Mediaboss Marketing

By Seth Stapleton Tribune Sports Writer

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride vs. Millington

USA Pride: Local 14U team to compete in NSA North World Series

SEBEWAING It was a simple doubleheader between two area softball teams, but it served a much bigger purpose.

Tuesday's games between 14U squads USA Pride and Millington were both a tuneup and a fundraiser for a USA team that is on its way to the National Softball Association North World Series.

"It should never surprise me, in the communities of Unionville and Sebewaing, that we would have a good turnout," said USA Pride coach Tom Williamson of the event. "And it was a better turnout than I expected."

Williamson said the initial goal of the friendly matchup Tuesday was to just find a good team to play a doubleheader against. With the help of the community though, it turned into a fundraiser and an opportunity to promote the entire travel program.

Williamson, who has been part of USA's summer travel softball program for many years, said it's the first time a USA team will compete in the NSA World Series.

"Our goal as a program is not to go win tournaments, we want to go compete," Williamson said. "If we win, great, but we just want to play the best competition we can to get better as a program."

In the past, USA travel teams have always played in three or four tournaments throughout the summer. This year, the 14U team decided to try to qualify for the NSA tournament. They played in a qualifier in Midland over Memorial Day weekend and placed second, qualifying them for the big event.

It will take place in Crown Point, Indiana, beginning Tuesday. USA Pride will open the tournament at 9:45 a.m. Tuesday, then play again at 4:45 p.m. that day. From there, the team will be seeded into a double elimination bracket. At minimum, they will play a total of four games.

"They are so excited they can't stand it," Williamson said of the team. "I'm really happy in the fact that we are representing USA travel softball as a whole. We're representing USA and really proud of it."

At the NSA tournament, USA Pride will be competing against around 40 teams from the likes of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Kentucky. While the task may seem daunting, Williamson feels his team is playing its best ball of the summer at this point in time, fresh off a title at the Grand Blanc tournament a weekend ago.

"They're hitting the ball really well and we've got three pitchers, which is important to get through a long tournament," Williamson said. "I'm really pleased with the way that we're playing right now. We've gotten better all year long, so we'll see what happens when we go into next week."

Added Williamson: "This team, it is truly like family. Every single one of these kids get along so well. And more importantly, the parents are unbelievable. The amount of help we've received is amazing. As a coach, you can't ask for anything more than that."

Read the original here:
USA Pride: Local 14U team to compete in NSA North World Series - Huron Daily Tribune

The attorneys for the Fort Gordon contractor accused of leaking national defense information have filed their own proposed order regarding how classified documents are handled in her espionage case.

Reality Leigh Winner, 25, has pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court to a single count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information.

While the federal prosecutors have proposed an order of protection that prohibits the defense from revealing any classified information, even if it had been included in published reports, Winners attorneys propose not treating any document as classified if it has been the subject of media reports. Violation of the final order of protection can result in sanctions and even criminal prosecution.

The case against Winner, which is tentatively set for trial the week of Oct. 23, is to proceed under the Classified Information Security Act, a law enacted to protect a defendants right to a fair trial while allowing the government to protect classified information on matters of national security.

The federal prosecutors contend it is the executive branch of government that determines what is a classified document.

In Winners case, the document suspected as being the one sent anonymously to the online news publication The Intercept was the subject of an June 5 article. It was an analysis of the Russian governments meddling in the presidential election. Since Winners arrest, the subject has been reported on extensively, especially in light of the investigations by the independent special counsel, and the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Winners defense attorneys also seek a provision in the order of protection that allows her to review the discovery material, confer with attorneys about it and to assist in her defense.

The defense team also wants the proposed order to allow defense experts with the prosecutors security clearance to review the discovery material without any pre-clearance by the prosecution.

U.S. Magistrate Court Judge Brian K. Epps will determine what the final order of protection will contain. The government, however, has the right to appeal, under the Classified Information Security Act.

Winner has had a top security clearance since serving for six years in the Air Force. In February, she began working for the National Security Agency contractor, Pluribus International Corp. at Fort Gordon.

She is accused of taking a classified document in May and mailing it to The Intercept.

Federal agents allegedly followed clues to Augusta and to Winner after an Intercept reporter showed an intelligence source the document to determine its authenticity.

Reach Sandy Hodson at (706) 823-3226 or sandy.hodson@augustachronicle.com.

See the article here:
Defense in accused NSA leaker case opposes prosecutors ... - The Augusta Chronicle

By Malcolm Owen Thursday, July 20, 2017, 08:54 am PT (11:54 am ET)

The BlackBerry endorsement comes from the NSA's National Information Assurance Partnership (NIAP), which reviews technology products sold to consumers and enterprise to see if they meet the security requirements for government usage, reports Reuters. This includes the encryption of calls and messages made between parties using the products, a function that prevents other parties, such as hackers and other countries, from eavesdropping potentially sensitive government communications.

One of the tools BlackBerry is now able to sell to US federal agencies is SecuSUITE for Government, software from the German encryption firm Secusmart owned by BlackBerry. SecuSUITE is a multi-platform service for iOS, Android, and Blackberry offering end-to-end encryption of calls and text messages, one which works regardless of the carrier or data connection used by participants.

BlackBerry acquired Secusmart and its technology in 2014, after the firm won a contract to secure Chancellor Angela Merkel's smartphone, following claims by a former US intelligence contractor that the NSA had tapped the German leader's communications. The following year, German prosecutors dropped the probe into the claims due to a lack of evidence.

While Germany remains its biggest customer, BlackBerry now lists government agencies in 20 countries in Europe, Latin America, southeast Asia, and Africa as SecuSUITE customers.

"Call tapping is happening at an alarming rate," according to BlackBerry SVP and general manager of mobility solutions Alex Thurber. "In today's connected world, restricting agency employees to only exchange classified information from the desk phone is no longer a viable option, but it could be the new reality if governments don't start securing calls and texts from mobile devices."

A number of Apple products are already endorsed by the NIAP, including iOS 9, iOS 9.3.5 with MDM (Mobile Device Management) Agent, and the iOS 9.2 VPN client. As of March 2017, both iOS 10.2 and the iOS 10 VPN client are undergoing evaluation by NIAP, and are likely to receive a similar stamp of approval in the future.

Apple's iPhone has also been deemed secure enough for presidential communications, with President Donald Trump using the smartphone to post to his Twitter account.

View post:
Blackberry joins Apple in gaining NSA approval for secure communications - AppleInsider (press release) (blog)

Last week, word began to spread that the Trump administration was considering granting new powers to U.S. Cyber Command. Lolita Baldor of the Associated Press had the scoop, discussing two related but separate steps under consideration: first, to elevate U.S. Cyber Command to the status of a unified command and second, to break the current dual-hat arrangement with the National Security Agency (NSA), whereby the commander of U.S. Cyber Command is the same individual as the director of the NSA.

It is worth noting, however, four things: First, these two steps (elevation and separation) have been under consideration for years. Second, there were good reasons at the time why the Obama administration didnt act on them. Third, elevation and separation should, in theory, operationally empower U.S. Cyber Command, but in practice Cyber Command may ironically find itself with less capability to offer. And finally, Cyber Command has already quietly amassed non-operational power and authority within the Department of Defense, making it one of the most independent commands, second only to the U.S. Special Operations Command. As such, while this weekends news is a good sign of the continued maturation of Cyber Command (and the acknowledgment of that maturation by the White House), theres less here than meets the eye.

Lets review Cyber Commands origins and its assigned missions before tackling the news. (Please accept my apologies in advance for some acronym salad.) For the short-story long, see chapter 8 of Playing to the Edge by Michael Hayden and the early parts of Jay Healeys Fierce Domain. Long-story short, the NSA had been the nations leading signals intelligence agency for decades. But after 9/11, as new opportunities emerged to create effects against adversaries during declared hostilities, Pentagon leadership became uncomfortable with the notion that the intelligence missions of collection and analysis would be conducted by the same organization that would disrupt or degrade, even destroy, targets through cyber-attacks during an armed conflict. In 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was given responsibility for cyberspace, and two little-known subordinate organizations emerged to manage it: Joint Task Force-Global Network Operations (JTF-GNO) would handle guarding the Defense Departments networks while Joint Functional Component Command-Network Warfare (JFCC-NW) would be responsible for missions wed think of as offense. Because there was so much overlap between the NSA and the emerging JFCC-NW, the Department of Defense created the dual-hat by making the NSA director (then Hayden) the commander of JFCC-NW. As the threats to the Department of Defense in cyberspace increased throughout the 2000s, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates consolidated JTF-GNO and JFCC-NW under a new U.S. Cyber Command in 2010, but it was still subordinate to U.S. Strategic Command and still dual-hatted with the NSA director. Thats more or less where we find ourselves today.

Since then, U.S. Cyber Command has been charged with three missions: defend the Defense Departments networks and systems, provide offensive support to other commands in the event of a contingency, and defend the nation from a cyber-attack of significant consequence (less than two percent of incidents would qualify as significant).

Advocates of more autonomy and authority for U.S. Cyber Command have often bemoaned its subordinate status to U.S. Strategic Command. The theory is that having to work through Strategic Command slows down operational approval, coordination, or whatever else needs to happen. Based on my experience in the Cyber Policy office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I am of the view that a stove-piped Joint Staff had more to do with delays and miscommunication than anything else; nor could I ever find a function Cyber Command might be asked to execute that could only be performed by a full, unified command (like Strategic Command) but not by a sub-unified command (like Cyber Command). We looked at this several times during the last administration: If the secretary of defense wanted the sub-unified command to execute, they could and would. It wasnt a problem, so elevating the command wasnt necessary. So, while I dont think there are any big wins to be had by the recent news about the Trump administration wanting to elevate Cyber Command, I dont think it hurts to do it either. And it might not ultimately be up to the White House: The 2017 NDAA requires the administration to elevate Cyber Command.

Breaking the dual-hatted relationship with the NSA is more complicated. There are very good reasons why JFCC-NW was born with the NSA as its commander, as there is a lot of overlap between the organizations. This overlap is intuitive to those whove worked in the business, but hard to explain in brief here. Ill just quote Hayden on this point: [I]n the cyber domain the technical and operational aspects of defense, espionage, and cyberattack are frankly indistinguishable they are all the same thing. Its obviously more complicated than this, but at a high level, I think this was the rationale.

There were studies undertaken about the implications of breaking the dual-hat before the Snowden affair, but his disclosures forced policymakers to confront the issue head-on. At that time, it was thought that breaking the dual-hat could improve perceptions about privacy and civil liberties at the NSA, but in December 2013 the Obama administration decided to maintain the arrangement. Senior leaders felt it was too soon to separate Cyber Command. Its readiness and resources were growing but insufficient, and it was still too reliant on NSA talent and services for its missions.

Working with the two organizations, I found that the relationship between the two was akin to a mix between hostage-taking and Stockholm syndrome except each organization kept mixing up which was the hostage and which was the hostage-taker. One day, U.S. Cyber Command would demand NSA support due to the latters responsibility as a combat support agency. The next day, the command would cave and say that NSA had other, more important priorities. And NSA too would resist a request from Cyber Command, then embrace it, and then fight it. The overlap and dependence was that tight.

For that reason, among others, I understand the argument about needing to separate Cyber Command from NSA so that the former can pursue its missions (especially to defend the nation and to support other commands) with greater independence from signals intelligence. But theres a risk here that would be dangerous to miss: When Cyber Command needs NSA support, the fact that its the same person in charge of both organization can break what might otherwise be a log-jam. Splitting the dual-hat could result in the NSA isolating itself and refocusing on its own core missions (the collection of signals intelligence and providing information assurance) while minimizing its support to Cyber Command.

Just because there are risks does not mean the Trump administration should leave the current arrangement in place. The question is not whether, but when and how, to break the dual-hat. One priority for the White House and Secretary Mattis will be to have a clear understanding with the new NSA director (who may well be a civilian for the first time) about how he or she sees the relationship with Cyber Command, and then how the administration monitors the relationship to ensure the NSA doesnt abandon Cyber Command outright.

The selection of who will next lead Cyber Command will also be a priority. Someone like the current commander of Army Cyber Command, Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, is an ideal candidate: He has years of experience in the cyber effects business, time in the Pentagon and the field, and he understands the roles of civilians, fellow military officers, and senior political types. Another name thats been floated is Lt. Gen. William Mayville, currently the Director of the Joint Staff. His time as the Joint Staffs chief information officer and with Joint Special Operations Command would make him a strong leader for Cyber Command as well.

The good news for the future of the U.S. militarys cyber operations is that, regardless of whether or not Cyber Command is elevated as a unified command or separated from the NSA, Congress has quietly been empowering Cyber Command with greater authorities and independence through legislation. My colleague Charley Snyder and I assessed all the additional powers conferred in the 2017 NDAA over at Lawfare, but Id like to single out the authority related to requirements: Being able to set its own requirements for the conduct of cyber operations, as well as validating the requirements of other defense components, matters more than this bland bureaucratic language might suggest. With the independent acquisition authority Congress gave it in a previous NDAA, Cyber Command can now accelerate acquisition and procurement to keep up with new requirements without the usual deliberations chaired by the Joint Staff. Special Operations Command is the only other military outfit with that kind of freedom, and it makes a big difference.

But the big question will be this: Regardless of these crucial authorities and any new command arrangements, what will Cyber Commands role be in protecting the country from threats like Russian information operations? Maybe its time we get away from using cyber as the description of what needs to be done, and instead think about what an Information Warfare Command would look like. How should the United States wage such a fight, and how should it protect itself? I am pleased the Trump administration is considering organizational changes to support a higher profile for cyber operations, but we really need answers to these bigger policy questions.

Michael Sulmeyer is the Director of the Cyber Security Project at the Harvard Kennedy Schools Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He also served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cyber Policy, from 2012-2015. Follow him on Twitter @SultanOfCyber.

Image:Airman 1st Class Christopher Maldonado/Shaw Air Force Base

Originally posted here:
Much Ado About Nothing? Cyber Command and the NSA - War on the Rocks

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice

In the waning days of the Obama administration, bureaucrats ensconced in their posh Washington offices were resting in the prospect ofa Hillary Clinton victory that would protectObamas legacy and their positions.

But then-National Security Adviser Susan Rice may have had some doubts. Or maybe she was just curious. Or maybe there was another motive. Regardless,she unmasked a number of Trump campaign individuals who were caught up in various federal surveillance tactics.

That means they were recorded talking on the phone or meeting with someone who was under surveillance by the Obama administration.

Normally, the identity of American citizens in such situations is withheld.

But not so in this case. In fact, Rice gave the identifications to the National Security Council, the Defense Department, the Director of National intelligence Office and the CIA, according to media reports citing illegal leaks.

Its been part of the flood of leaks of secret or protected information bythe Obama-leaning Washington bureaucracy, dubbed by some as the deep state, apparently in an effort to undermine the agenda of the president chosenby American voters.

Now theres an organization that thinks the people should know what went on who did the surveillance, who unmasked the names of American citizensand who spread the names around Washington.

What to todays top authors have to say about Washington? Find out at the WND Superstore in Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger, Throw Them All Out, Inside the Beltway, Capitol Punishment and many more.

The American Center for Law and Justice has sued the National Security Agency for refusing to respond to itsquestions submitted under the Freedom of Information Act.

ACLJsaid the lawsuit seeks to enforce its demandsfor government records that will shed light on the Susan Rice unmasking scandal that rocked the intelligence community.

The questions were submitted under FOIA, but the NSA has refused to follow the law.

Fox News explained the big picture: Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance. The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

TheACLJ said the only way we even know about the Obama administrations apparent politically motivated unmasking is because this raw intelligence information classified national security secrets was illegally leaked to the media.

Its formal request asked for records pertaining to any and all requests former National Security Adviser Susan Rice made to National Security Agency officials or personnel regarding the unmasking of the names and/or any other personal identifying information of then candidate and/or President-elect Donald J. Trump, his family, staff, transition team members, and/or advisers who were incidentally caught up in U.S. electronic surveillance.

The request was acknowledged by the NSA and even granted expedited processing status.

But the answers never came.

So we filed a critical lawsuit and we will force the NSA to answer to a federal court for its blatant disregard for the law, ACLJ announced.

It is seeking an order to release any and all non-exempt records.

This is not our first time weve taken the NSA to federal court, ACLJ explained. We filed a lawsuit earlier this year to force the NSA to produce government records that could expose the people and purposes behind the Obama administrations eleventh hour rule change that dramatically expanded access to raw signal intelligence signed by the Obama administration officials on their way out the door.

It was these changes that have [led] to an unprecedented avalanche of dangerous national security leaks, the group explained.

The deep state shadow government bureaucracy must not be allowed to endanger the national security of the American people as it carries out a vicious vendetta against the current administration.

The lawsuit states, Plaintiff is being irreparably harmed by reason of defendants unlawful withholding of requested records, and plaintiff will continue to be irreparably harmed unless defendant is compelled to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

WND reported only weeks ago that some of the key documentation may be under lock and key now and kept their for five years at the former presidents library.

It was another watchdog on government, Judicial Watch, that said its National Security Council denied Freedom of Information Act requests for documents related to Rices alleged unmasking of the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team.

The NSC said the documents have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library, while pointedly adding you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office.

It was unclear what was in the statement and what that would mean for the members of Congress who are investigating, the FBI, or even special counsel Robert Mueller.

The Wall Street Journal reportedthe House Intelligence Committee issued seven subpoenas recently, a sign that its investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election is ramping up in scope and intensity.

Three of the subpoenas specifically addressed how and why the names of associates of President Donald Trump were unredacted and distributed within classified reports by Obama administration officials during the transition between administrations.

Back in April, WND reported Rice, speaking to MSNBC, did not deny unmasking the names of Trump associates.

She implicitly acknowledged and explicitly defended unmasking: It was not uncommon. It was necessary at times to make those requests.

But weeks earlier, speaking to PBS, Rice denied any knowledge of such unmasking after it was revealed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

She told PBS, I know nothing about this and, I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

What to todays top authors have to say about Washington? Find out at the WND Superstore in Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger, Throw Them All Out, Inside the Beltway, Capitol Punishment and many more.

Read the original here:
NSA sued for details of 'unmasking' skullduggery - WND.com