTP vaccine, which is considered to be an essential vaccination for children.

DTP is the three-round vaccination that protects against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough. According to a release from WHO and UNICEF, this immunization is “one of the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions,” preventing 2-3 million deaths annually.

The data shows that in 130 of 194 WHO member states, at least 90 percent of infants received their full course of vaccinations at the national level. Additionally, 6.6 million infants failed to complete all three doses of the DTP immunization series after receiving their first dose.

Jean-Marie Okwo-Bele, director of immunization, vaccines and biologicals at WHO, said in the release that lack of vaccination can indicate overall health of children in a region.

“These children most likely have also not received any of the other basic health services,” Okwo-Bele said. “If we are to raise the bar on global immunization coverage, health services must reach the unreached. Every contact with the health system must be seen as an opportunity to immunize.”

Getting to 90 Percent

While 86 percent of children received their routine vaccinations in 2016, WHO’s goal is to vaccinate 90 percent of children globally. The number has remained at about 86 percent since 2010, and the new data shows there has not been any improvement in the last year.

This 90 percent coverage target is part of the agency’s Global Vaccine Action Plan, which was endorsed in May 2012 by WHO member states. To meet this goal, WHO says, “an estimated 10 million additional infants need to be vaccinated in 64 countries, if all countries are to achieve at least 90% coverage.”

Immunization Barriers

Vaccinating these additional 10 million children has proven difficult due to politics and location. Eight countries failed to vaccinate at least 50 percent of their infants against DTP. Most of these nations are war-torn countries like South Sudan and Syria, where conflict has resulted in the destruction of hospitals and health centers, making it difficult for vaccinations to reach many areas.

Unsurprisingly, poverty was also shown to impact how well a country’s children were vaccinated. According to the data, poor, urban populations are most at-risk of being under-immunized. This is a global problem, but particularly in “rapidly growing slums in Africa and Asia,” the release reads.

Robin Nandy, chief of immunizations at UNICEF, said in the release that immunization is “one of the most pro-equity” public health interventions.

“Bringing life-saving vaccines to the poorest communities, women and children must be considered a top priority in all contexts,” Nandy said.

Still, foreign aid and other factors have given some nations the ability to break through the poverty obstacle. Okwo-Bele told NPR that poor countries, like Tanzania, have improved their DTP vaccination rates because of their prioritization of immunizations as a national issue.

“[Tanzania] has had the political will to make immunizations a priority, and with foreign health aid, has built a well-organized system to deliver vaccines where needed, with trusted community health workers and reliable refrigeration for vaccines,” according to NPR.

UNICEF and WHO are continuing to research the impact of economic inequality on vaccination.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Children Fall Short of Global Vaccination Goal, New Data Says appeared first on Law Street.

In early July, users of AlphaBay, one of the largest darknet marketplaces, panicked when their go-to supplier of illegal drugs, weapons, and other illicit items unexpectedly vanished from the internet. As is often the case when darknet marketplaces go down, many were wary that the moderators may have purposefully closed the site and made off with shoppers’ money. Though AlphaBay’s moderators quickly took to Reddit to assure users that they were working to restore the site, the internet panic left many wondering more about the mysterious “dark web” and its contents. What is this hidden side of the internet really about? And can any good be found in the dark? Read on to find out.

Deep Web vs. Dark Web

When you go online to browse social media, read the news, or look up directions, you’re using what’s called the “surface web.” While most of us stick to the surface web for our daily use, the truth is that it’s just a sliver of what’s available on the internet.

The deep web, which experts estimate makes up about 90 percent of the internet’s content, is comprised of all the web pages that aren’t accessible through public search engines. Library search engines, government databases, and your personal email account are all examples of pages on the deep web.

Many internet users confuse the deep web with the dark web, but the dark web is actually a tiny subsection of the deep web. It is comprised of all the hidden content existing on darknets, or encrypted networks that require use of specific software or tools to access. Darknets are specially designed to provide anonymity to users, making user presence on the dark web undetectable.

The dark web is best known to the public as a safe haven for salacious and criminal enterprises–the drug and weapons trades, child pornography, and the sale of stolen personal information, like bank accounts. But there are individuals on the dark web with nobler intentions, like whistleblowing. Wikileaks, for example, is a notorious dark web site that allows whistleblowers to anonymously upload classified information to the site. Civilians may also use darknet software to access social media in countries where sites like Facebook and Twitter are banned, or to spread news in times of censorship and political unrest.

How to Use the Dark Web

The most common way to access the dark web is using a free software called Tor, originally short for “The Onion Router,” which allows users to anonymize their web pages and their presence on the internet.

Tor was originally created by U.S. Naval Research Laboratory employees in the mid 1990s, and receives 60 percent of its funding from the U.S. government. It hides users’ IP addresses (the unique code that attaches your internet activity to your computer) by sending traffic from their computer and server to other, random points, “like anonymous bagmen trading briefcases in a parking garage,” according to Wired.

Users of Tor can access the surface web as normal, but can also browse websites that run Tor themselves–that’s where the hidden side of the internet exists. Tor websites don’t have a normal URL like Facebook.com, but instead consist of a jumble of seemingly random letters followed by “.onion,” like wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion for Wikileaks. This means that to access a Tor website, you most often need to know the exact web address.

Tor is working on developing its anonymity capabilities even further, Wired reported in January. Tor Project co-founder Nick Mathewson told the tech magazine that software released later this year will allow users to keep their sites completely secret, even from other Tor users.

“Someone can create a hidden service just for you that only you would know about, and the presence of that particular hidden service would be non-discoverable,” Mathewson told Wired. “As a building block, that would provide a much stronger basis for relatively secure and private systems than we’ve had before.”

Who Uses the Dark Web?

Criminals

The anonymous sale and exchange of illegal substances is responsible for most of the dark web’s notoriety. One of the most famous darknet marketplaces is the Silk Road, which was shut down in 2013, only to re-appear in various iterations. Most sites use bitcoin, rather than PayPal or credit cards, for transactions, since the e-currency allows customers to maintain their anonymity.

In June, Interpol launched a digital forensics course for wildlife crime investigators, to crack down on use of the dark web for the illegal trade of ivory and exotic animals.

Hackers have also been known to sell personal information, like login details for bank accounts or email accounts. In March 2015, thousands of active Uber account usernames and passwords were being sold for as little as $1-$5 on darknet marketplaces AlphaBay and ThinkingForward.

Dozens of hitmen are also available for hire on the dark web, but many sites, like BesaMafia, have been proven to be scams, or set up by law enforcement to catch people plotting murder.

“Normal” People

If you are unfamiliar with the dark web, you may be surprised to learn that many of its users are “Average Joes” (i.e. not internet-based arms dealers), who are interested in maintaining their internet privacy for less malicious reasons.

Politicians conducting secret deals, internet stalking victims wishing to keep their location private, and law enforcement officials investigating crimes are a large portion of the dark web’s user population. In a 2016 post on TurboFuture, blogger Dean Walsh noted the absurdity of these various populations interacting with terrorists, cybercriminals, and hackers.

“The fact that so many of the dark web’s users are enemies also leads to a strange dynamic,” Walsh writes. “I was tickled to see website security experts and criminal hackers sharing the same forums to discuss their common interests in computer security whilst hardly recognizing that they are nemeses.”

Activists and Journalists

The anonymity provided by dark web sites can also be a force for justice. Activists have been able to shed light on dire situations while avoiding detection in countries where oppressive regimes prevent civilians from using social media, or otherwise censor content posted on the internet.

Nima Fatemi, an Iranian activist and contributor to the Tor Project, taught friends and family how to use the service during a series of riots and protests in Tehran in 2009. Fatemi told Rolling Stone that Tor allowed him and others to post information about what was actually happening, while state television was “just showing photos of flowers and stuff.” “I found Tor and thought, ‘This is the tool.’ It was peace of mind,” Fatemi told Rolling Stone. “I felt it a duty because so many people outside of Iran had no idea that we were protesting.”

Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation encourage protesters and journalists to use Tor networks to protect their identity. The non-profit news organization ProPublica recently launched a Tor version of its website, which means readers can safely read the publication’s articles undetected. A ProPublica spokesman told Wired that the development will make the website safe for users in locations like China, where heavy government censorship can affect internet content. Facebook also has a Tor version, which it says many of its users access on the regular.

“Wikileaks” Courtesy of Sean MacEntee : License (CC BY 2.0)

Terrorists?

While there is some evidence of ISIS militants and supporters using the dark web and other Tor-protected services to recruit and fund their efforts, researchers at King’s College London found relatively “little militant, extremist presence” on the dark web. Thomas Rid, one of the researchers who co-authored the paper Cryptopolitik and the Darknet, told Quartz that dark web sites are not very useful for quickly and effectively spreading propaganda.

“Hidden services are sometimes slow, and not as stable as you might hope,” Rid said. “So ease of use is not as great as it could be. There are better alternatives.”

Conclusion

When dark web activities make headlines, it’s usually for something nefarious. This criminal side will continue to be newsworthy as the NSA and FBI crack down on illegal darknet marketplaces like the Silk Road, and stolen consumer data on dark web sites. But beyond the child pornography, drug sales, and hitmen for hire, there are activists, journalists, and everyday internet users making use of the dark web. As sites like ProPublica and Facebook turn to Tor for security purposes, the lighter side of the dark web could have its moment in the sun.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unraveling the Dark Web appeared first on Law Street.

Since its recognizable logo first appeared on our phone screens in 2011, Uber has quickly risen to become ubiquitous in modern-day transportation, overtaking taxis in many cities. The ride-hailing company has cemented its status as a pillar of the sharing economy, while also battling countless lawsuits, protests, and government regulations over the years. The controversies reached a head in June 2017, when co-founder Travis Kalanick stepped down from his position as CEO. Read on for a glimpse into the events that led to Kalanick’s resignation.

Rise to Ride-Sharing Royalty

Uber’s growth as one of the world’s top ride-sharing companies was swift. It easily secured several rounds of funding, and became one of the most valuable startups worldwide. Uber has yet to go public, but is valued at $70 billion.

Uber’s impact on the market is cultural, as well as financial–the term “uberisation” has come to refer to other companies and industries that take after the company’s business model of eliminating the middleman and connecting customers directly to service providers. And, as The Economist writes, the word “uber” has become its own verb, like Facebook or Google.

Though competitors like Lyft have slowly built up steam, Uber still dominates the market. At the end of May, Uber’s U.S. market share was 77 percent, down from 84 percent earlier in the year. This decrease, experts say, is likely the effect of the seemingly endless controversies that have tainted Uber over its lifetime.

Early Disputes

Uber’s efforts to transform the transportation market have been met with resistance from the beginning. In a 2013 class-action lawsuit, a group of drivers sued Uber for its labor practices. The suit claims the drivers have been “misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance.” The company agreed to settle the suit for $100 million in 2016, but a federal judge denied the settlement and the case is still ongoing.

In the U.S. and worldwide, Uber has faced major scrutiny for operating in markets without adhering to local policies and procedures that regulate cabs. In 2014, several protests against the company broke out across Europe. These protests came to a head in 2015, when taxi drivers locked down the city of Paris, blocking roads, burning tires, and attacking drivers. The drivers considered Uber to be a form of “economic terrorism.”

“London Anti-Uber Taxi Protest” Courtesy David Holt : License (CC BY 2.0)

Uber is currently banned in Italy, Hungary, Denmark, and several other nations, in addition to some U.S. cities. In August 2016, Uber sold its presence in China to competitor Didi Chuxing, freeing it up to expand in other global markets. Today, the company operates in over 80 countries.

Over the years, Uber has come under fire for funneling millions into opposition research, both in plots to push out Lyft, its primary U.S. competitor, and to fight negative press coverage by “digging up dirt” on journalists. While these scandals have tarnished Uber’s image, 2017 has been an especially turbulent year for the company.

2017: A Year of Controversy

Uber’s controversies seemed to pile up at the beginning of 2017. When President Donald Trump’s travel ban was announced in January, protesters gathered at airports nationwide. While the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance ceased operations at JFK to participate in the protest, Uber continued picking up customers, fueling backlash from many who said the company was profiting from Islamophobia and deportation. The company later apologized, but not before the hashtag “#DeleteUber” began trending and rival company Lyft announced its support for the protesters, promising to donate $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Toxic Culture

In February, Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a blog post documenting several incidents of sexual harassment during her time with the company. The post went viral and prompted Kalanick to hire former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the claims. In June, Holder presented the board with a report of the findings and series of recommendations to improve Uber’s workplace. One of the recommendations was to strip Kalanick of some of his power. Also in June, Uber fired 20 employees after an investigation unrelated to Holder’s revealed more evidence of bullying, harassment, and a “toxic” company culture.

Skirting the Rules

A few days after Fowler’s viral post was published, Uber was hit with a lawsuit from Waymo, a self-driving car offshoot of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Waymo alleged that Uber stole trade and patent secrets, focusing on actions by Anthony Levandowski, a former Google engineer. Levandowski was fired from Uber in May, and a new filing in June revealed that Kalanick knew Levandowksi had possession of data from Google long before the Waymo suit was filed.

In March, The New York Times reported on Uber’s use of a technology called Greyball, which it employed primarily outside of the U.S., allowing drivers to evade local authorities in markets where the ride-hailing service had been banned. The Department of Justice launched an investigation in response.

“Travis Kalanick” Courtesy of TechCrunch : Licence (CC BY 2.0)

Kalanick’s Tarnished Image

Kalanick, as an individual, faced even more scrutiny in late February after he was caught on video in a profanity-laden argument with an Uber driver over the company’s falling fares, which the driver said made him “bankrupt.” After the video surfaced online, Kalanick publicly apologized.

“To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement,” Kalanick wrote in a company-wide email. “I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up. This is the first time I’ve been willing to admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it.”

Several years ago, Kalanick also came under fire for referring to his company as “Boob-er” in an highly-scrutinized GQ interview, saying that his desirability among women has increased since starting Uber.

Kalanick Resigns

A week before officially resigning, Kalanick announced an indefinite leave of absence from Uber leadership. This was in response to Holder’s recommendation that the company re-evaluate some of Kalanick’s responsibilities or distribute them among other members of leadership. In a memo to employees, Kalanick also said the leave of absence would give him time to grieve for his mother, who was killed in a boating accident weeks earlier.

Breaking: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick memo to employees on his leave of absence. Full text. @NPR pic.twitter.com/tCE4bZ2C0u

— Aarti Shahani (@aarti411) June 13, 2017

The temporary departure did not satisfy Uber’s investors, however. On June 20, two venture capitalists presented Kalanick with a list of demands, including his resignation. The letter was from five of Uber’s major investors, including Benchmark and the mutual fund giant Fidelity Investments. By the end of the day, his departure was made public.

Kalanick’s resignation isn’t the first indication of instability among the company’s top brass. Including the position of CEO, three of Uber’s eight leadership positions are currently vacant. Several other high-level positions and other leaders are also currently under scrutiny, and four out of seven board members, including the board’s only two women, are relatively new to the company.

What’s Next for Uber?

In spite of the recent controversies, Uber is continuing to expand and reshape its image. Uber added an in-app tipping function in June, much to the delight of drivers and customers, and the company’s self-driving projects are continuing to improve, even in the wake of the Waymo lawsuit. The company also streamlined its app to allow users to hail rides for others more easily, letting users call an Uber for a drunk friend or aging relative.

Unfortunately, the scandals haven’t stopped altogether. Less than 10 days after Kalanick’s resignation, civil rights activists filed suit against Uber in federal court for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act and the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act by not accommodating passengers with non-collapsible wheelchairs.

Conclusion

Even with the departure of Kalanick, the rest of this year could be make or break for Uber. Kalanick still retains a seat on Uber’s board, as well as voting rights in company decisions. Some think he could be leaving the door open to return to the helm in the future. Murmurs of Uber going public are also ongoing. Uber’s market share decrease and 2016 earnings loss could still hold up an IPO, but economists and experts think Kalanick’s resignation is a good sign for the company’s public trading potential. All eyes will remain on Uber to see if the ride-sharing giant can continue to grow, while transforming its leadership and company culture.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber in Turmoil: How Several Scandals Led to the Departure of its CEO appeared first on Law Street.

Last year, JD.com, China’s version of Amazon, got its business off the ground–literally. The company launched a fleet of delivery drones that have been bringing packages to buyers within minutes. In one province, the company just received government approval to use drone delivery for packages weighing more than a ton, according to Vox. This form of delivery has been especially effective for JD.com in delivering packages to rural areas. The drones are fully automated and follow set paths. Rather than delivering straight to the customer’s door, they drop orders at a specific site in rural villages, where locally-based contractors then deliver the packages.

Faster delivery that reaches more people–it seems like a logical step for American companies. So why aren’t delivery drones flooding our skies? Read on to find out.

What’s Stopping the Drones?

The idea of drone delivery isn’t a new concept to American business leaders. Back in 2013, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos discussed the possibility of drone delivery in a “60 Minutes” interview. Much of his segment is already dated–Bezos talked about the very beginnings of developing original television programming for Amazon Studios–however, he said drone delivery was only a few years away. American customers are still waiting on the first air delivery and Prime Air’s website does not yet list an official launch date for the service to be available to buyers.

“We will deploy when and where we have the regulatory support needed to safely realize our vision,” the website reads. “We’re excited about this technology and one day using it to deliver packages to customers around the world in 30 minutes or less.”

The biggest barrier is government regulation. The Federal Aviation Administration has historically been hazy on drone policy. The department has come under fire for not establishing clear privacy or safety laws for drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

In 2015, the FAA required drone users to register in a federal database. Last month, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. overturned that regulation, ruling that it did not have legal standing over those flying drones for recreational, not commercial, purposes.

With regard to commercial drone usage, the FAA’s guidelines, set last June, do not permit aerial package delivery. According to the regulations, drones used for commercial purposes must remain in the line of sight of the pilot. Tech companies and others interested in commercial drone usage are lobbying the FAA to change those regulations. Amazon itself has several lobbyists working on this goal.

Going Global

To get around these federal roadblocks, Amazon has moved across the pond to test its delivery. Last summer, the company gained approval from the U.K. to test drones in the country’s airspace. Just a few months later, in a private trial, the company made its first drone delivery–an Amazon FireStick and a package of popcorn–to a customer in Cambridge.

In New Zealand, Domino’s is experimenting with drone delivery pizzas. And an American startup based in California is using the vehicles to transport medical supplies to Rwanda. Earlier this month, Amazon announced the creation of a drone testing center in Paris, which will work with the centers in the U.S., U.K., Austria, and Israel.

The delay in drone use in the U.S. is frustrating–to consumers, companies, and drone-use advocates. Timothy Carone, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and expert on automation (he co-authored the book “Future Automation–Changes to Lives and Businesses”), told Wired in December that it is “unfortunate, almost tragic” that Amazon is piloting drone delivery in the U.K., rather than in the U.S.

“The FAA, like most government agencies, works on times scales that are increasingly slower than the evolution of new businesses and technologies,” Carone said. “Soon it will make decisions on technologies that are already outdated.”

Since then, Prime Air has only made one delivery on U.S. soil–at an invite-only tech conference in March–and the delivery was pre-approved by the FAA. The convenience store 7-Eleven has had mild success in delivering packages via drone, but all of its trials have been within the pilot’s line of site, to customers within a mile of the Reno, Nevada store.

Other Concerns

Beyond the regulatory barriers, there are a multitude of other concerns and problems that Amazon and other companies will have to address before drone delivery becomes commonplace in the U.S.

Air safety and environmental concerns are top priority. To ensure that drones can coexist peacefully with other aircrafts, avoid crashing into tall buildings and construction cranes, and aren’t hazardous to birds, trees, or bodies of water, companies that wish to use drones will have to work closely with air traffic control, even developing new systems. Amazon has said that data from its trials in the U.K. are helping to develop and improve air traffic control systems that deal with drones in both the U.S., through NASA, and in the U.K. And there is, of course, the very real fear that drone deliveries will wipe out thousands of driving and packaging jobs.

On top of these challenges, leadership at Prime Air has seen some turnover. The co-founder of the project, Daniel Buchmueller, quietly left Amazon at the end of last year, at what seems to be a pivotal time in the company’s pursuit of aerial delivery.

What’s Next For Drone Policy?

President Donald Trump’s actions on drones have largely dealt with warfare. In a controversial decision in March, Trump handed authority to launch drone strikes to the CIA. Under President Barack Obama, only the military had the power to launch strikes, making the operations more transparent since the Pentagon has to report on all airstrikes.

The new presidential administration has had little to say on commercial and recreational drone usage. But last week, the White House backed proposed legislation that would allow the government to track and destroy drones flying over U.S. soil that it deems a security threat. This is a security and privacy issue–the administration is concerned about the ability of terrorists to use drones to carry weapons or conduct surveillance.

The draft document warns that government activities, like wildland firefighting, search and rescue operations, and border control, could be threatened by the commercial availability of unmanned aircraft systems. According to the document, drones are difficult to detect and monitor, but the technology available to do so may not be currently legal for such purposes.

“Some of the most promising technical countermeasures for detecting and mitigating [unmanned aircraft systems] may be construed to be illegal under certain laws that were passed when UAS were unforeseen,” the document reads. “These laws include statutes governing electronic communications, access to protected computers, and interference with civil aircraft.”

It is unclear how legislation like this, should it pass, would affect the ability of companies like Amazon to use drones for delivery.

“An Emerging Technology”

Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary, spoke briefly on drones for commercial use during her confirmation hearings. She has not proposed any changes to policy as of yet, but emphasized the importance of safety regulations in any drone laws.

“Safety will continue to be the primary objective,” Chao said. “Regulatory decisions should be rooted in analysis derived from sound science and data.”

“Farewell Reception Honoring Hudson Distinguished Fellow and Secretary of Transportation-designate Elaine L. Chao” Courtesy of Hudson Institute: License (CC BY 2.0)

Chao also acknowledged that the government’s “failure to pace with emerging technologies” is causing U.S. transport to fall behind other countries.

“It’s an emerging technology, there are those who see the benefits of commercializing them for various uses, it’s transforming the way we work, the way we do commerce,” she said. “There are also those who are very concerned about privacy issues, security issues, and again for going forward with an emerging technology as important as this with such vast implications for our future, I think we need to talk about it, we need to have again a national consensus for where we’re going.”

Conclusion

With JD.com’s success with drone delivery, and Amazon’s fourth international development center opening soon, everyone from consumers to CEOs are anxiously awaiting improvements to federal policy that will make drone delivery a reality for Americans. Some say the key lies in redefining drones so that they are not considered aircrafts and subject to the same regulations as jetliners.

Even without delivery, the presence of drones themselves is only going to become more prominent as the months go on. The FAA estimated earlier this year that the number of drones used for recreational purposes will increase from 1.1 million in 2016 to more than 3.5 million over the next five years. For commercial drones, the fleet could grow from 42,000 in 2016 to as many as 1.6 million by the end of 2021, depending on how quickly regulations catch up.

With numbers like that, it’s understandable that American consumers are getting antsy waiting for drone-dropped packages to appear on their doorsteps.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Are the Drones?: How Red Tape is Slowing Down Drone Delivery appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Rob Kardashian published explicit photos of ex-fiancee Blac Chyna on Twitter and Instagram. Now, lawyers and experts say he could face criminal charges for revenge porn.

On Wednesday, Kardashian uploaded a series of posts to Instagram, accompanied by nude photos of Chyna, accusing her of cheating on him, taking advantage of him financially, and using drugs and alcohol in the presence of their seven-month-old daughter, Dream Renee Kardashian.

Instagram shut down Kardashian’s account almost immediately, but the reality star quickly moved to Twitter to continue the rant.

I truly thought Chyna wanted to be a family and that’s why I was so loyal to her but I learned my lesson and everyone else was right

— ROBERT KARDASHIAN (@robkardashian) July 5, 2017

The public feud quickly entranced all of Twitter, with the least-famous Kardashian sib’s tweets receiving hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets. “Poor Dream” even became a trending topic along with both of her parent’s names.

Chyna used social media to respond to Kardashian’s attacks, sharing since-deleted accusations to her Snapchat story that Kardashian physically abused her.

“Rob u did all this but u beat me up and try act it never happen!!!!!” Chyna wrote on Snapchat. “U put hand on me I swear on god!!!! On my kids but I’m supposed to be quiet because you’re a Kardashian.”

Kardashian and Chyna’s tumultuous relationship has been the primary source of their fame over the past year and a half. The pair first went public as a couple in January 2016, and Kardashian proposed three months later. Soon after, the couple announced they were expecting a child. Chyna has a child with rapper Tyga, who dated Kardashian’s sister, Kylie Jenner. Part of Kardashian’s Twitter post accused Chyna of having their child “out of spite” over Jenner’s relationship with Tyga.

Reports surfaced in February that the on-and-off-again couple had called off their engagement. The couple’s unlikely pairing and tumultuous relationship was the basis of their reality show spin-off “Rob & Chyna.” The show has been renewed for a second season, but it’s unclear how this development will affect it.

Was it Revenge Porn?

The nude photos Kardashian posted online without Chyna’s consent could be considered revenge porn, especially if Kardashian’s intent was to “cause substantial emotional distress or humiliation” to Chyna. Revenge porn is illegal in two-thirds of the U.S., including in California, where both celebrities reside. The misdemeanor crime carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Revenge porn is also known as non-consensual pornography, or cyberexploitation, since it does not always involve an act of “revenge,” like in Kardashian’s case. Several instances have involved hackers leaking nude photos of victims, which can also fall under the revenge porn laws.

Though no charges have been officially brought as of yet, several experts have said Kardashian’s posts were most definitely an act of revenge porn.

Chyna’s lawyer Lisa Bloom, who represented actress Mischa Barton in a similar case, warned Kardashian on Twitter that revenge porn is a crime and a form of violence.

Note to Rob Kardashian: revenge porn is a crime. And in my Mischa Barton case judge agreed it’s a form of domestic violence. Knock it off.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 5, 2017

“It’s disgusting,” Bloom told the Washington Post. “It’s a very modern way of being misogynistic.”

“The main point of it is that even if Chyna sent him nude photos, if she didn’t want them posted publicly, the law protects her,” Bloom told The Post.

Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who specializes in sexual privacy and started a firm dedicated to the topic, told the Post that Kardashian’s “slut shaming” posts show that he intended to harm Chyna.

“With the accompanying words, there can be no misgivings about his intent,” Goldberg said.

Chyna’s lawyers are reportedly exploring “all legal remedies and protections available,” and are pursuing a restraining order against Kardashian.

I represent Blac Chyna. I just gave Rob Kardashian notice that we’ll be in court Monday seeking restraining orders against him. More to come

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 7, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rob Kardashian Could Face Revenge Porn Charges, Experts Say appeared first on Law Street.

The main organizer of Fyre Festival has been arrested and charged with wire fraud, according to court documents that were unsealed Friday.

Billy McFarland, 25, is accused of defrauding investors in his company, Fyre Media, and Fyre Festival. The now-infamous music festival was promoted on social media by models and celebrities, who touted it as a luxurious paradise in the Bahamas for those who could afford the $1,500 (minimum) ticket price. But when Fyre Festival attendees arrived on the island, they described it as a “post-apocalyptic nightmare.”

McFarland could face up to 20 years in prison if found guilty, according to a release from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. McFarland was released on $300,000 bail Saturday, after a hearing that focused largely on McFarland’s wealth and lavish lifestyle.

According to the criminal complaint, McFarland, as founder and CEO of Fyre Media and its subsidiary, Fyre Festival, misrepresented his company’s earnings and his personal wealth, and “perpetrated a scheme to defraud individuals by inducing at least two investors to invest approximately $1.2 million.”

“McFarland promoted the Fyre Festival in part by claiming that it would bring a global audience together to share a life changing experience,” the complaint reads. “Ultimately, the Fyre Festival was widely deemed to have been a failure.”

The complaint was sworn to by Brandon Racz, a special agent with the F.B.I. who is assigned to the White Collar Fraud squad in the agency’s New York Division. At least two individuals were identified in the complaint as having invested $1.2 million in Fyre Media and Fyre Festival. However, investigators believe there could be more than 80 investors involved, according to the New York Times.

Fyre Media began as an website through which users could book artists and celebrities for events. McFarland allegedly distributed documents to potential investors, claiming that the company had pulled in millions of dollars in revenue from these bookings. However, the company had really earned less than $60,000.

McFarland also misrepresented his personal wealth, according to the complaint. In one example, McFarland provided at least one investor with documents that purported to show that he owned more than $2.5 million in stock in a particular company. In reality, he only owned less than  $1,500, and had altered a Scottrade account statement to make it appear that he owned more.

In the press release, Joon Kim, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, called Fyre Festival a “disaster.”

“As alleged, William McFarland promised a ‘life changing’ music festival but in actuality delivered a disaster,” Kim said. “McFarland allegedly presented fake documents to induce investors to put over a million dollars into his company and the fiasco called the Fyre Festival. Thanks to the investigative efforts of the FBI, McFarland will now have to answer for his crimes.”

McFarland’s co-organizer, rapper Ja Rule, has not been arrested. The pair face more than a dozen lawsuits related to Fyre Festival, including one seeking $100 million in damages for disappointed Fyre-goers.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fyre Festival Organizer Arrested, Charged With Wire Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

The company that supplied cladding panels for the Grenfell Tower block in West London has ceased sales of its product for use on other high-rises, two weeks after a fire raged through the building, killing at least 79 residents.

Arconic, a U.S.-based aluminum firm, said the fire identified “issues” with the polyethylene core cladding, which it sold to a local distributor for use on the public housing complex. As investigations into the fire’s cause continue, more buildings across London have been revealed to use the same or similar materials.

What Did the Firm Know?

A Reuters report revealed that Arconic officials knew of the material’s flammability, and that a company brochure published in 2016 noted that the panels should not be used for buildings taller than 10 meters. The material is banned elsewhere in Europe and in the U.S.

In a statement to Reuters Arconic said that it had known the panels would be used at Grenfell Tower but that it was “not its role to decide what was or was not compliant with local building regulations.”

Other involved parties, such as those who installed the panels, the tower’s recent refurbishment contractor, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which the tower block, have yet to talk to the media.

The cladding, Reynobond PE, has a plastic core, which experts say creates a “chimney effect,” shooting an intense heat and fire vertically around the outside of the building. The Grenfell fire was started when a Hotpoint refrigerator positioned against an exterior wall burst into flames and ignited the flammable cladding. Investigators have determined that the fire was not started deliberately.

Investigating More Buildings

U.K. officials are currently running tests of cladding samples from buildings across the country to evaluate their fire safety preparedness. So far, 95 towers have failed local fire safety tests, and at least 17 buildings are undergoing removal of the cladding. A Scottish university has ordered repairs to one of its residence halls after finding the material.

Prime Minister Theresa May has called for a thorough investigation into the use of this cladding material on high-rises. Authorities are considering potential manslaughter and criminal charges as the investigation of the fire’s cause continues.

As more fire safety noncompliance instances are discovered, thousands have been evacuated from potentially dangerous buildings. The fire was the country’s deadliest in more than a century.

The Price of Safety

The Grenfell fire and information about the hazardous cladding reveal a disaster that was years in the making. Safety components like sprinklers, fire alarms, and fire escapes were nonexistent in the building, and residents complained for years prior to the blaze that their living conditions were dangerous.

Most of the structures in need of repairs due to flammable cladding are social housing buildings–government or council-owned properties for low-income residents. This is indicative of bigger-picture neglect of the city’s poor.

Kensington, where Grenfell Tower is located, has one of the city’s largest gaps between the affluent and the working class. Monthly rent for private housing costs nearly five times as much as that of social housing, and poor residents in the area say they have felt pushed out by the wealthy community.

Officials and politicians have said that requiring only fire-proof building materials is not economically viable for the government–the cost concerns outweighed the potential risk. The Reynobond PE cladding is cheaper than other cladding produced by Arconic.

Surviving residents of the Grenfell blaze are demanding a say in the logistics of the public inquiry. While unusual, the request appears appropriate to help local authorities regain the trust of residents as protests against the prime minister and other local leaders continue.

Last week, the British government announced in a press release that the first set of new homes for displaced Grenfell residents have been secured. Social housing is also expected to see an increase in funding due to increased political pressure. While it won’t undo the Grenfell tragedy or give much comfort to the families whose loved ones are still missing, a heightened focus on the unsafe living conditions in social housing is a step in the right direction for a government that has turned a blind eye to its poorest residents.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Firm Halts Sale of Flammable Material Found in London Grenfell Fire appeared first on Law Street.

The New York Times calls it “Capitol Hill’s official scorekeeper.” NPR says it’s made up of a group of “supernerds” who give Congress information. If you’ve been following news about the Senate’s struggle to pass a health care bill, you’ve likely heard its acronym: CBO. But what is the Congressional Budget Office? And how credible are its forecasts? Read on to learn the basics about the government’s nonpartisan group of go-to experts.

The Congressional Budget Office Origins

The Congressional Budget Office was established under President Richard Nixon, as one part of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Upset with Nixon’s practice of impounding, or not spending, funds that had been allocated for specific projects, Congress drafted the bill to increase congressional power of the purse and regulate the budget process.

Aside from setting up the CBO as an independent agency, the rest of the bill revamped the government’s budget process and established the House and Senate Budget Committees. Alice Rivlin, appointed by Democrats, was the first director of the office, and is credited with solidifying its culture of nonpartisanship.

“Free From Partisan Tinge”

The body was set up to be nonpartisan, to “provide the Budget Committees and the Congress with objective, impartial information about budgetary and economic issues,” according to the agency’s website. In practice, this emphasis on objectivity means that the CBO’s data is either revered or loathed by either party when politically convenient.

Since its inception, objectivity has remained an integral part of the CBO’s mission. In a 1976 memo to staff, Rivlin wrote that the work of the CBO must be “free from partisan tinge,” adding that any appearance of taking sides in a legislative battle would put the trustworthiness of its information in jeopardy.

“We are not to be advocates,” the memo reads. “We are not to make recommendations or to characterize, even by implication, particular policy positions as good or bad, wise or unwise.”

To ensure objectivity and provide information that politicians will respect, the CBO goes through a multi-step process. Staff analysts begin by reading relevant research and literature on related topics and analyzing data from government agencies and committees. They then consult experts from universities, think tanks, and industry groups, as well as federal, state, and local government representatives to get outside perspectives from different backgrounds. The research and reports are then reviewed internally, by employees and analysts of different levels, and externally by more experts.

As a rule, the CBO makes no policy recommendations. Its findings are facts-only reports on data and relevant research, condensed into reports that representatives and the public can read and understand before drawing their own conclusions. The agency also has a set of strict policies to prevent employees from incurring any potential financial conflicts of interest and to limit their partisan political activities.

“Alice Rivlin” Courtesy of New America: License (CC BY 2.0)

What Exactly Does the CBO Do?

Throughout the year, the CBO puts out a series of products–predictions, reports, analyses–that provide information about the economic impact of proposed or enacted legislation. This is the “between the lines” information that sponsors of a bill might not reveal, or even know themselves. It helps the general public understand the effects of policy, and helps politicians make decisions on whether or not to support certain policies.

The agency makes the news most often for its cost estimates, which it creates for “virtually every bill approved by Congressional committees.” A recent cost estimate of the American Health Care Act found that the act would result in 23 million more Americans uninsured over the next decade. All of the cost estimates can be found on the agency’s website.

The office’s budget projections, which cover time periods of 10 and 25 years, show how changing population demographics and economic trends would affect the federal budget and spending, provided laws remain stable. The outlooks also show the economic impact of possible alternative policies.

In addition to these, the CBO publishes analyses of the president’s budget, a monthly budget review, analyses of federal mandates, scorekeeping for legislation, and various other analytic reports and data compilations.

Who’s in Charge?

The head of CBO is appointed by Congress to a four-year term. The current head, Keith Hall, was nominated in 2015 by House Republicans and is the ninth director of the office. All staff are appointed by the director without regard for political affiliation.

Currently, the agency has about 235 employees, including economists, lawyers, analysts, and policy wonks of all sorts. Staff are divided into eight divisions, each of which focuses on a particular aspect of government budget issues.

How Much Power Does the CBO Have?

The nonpartisan aspect of the CBO is what makes its predictions and reports so influential in Washington. The CBO is widely respected by politicians from both parties, as well as the mainstream media and the public. Though the reports avoid making value judgements on legislation, CBO scores can often be key in shaping policy. Sometimes, politicians or other parties to legislation will wait until the CBO analysis is released before committing to a bill.

CBO researchers also make it their mission to avoid too much jargon so that their work is transparent and can be understood by politicians and the general public. The reports and publications do not stand alone–the CBO makes sure to include descriptions of methodology and contextual information.

“Although much of the work that CBO does is extremely technical, the agency devotes substantial time and energy to presenting the work as clearly and non-technically as possible,” according to an agency document.

Cost estimates of proposed legislation are dependent upon the CBO’s baseline budget and economic projections, which show how the economy will fare under existing laws. The office acknowledges that the changing nature of laws and other economic and technical factors can affect the accuracy of this benchmark.

“Actual budget and economic outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO’s projections even if the projections are a perfectly accurate forecast conditional on existing laws,” the same document reads. “The differences between projections and outcomes can be misleading measures of the quality of the projections unless adjustments are made for changes in laws.”

How Trusted are CBO Forecasts?

In general, politicians and experts from varying political backgrounds say the CBO is a trustworthy and important source of information, but the difference between projections and outcomes make some question the validity of CBO research­–especially when doing so is in line with their agenda.

The recent CBO report on “Trumpcare” prompted fiery critiques from members of the administration and congressional supporters of the bill. Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services, told reporters that the CBO’s projections were “not believable.” “We strenuously disagree with the report,” said Price, who was previously one of the House Republicans who nominated Keith Hall to be director of CBO.

“Trumpcare NO Healthcare for 42000 LOCAL Residents” Courtesy of John Flores: License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the CBO was inaccurate, citing its incorrect predictions of how many enrollees Obamacare would have. “If you’re looking to get a bull’s-eye accurate prediction to where it’s going, the CBO was off by more than half last time,” Spicer said. “The last time they did this, they were wildly off.”

Newt Gingrich also criticized the CBO in an interview with a Fox News host, calling the agency “corrupt” and “dishonest.” “They should abolish the Congressional Budget Office,” Gingrich said. “It was totally wrong on Obamacare by huge, huge margins. I don’t trust a single word they have published, and I don’t believe them.”

Given these criticisms, it is important to note again that the CBO insists on nonpartisanship. Hall, the current head, was nominated by Republicans. The agency also has a long history of leaders breaking with assumed party lines to publish information. Rivlin, the first director, was a known Democrat, but CBO reports under President Jimmy Carter were just as critical as they had been during the Ford Administration. Health care under President Bill Clinton was slowed due to CBO reports under agency head Robert Reischauer, a Democrat. An early version of Obamacare was also critiqued heavily after CBO scores were released. “Notably, most (but not all) prominent flash points in CBO history occurred during a period of partisan alignment,” writes legislative politics expert Sarah Binder in The Washington Post.

“Doug Elmendorf, former head of CBO” Courtesy of Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy: License (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Conclusion

The CBO’s credibility and influence as a nonpartisan “scorekeeper” is vital to the legislative process. As the fight for healthcare reform continues in Congress, the CBO’s role and influence in Washington will become even more obvious. Learning the background of the agency and how to interpret its work will help anyone interested in politics better understand the complicated inner workings of Congress.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keeping Score in Washington: What You Need to Know About the CBO appeared first on Law Street.

While Americans were tuned into former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate hearing yesterday, the British were headed to the polls–again. Prime Minister Theresa May called the June 8 snap election in an effort to increase her party’s majority in Parliament and bolster support when negotiations to leave the European Union begin June 19.

But instead of achieving a stronger hold, May’s Conservative Party actually lost seats, leaving Parliament without a majority party. The country is now in uncharted waters as it enters Brexit talks. Read on to find out what happened, and what comes next.

Hung Parliament

With 649 out of 650 seats declared, no party has won the necessary 326 seats to have a majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party still has the highest number of seats, 318, but the body is now what is known as a “hung Parliament.”

The final seat will continue to undergo recounts through Friday evening.

The biggest surprise of the day was the 31 seats that the opposition party, left-wing Labour, gained. The Scottish National Party lost 21 seats, dashing hopes of another Scottish independence referendum. The Liberal Democrats gained three seats, bringing their total to 12. The UK Independence Party failed to gain a single seat, remaining with no representation in Parliament and prompting UKIP leader Paul Nuttall to resign Friday morning.

“A new era must begin with a new leader” – UKIP’s @paulnuttallukip stands down #GE2017 https://t.co/BZNkyAG3cX #bbcelection #hungparliament pic.twitter.com/PnekWR0zJk

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 9, 2017

Prime Minster’s Election Fumble

When May called the election back in April, she–and many others–assumed a Conservative victory was a done deal. Since then, a combination of poor campaigning, increased security concerns after three terror attacks, and rising popularity for Labour caused her plan to backfire.

May was criticized for refusing to engage in face-to-face debate with Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, for proposed policies that would force the elderly to pay more for care, and for taking police officers off the streets, which some said undermined the country’s security during the Manchester Arena and London Bridge attacks.

The success of Corbyn’s party has historically been dependent on high voter turnout, and this year was no different. Labour won seats in every district where turnout increased by more than five percent.

What’s Next for May?

Even after the election results, May will remain Prime Minister. Though the monarchy has no role in politics, the Prime Minister must seek Queen Elizabeth II’s approval before forming a government. May did this Friday morning before speaking at Downing Street, announcing her intentions to form a minority government with the socially conservative Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

“Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years, and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together, in the interests of the whole United Kingdom,” May said in her statement.

This will leave her with a tiny majority of 328 seats, but will not strengthen her negotiating hand, as she had hoped. The DUP favors a soft border with Ireland, contradicting May’s stance on a “hard” Brexit.

Political analysts have already questioned the strength of May’s proposed government.

“I question whether the new government can cobble together a majority for any version of Brexit–hard, soft, poached, scrambled, or deviled with Tabasco sauce–without losing the support of some Conservative MPs, and potentially losing a Commons vote,” writes the BBC’s Mark D’Arcy.

Going forward, a number of things could happen. Minority governments like these are not as secure, as the party with more seats is dependent on the voting support of the less powerful party.

If the government fails, or May receives a vote of no confidence from the majority of MPs, there could either be yet another general election, or Corbyn could take a shot at forming a government. Corbyn has already called for May to resign, saying people have “had quite enough of austerity politics.”

“She wanted a mandate,” Corbyn said. “The mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go.”

Election Successes

The hung parliament is not the only interesting development to come out of yesterday’s vote. Voter turnout was unexpectedly high, especially among young people. The estimated turnout for voters ages 18-24 was 66 percent.

The election was also a major success for female politicians. More than 200 female MPs were elected, leaving this new parliament with the highest number of female seats in history. The country also elected its first female Sikh MP and the first turban-wearing Sikh MP, both Labour, according to the Telegraph.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.K. Election: What’s Next for the Hung Parliament? appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, 10 new states joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, affirming their dedication to “aggressive action on climate change” in light of President Donald Trump’s pull-out from the Paris Accord.

The Alliance now has 13 state members, including the three founding members. Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York, Jay Inslee of Washington State, and Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California formed the group to reduce emissions and continue pushing for climate change policy, according to a release on Inslee’s website.

“Those of us who understand science and feel the urgency of protecting our children’s air and water are as united as ever in confronting one of the greatest challenges of our lifetime,” Inslee said in the release. “Our collective efforts to act on climate will ensure we maintain the United State’s commitment to curb carbon pollution while advancing a clean energy economy that will bring good-paying jobs to America’s workers.”

The coalition announced Monday that Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia have all joined.

In a release, Cuomo called the decision to leave the Paris Accord “irresponsible,” and said that the group is committed to meeting the agreement’s goals to reduce carbon emissions 26-28 percent from 2005 levels and meet or exceed the targets of President Barack Obama’s landmark climate policy, the Clean Power Plan.

“We welcome these 10 new members and look forward to collaborating and maintaining the momentum in the global effort to protect our planet, while jumpstarting the clean energy economy,” Cuomo said.

New York is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions. #ActOnClimate

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 1, 2017

Pulling Out of Paris

The U.S. Climate Alliance was formed just days after Trump announced his decision to exit the agreement, making the U.S. one of three countries worldwide that did not sign on to the Accord. The other two are Syria and Nicaragua.

The president said the 195-nation climate agreement, which was negotiated under Obama and ratified into international law last November, would hurt the U.S. economy and American sovereignty, despite opposition from members of Congress and key players in his own administration.

Since pulling out of Paris, Trump has been criticized by American politicians, world leaders, scientists, celebrities, business leaders, educators, and the public. Two high-profile members of Trump’s advisory councils, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Disney CEO Bob Iger, have both stepped down from their roles on the councils following the withdrawal.

Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 1, 2017

“Forging Ahead”

In addition to the 13-state climate alliance, other localized groups have formed to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to protecting the planet.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bringing together hundreds of businesses, university leaders, mayors, and governors in an unnamed alliance, which had more than 1,200 signatures when the pledge closed on Monday.

Bloomberg’s charitable organization, Bloomberg Philanthropies, also pledged $15 million to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which he said the group stands to lose from Washington as a result of Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement.

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “Just the opposite–we are forging ahead.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten More States Join U.S. Climate Alliance in Wake of Paris Withdrawal appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks, hundreds of thousands of students nationwide walked across football fields, basketball courts, and stages to receive their diplomas. They sat patiently, sporting caps and gowns in their school colors, while professors, politicians, CEOs, and celebrities imparted wisdom, jokes, and life lessons upon them. Here are the commencement speeches from politicians that will be flooding your newsfeeds for the next month.

Donald Trump: Liberty University

In his first commencement speech as president, Donald Trump encouraged graduates to take the “road less traveled” and follow their convictions.

“You must be willing to face criticism from those who lack the same courage to do what is right,” Trump said. “I know that each of you will be a warrior for the truth, will be a warrior for our country and for your family. I know that each of you will do what is right, not what is the easy way, and that you will be true to yourself and your country and your beliefs.”

He took the opportunity to subtly criticize his opponents in “broken” Washington, saying that the system is overrun with “a small group of failed voices who think they know everything and understand everyone.”

Like in many of his public speeches since the beginning of his presidency, Trump also mentioned crowd sizes and voter turnout.

“This is a beautiful stadium and it is packed. I’m so happy about that,” he said. “And I want to thank you because, boy, did you come out and vote, those of you that are old enough, in other words, your parents. Boy, oh, boy, you voted, you voted.”

Trump’s speech focused primarily on the importance of embracing the label “outsider” and standing up for one’s beliefs, even when critics get in the way or say something is unattainable. This theme rings especially true coming from Trump, whose election success can be partially credited to his status as a political outsider.

“Nothing is easier or more pathetic than being a critic, because they’re people that can’t get the job done,” he said. “But the future belongs to the dreamers, not to the critics. The future belongs to the people who follow their heart no matter what the critics say, because they truly believe in their vision.”

The president also spoke at the Coast Guard Academy. Read his full remarks from Liberty here.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Commencement: What Politicians Want the Class of 2017 to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Angered by leaks of sensitive information to the American media, British officials have stopped sharing information related to the Manchester Arena bombing with the United States.

President Donald Trump released a statement Thursday pledging to investigate leaks coming from U.S. government agencies, which he called “deeply troubling,” according to the Associated Press.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will confront Trump about the leaks during meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels this week.

“TRUST IS BREACHED”

On Tuesday, U.S. television networks NBC and CBS published the name of suspected bomber 22-year-old Salman Abedi, citing U.S. officials. The next day, The New York Times published photos of crime scene evidence.

Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Ian Hopkins said the photos caused “much distress for families that are already suffering terribly with their loss.”

A spokesman for Britain’s National Counter Terrorism Policing unit released a statement condemning the leaks.

“When the trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses, and their family,” the statement said. “This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorized disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter-terrorism investigation.”

A British official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly, told the AP that Manchester police will cease sharing information with the U.S. until they are guaranteed that no more information will be leaked.

British Home Secretary Amber Rudd called the leaks “irritating” in an interview with BBC Radio.

“The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise,” she said. “It is irritating if it gets released from other sources, and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.”

THE MEDIA RESPONDS

The New York Times released a statement defending its decision to publish the photos, saying that it falls in line with their standards of reporting on terrorist acts.

“Our mission is to cover news and inform our readers,” the statement reads. “We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.”

A FRIENDSHIP AT RISK?

The cessation of information-sharing about this attack is significant, but likely won’t be a permanent wedge between the U.S. and the U.K.

The Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement, which originated in the 1940s, binds the U.S. and the U.K. with other English-speaking democracies–namely, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The intel-sharing alliance has survived leaks for decades, and experts have said it remains strong even post-Edward Snowden.

So far, the Manchester Arena bombing is the only topic where information is being withheld from U.S. officials. All other intelligence sharing will continue, according to the BBC. Furthermore, the decision to stop sharing information came directly from the Greater Manchester Police, not from Downing Street. The BBC reported that the department is “furious,” but hopes to return to the normal two-way sharing procedures soon.

Eyes are now on Trump–whose administration has been under fire for a stream of leaks to the media and to foreign officials–to, as Trump says, “get to the bottom” of the situation. If his proposed investigation and prosecution of leakers goes well and plugs the holes, the relationship between the U.S. and one of its closest allies likely won’t face irreparable damage.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Pledges to Investigate Leaks After UK Withholds Intel appeared first on Law Street.

Flags at Downing Street are flying at half mast today, as U.K. political leaders respond to the terror attack that left 22 dead and at least 59 injured after a concert in Manchester Monday night.

Union flags lowered to half mast in Downing Street following Manchester Arena attackhttps://t.co/Ty9bRdV4G4

(via @ChrisMasonBBC) pic.twitter.com/S3JieUS6rp

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) May 23, 2017

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack at the Manchester Arena, where a single actor deployed an improvised explosive device just as a concert by pop singer Ariana Grande was ending. Greater Manchester Police arrested a 23-year-old man Tuesday in connection with the attack.

This attack is the largest terror incident in the U.K. since 7/7, a series of organized attacks on the London transport system in July 2005 where 52 people died and more than 700 were injured. It is the largest incident in North West England.

An Upcoming Election

In response to the attack, Prime Minister Theresa May has suspended all campaign activities for the upcoming June 8 general election.

In a statement at Downing Street, May called the attacker “warped and twisted” and resolved to “thwart” future attacks.

“All acts of terrorism are cowardly attacks on innocent people but this attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives,” May said.

Campaigning was also suspended this past Sunday, as a show of respect and memorialization for Jo Cox, the Member of Parliament who was shot and killed last June just before the Brexit referendum.

This attack comes at a time of heightened political tension surrounding immigration and security, especially in the U.K. Two months ago, four people were killed in an attack outside Parliament, one year after the Brussels airport suicide bombing.

The U.K. is approaching the one-year anniversary of its citizens voting to leave the European Union, the outcome of which many believe was connected to fear of attacks like this one. The “Leave” campaign was criticized for a tweet that directly connected the Orlando nightclub shooting to Brexit, telling voters that a similar attack could befall them if they voted to remain in the EU. The tweet was taken down, but security and terror threats have remained strongholds in Brexit negotiations and U.K. politics in general.

Now, weeks before the general election, the assault at Manchester could cement Conservative power in Parliament.

Polls from the weekend showed the center-right Conservative Party’s lead over leftist Labour slipping. Conservative Party leader May called the election to build support for her approach to Brexit negotiations and increase her party’s 17-seat working majority in Parliament.

May’s party has been stronger on Brexit and immigration. The recent polls may have indicated that a landslide victory for the Conservatives was out of the question, but the next few weeks will reveal whether the tragedy at Manchester Arena and fear of a similar attack will lead to increased support for May.

The attack also had an immediate effect on the value of the pound, which fell as low $1.2954 Tuesday morning.

Political Leaders Respond

The heads of the U.K.’s political parties have spoken out on the attack and suspended their campaign activities.

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, spoke with May and agreed to suspend national campaigning.

Corbyn stated his support for the victims and their families and called the attack a “terrible incident.”

“I am horrified by the horrendous events in Manchester last night,” Corbyn said. “My thoughts are with families and friends of those who have died and  been injured. Today the whole country will grieve for the people who have lost their lives.”

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, canceled a speaking engagement in Gibraltar, expressing sympathy to the victims and families. Farron was scheduled to meet with voters on his trip.

“This is a shocking and horrific attack targeting children and young people who were simply enjoying a concert,” Farron said. “I would like to pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of the emergency services.”

Paul Nuttall, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) and Member of European Parliament for North West England, canceled UKIP’s campaign activities. The BBC also canceled a scheduled interview with Nuttall.

“Just woken to the terrible news in the heart of my constituency, Manchester,” Nuttall said. “My prayers and thoughts are with those affected. Stay strong.”

“Evil Losers”

World leaders across the globe have expressed condolences to the victims and their families and condemned the attack, including U.S. President Donald Trump.

From Bethlehem, where he met with Palestinian leadership, Trump called the assailant and those involved in the attack “evil losers.” Early Tuesday morning he tweeted a message of solidarity with the British people.

We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom. pic.twitter.com/X6fUUxxYXE

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.K., World Leaders Respond to Manchester Attack appeared first on Law Street.