#that china is (and russia was at the time) a much bigger international player | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

whittlebaggett8 · 5 years

Text

Modi 2.0 Confronts a Challenging Foreign Policy Landscape

Right after celebrating his win, Modi demands to prepare for much get the job done in advance on the international policy entrance.

As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi turns his interest to governance right after his large electoral victory, he will discover that a number of problems beckon him on the foreign coverage entrance. From handling India’s periphery to partaking key world wide powers, worries abound which will desire all the diplomatic and leadership techniques Modi and his staff can muster.

Modi has been a international coverage key minister in his first time period. He relished world engagements and never gave an perception that his deficiency of experience on the international policy front was a handicap. In reality, he built it his strength as he inspired bigger involvement of Indian states in diplomacy. He led from the front in diplomatic engagements and managed to carve out own equations with entire world leaders which has paid out dividends. Modi also has been successful in providing Brand India abroad and in leveraging the extensive Indian diaspora to national causes. He took hazards in his overseas policy and a lot more of than not succeeded in changing them into substantive gains for India.

For all his successes so far, Modi will obtain that there is barely any time to rest on his laurels. World-wide and regional realities are evolving at a speed which common diplomacy is discovering tricky to comprehend. At the world-wide level, the produced world continues with its navel gazing, the form which would have been unthinkable just a few years back again. The Trump administration is complicated the fundamentals of financial globalization and its trade and technology conflict with China is escalating. The outcomes for a world wide financial state, already struggling with negative headwinds from several directions, can only be deleterious. For India, this is a major problem for a steady global financial purchase is sine qua non for its worldwide increase.

Savoring this article? Click in this article to subscribe for total accessibility. Just $5 a month.

India-U.S. tensions with trade are effervescent less than the floor and Modi will have to function out a way to solve these tensions with a Trump Administration which may perhaps get even more intransigent as it enters the election section. Wherever India-U.S. strategic partnership is probably to continue on becoming much better, the economic dimension of the partnership wants major get the job done. The purpose of Iran and Russia in the Indo-U.S. bilateral matrix will also want addressing.

Meanwhile, China’s increasing world wide footprint is constraining India’s selections drastically. Globally, as India tries to make a scenario about its personal role and spot in the international order, China proceeds to thrust back and stays reluctant to acknowledge India’s global increase. In spite of Modi’s China outreach in Wuhan, bilateral disputes keep on being significantly from fixed. And this is also acquiring an impact on India’s engagement in its quick periphery in South Asia and the Indian Ocean location. India’s neighbors proceed to glance to China as a electric power with far more abilities and increasingly really serious intent whilst India’s incapability to provide and economically integrate the region tends to make New Delhi regional outreach challenging.

The Pakistan problem is unlikely to go away whenever soon and Modi will have to go on to discover distinct means of running the problem. Developing Sino-Pak axis provides a further dimension to this problem. One particular of the most quick worries in the community for India will be to discover a location for itself in the unfolding peace course of action in Afghanistan. Though there is rarely any clarity on the pace and course of this process, there is a thrust to see it by means of to some sort of conclusion. Modi will have to remake the circumstance of India’s relevance in the unfolding dynamic in Afghanistan.

A selection of other challenges would demand from customers Modi’s speedy notice. Mounting tensions in the Center East involving Iran and the U.S. will examination India. Comfy assumptions of the earlier about balancing the trifecta of Iran, Arab Gulf states and Israel will no more time suffice. India’s electrical power protection necessitates a stable Middle East and New Delhi will have to elevate its profile in the area with all the attendant outcomes.

A additional coherent reaction to China’s formidable Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will be required as many infrastructure initiatives are rising. India’s place in this community remains as of yet undefined. Participating with like-minded powers in the Indo-Pacific will continue to be a precedence and the Quadrilateral grouping’s agenda way too requires serious recalibration. Eventually, re-defining the parameters of Indo-Russia ties will have to be a priority as Moscow receives closer to Beijing and ceases to act as a bulwark for preserving Indian interests.

In his initial term, Modi had succeeded in articulating a international position for India as a main player in the international program, just one which shapes world principles and is not merely a rule-taker. In his next term, he should really be focusing much more on how to operationalise this thought into concrete policy outcomes. This will include making an institutional framework which can interact in long-expression strategic pondering a lot more proficiently than in the earlier as nicely as strengthening the economic and military making blocks of India’s comprehensive nationwide energy.

The post Modi 2.0 Confronts a Challenging Foreign Policy Landscape appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/05/24/modi-2-0-confronts-a-challenging-foreign-policy-landscape/

#Belt and Road Initiative #India #Indian foreign policy #Narendra Modi #South Asia #The Pulse #U.S.-C

1 note · View note

plusorminuscongress · 5 years

Text

New story in Politics from Time: Answers to Six Key Questions About the Oil Price Collapse

Oil prices slipped as low as $30 per barrel this week as the new coronavirus, COVID 19, led to shuttered factories and Saudi Arabia and Russia ramping up oil production.

The future of oil prices will shape how the world recovers from the coronavirus outbreak and the fate of regional and national economies, not to mention how the world responds, or doesn’t, to the urgent threat of climate change.

As the world, and the markets, struggle to assess the impact of the collapse in oil prices, here are answers to six key questions:

Why did this happen?

There are two reasons for the oil-price collapse. First, coronavirus has reduced economic activity, from factories shuttering in China to international air travel declining dramatically. That decline in economic activity, in turn, leads to reduced demand for oil, the energy source that largely powers the global economy.

Usually, a collapse in oil companies leads oil producers, particularly OPEC, the cartel that accounts for 40% of the world’s oil production, to slow down their production to try to raise prices. But last week a meeting of OPEC members plus Russia fell apart after Russia refused to agree to slow production. Instead, Saudi Arabia and Russia, the world’s second and third-largest producers of crude oil, respectively, announced that they would increase their production, further reducing prices. Goldman Sachs suggested that prices could hit $20 per barrel if the price war continues.

Aren’t Russia and Saudi Arabia hurting themselves by deflating oil prices?

In the short term, keeping oil prices low definitely harms Russia and Saudi Arabia. Both countries produce oil relatively cheaply, but depend on making a big profit selling it to fuel their economies. The International Monetary Fund estimated that in 2020 oil would need to be priced at $78.30 per barrel for Saudi Arabia to balance its budget. Russia’s breakeven budget point is said to be in the $40-range.

But there are bigger long-term strategic interests at play. For one, leaders of both countries clearly view their oppositional objectives as worthy priorities. Saudi Arabia needs much higher oil prices in the medium to long-term, and is willing to take the hit to force Russia to the table.

Despite the dust up, both parties share an even bigger foe: U.S. shale oil producers. These producers, centered largely in West Texas and New Mexico, have boomed since the advent of fracking, which has allowed them to reach vast new oil reserves. Consequently, the U.S. has catapulted to become the world’s largest producer of crude oil. By lowering oil prices, Russia and Saudi Arabia will disrupt the American industry and likely force some companies into bankruptcy.

What does this mean for the U.S. domestic oil and gas industry?

This price war poses a dire threat to the U.S. oil and gas industry, particularly the companies drilling in the West Texas region known as the Permian Basin. The industry was already strained by low profits and difficultly accessing capital. If the price war continues, many small producers will likely go bankrupt while bigger players scale back operations. Shares in many big oil and gas companies like Occidental Petroleum and Continental Resources, for instance, fell by more than 50% this week. This will inevitably lead to lost jobs across the region. “Anybody that’s been on the edge is probably going to go into distress pretty quickly,” says Deborah Byers, says U.S. oil & gas leader at consulting firm EY.

Industry representatives, including the American Petroleum Institute (API), the industry’s powerful trade group, insist they don’t want government assistance to make it through the tough times. But a report in the Washington Post suggested that the Trump Administration is considering providing aid to the industry.

Will this stimulate the economy?

Typically, low oil prices stimulate the economy because the fossil fuel remains essential: oil fuels factories and transportation and even serves as the feedstock for a vast array of products. President Trump tweeted as much on Monday.

Good for the consumer, gasoline prices coming down!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 9, 2020

But it’s unclear to what degree low oil prices act as a boon to consumers amidst the coronavirus fallout because there’s just not enough demand. A good analogy would be airline tickets right now. If people don’t want to fly, it doesn’t matter how much you reduce the cost of a flight. Similarly, low oil prices won’t stimulate demand if everyone is staying home.

What does this mean for climate change?

It’s hard to say with so many factors at play. On the one hand, low oil prices may make it difficult to convince some policymakers and business leaders to switch to renewable sources of energy. The rapid expansion of wind and solar power has come largely because they are the same price or cheaper than fossil fuels.

But, on the other hand, the oil market volatility contributes to a growing sense among investors that the fossil fuel industry is an unreliable investment. Oil stocks have taken a deep hit in recent years as investors worry about climate concerns and the potential of peak demand—when oil demand flatlines—in the coming decades. Given those two factors, it’s possible that many oil stocks don’t recover. The ones that remain will need to be more efficient and prepared to adjust production to rapidly changing dynamics in the industry, including climate concerns.

How about geopolitics?

There are many geopolitical implications, any one of which could be a story of its own. But a sustained oil-price collapse severely threatens a slew of oil-dependent countries at a time when they are in urgent need of resources. Iran, in particular, is grappling with U.S. sanctions and battling a severe coronavirus outbreak and will undoubtedly suffer from low oil prices. From Washington to Beijing, policymakers will be watching closely as they consider the future of the Middle East.

By Justin Worland on March 11, 2020 at 04:00PM

#Time #politics #PlusOrMinusCongress #±Congress #Indega±#IndegaPlusOrMinus #TimeMag #TimeMagazine

0 notes

joshuajacksonlyblog · 5 years

Text

Sunday Digest: Bitcoin Price, Scams and Definitely No Politics

Surely I can get through this introductory paragraph without mentioning the UK election. Must be some other news to cling to. If possible I could also tie in some spurious bitcoin comment… Can you buy a National Health Service with bitcoin?

Or I could just mention that Miss Jamaica won the Miss World 2019 competition this weekend, and hope nobody notices.

Bitcoin Price

Not much to report on bitcoin price this week, other than a slow trickle downwards from $7600 to just over $7k. Not that that was any reason not to rampantly speculate for commenters.

Peter Brandt (who for some reason, we must always describe as ‘veteran trader, Peter Brandt’) explained bitcoin’s path to $100k. This was great, although to get there, he thinks we will either drop to $5k by the middle of next year or start to pick up again any time now.

A golden cross on the 50 and 100 week moving averages was heralded as suggesting bright times ahead, but short-term we may still be in for a bashing.

Jailed silk-road mastermind, Ross Ulbricht, was predicting a move upwards for bitcoin price, based on Elliott Wave Theory.

Meanwhile, Tone Vays (who also often gets the veteran trader designation), thought it was time to pray, as vital support was broken. Josh Rager thought it was highly unlikely for BTC price to drop straight to $5k right now, with the caveat that it may bounce a few times first.

Finally, dwindling volume and volatile could be a sign of larger moves imminent… or just that Bitcoin has packed up and taken an early Christmas break this year.

CBDC Update

The race towards a Central Bank issued Digital Currency (CBDC) is hotting up, with the progress made by the big players, whilst new contenders spring up to throw their hats into the ring.

China is moving steadily forward with its plans for a Digital Yuan. Preliminary testing is now complete, and the rest of the year will see a pilot test with Chinese banks and large corporations.

Meanwhile, the European Central Bank is still only planning to determine the objectives for a Digital Euro by mid-2020. So much for the one thus far stated objective to be ahead of the curve.

South Korea’s Central Bank has been making blockchain hires, suggesting that it is entering the research phase on a CBDC. And Sweden is more advanced with its plans for an e-krona than most had realized, with a pilot testing phase set to run for the whole of 2020.

News In Brief

Vitalik Buterin revealed that he convinced the Ethereum Foundation to sell off 70,000 ETH at the peak of 2017’s parabolic rally, netting it some serious liquidity.

Huobi’s US business has decided to close its doors, just months after launch, citing a lack of interest from traders.

Meanwhile, Binance US goes from strength to strength and is considering adding trading pairs for an additional 18 cryptocurrencies to its roster.

An early investor is suing BitMEX for $300 million, for allegedly providing false equity information four years ago.

Perhaps the biggest shock in the cryptocurrency world this week, came when I personally had to side with Craig Wright over claims that he was being overcharged for legal fees in the Kleiman case. I’ll try not to do it again, I promise.

Bitcoin Scam Corner

A new scam called Coinjer is doing the rounds, mainly through Telegram groups. It follows the classic ‘send some BTC to unlock your bigger BTC prize’ format. Needless to say, you will never see any of that bitcoin again.

Coinmetrics released data this week revealing the extent of BTC and ETH dumping through Huobi, from the PlusToken scam. Many believe that this is one of the key current drivers of downwards pressure on BTC price.

Russia’s biggest dark-web market, Hydra, announced plans for an international, decentralized marketplace for illegal items. As such, it is trying to raise money through an ICO, causing many to think that the true intention is to exit scam.

And Finally…

Let’s end on some positive news.

The saga of Moocowmoo and the missing funds of Dash investors was resolved this week, as Moocowmoo resurfaced and investor funds were returned.

Commendable honesty from Dash Core Group CMO, Fernando Gutierrez, who stated:

This doesn’t make things good again because it should not have taken so much for him to send back the funds, but it is certainly a much better outcome than him disappearing without paying.

Of course, we here at Bitcoinist would like to think that our coverage of the developing situation had some small impact on getting that positive outcome.

What was your favorite bitcoin and crypto news story of the week? Let us know in the comments below!

Image via Shutterstock

The post Sunday Digest: Bitcoin Price, Scams and Definitely No Politics appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/38G4pRq via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Cryptocracken Tumblr

0 notes

dodoughert · 5 years

Text

Samantha Power: Education of an Idealist

Lecture Notes by Dr Patrick A ODougherty

Immigrant to war correspondent to cabinet member interviewed by Ana Mendez 1pressured speech and driven lecture not a discussion 2 siege mentality

Education of an Idealist

Baseball, romance and Putin

January 20th 2017

Activate need

Can one person make a difference?

Own journey take charge

Barack Obama

Banging his head against the wall

Wanting to activate! Can we make a difference?

9 to Pittsburgh

Atlanta GA

War correspondence

Hague war criminals

A Problem from Hell, book

Rumors are true Mr President

Yes we can, chapter

Democratic season

Other dimensions

Spring of 2007

Primary campaigns get the kinks out of the system

Not inevitable at all

25% points behind in Iowa

18% behind

A disaster

Squash player and Red Sock fan, CASS

Private lament

Professors

Spoke publicly on his staff

Assortment of issues 1 Guantanamo

Obama and CASS taught Constitutional law

auto filled

Daniel Grey

A large poster

Email mishaps

Tom Keenan

Mass atrocities

Run down of flaws

Incompatibilities were deep

Dress better

Send a ping

You didn’t

A list serve of thousands

Genocide survivors

US ambassador to the UN

Dress better

Rule of law speech

Now married with 2 children

Funny moments

Menedez

One job

Humor

Name change

Power sustenances

Amended

Character or plot

Style and forms dimensions of writing

Be Critic of government

Behind the government

Language experts

Livid in the countries

Condense your life into a chapter

Condensed into a chapter

Why do they believe what they believe

Pub in Dublin writing about addiction

Stayed with her father

Addiction

Surmount the demons

Agency and responsibility

Linear psychological fact

Driven lives

Neglecting person lives

Round out the picture

Plot arch

Poster board

Arcs gender leader

End of history

Tools America has to rule the world

Intentional

Being an individual

Work as part of a team

Learn from other people

Lean on not in

Russian ambassador

A lot of victories in the Ebola crisis

US led 69 co sponsors

Use of fear

Travel bans

Go it alone

Learned from Obama Ebola crisis

Health workers into epidemic

Skepticism to do good

Globalization

Afganistan war 18 years

ISIS left and went back

Sinkhole

CDC graphic showing 1.4 million infections

A curve bend the curve

Many Isolated infected people

No return

Ebola with terrorism

Fear over time

Tweets virile

Rubber necking on the highway

How the international UN works when it works

Game theory 101

First mover

Both

Cubans medical health Corp

UN offices are countries

Leadership hustles

Credit from what you prevented

West Africa

Doomsday statistics

Bend the curve

Son, Declan

Naïveté

Press document American heroes

Manageable versus

Declan

Nola die

Bola

UN international school

Freak out

Quaranteened

Hilarious

Diplomacy

Breast pump

Draw inspiration from efforts

Honest about the world with your children

Privileged leader

Time from children

Water bag breaking one month early with Declan

Armenian genocide

Character is life

The juggle

Secretary of State

Topics the dynamic is similar

Stomp off with frustration

Putin not Declan

Explain absences

Contemporary crisis

Russia in Crimea

Owned toys before

I am bigger I will and I can

Living in Ireland at the pub

CASS was teaching at Harvard

Smith in Manhattan

Seasoned professional

Ukrainian TV live

Dialogue with children

Cold War Drama

Tracking

Did they leave Crimea

Focused on the right thing

Drive him into therapy

Lucky children

Making a difference

Crisis fatigue

Free the 20

Syria

Switch a book by Dan and Chip Heath

Shrink the change

Large problem

Big solutions

Not within the power of 1 person

What one person can do

Climate change

What you can do

Energy fix

Freedom recession

Receding

Since end of Cold War

Shrink the change

#freethe20

Female political prisoners out of jail

20 days President Shia in China

Hung portraits

Sexual abuse

Walk by political prisoners

16 released from jail

Universe for the person

Make social change

Syria has no diplomatic solution

Work with Russian ambassadors

One stone

Clarity on genocide

How can you elevate the problem of genocide

List of indicted

For war crimes

Joseph Coney in Africa

A panacea not

Eliminate a group

Out side actors

Sudan issues

I idea

Extinction

Look at your tools

Mitigating providing hopes

Tool box

Compassion

Congress equals allies

Change

Stand together

Multi lateraling your tools Russia blocks

Fly zones

Template4

Optimize

Prioritize

Aspiring diplomat

Elena Kagan profiled

Swing to her side of arguments

Had to work with Russia

Security Council

Not veto

I have to

Space for self Awareness

Your standards

Critical judgements recede

Areas for cooperation

Inhabit the grey zones and know you are there

Proud American

Damaged relationships

Middle class politics

Mission standards

Not give back

Alliances are grave

Paris climate treaty

China free trade zone

Attacked as Deep State

Iran

Core foreign policy consensus

Values have a place

Values

Iran agreement ripped up

Climate denial

Alliances and values

Leadership has no rules

Telling the truth again

Human rights are a value

China

Principles to real life

In their shoes

Hedging attempted to do

Discourse of country a Problem from Hell

Too much

0 notes

thinggolf77-blog · 5 years

Text

'The Nun' Conjures Up Huge Opening While 'Crazy Rich Asians' Continues to Grow - IndieWire

“The Nun” (Warner Bros.), the fifth film in the “Conjuring”/”Annabelle” franchise, opened to a way-over-estimate $53.5 million. That’s the best debut in the series’ history, even adjusted for inflation(the first “Annabelle” grossed $49 million), and just ahead of “A Quiet Place” to be the best opening for a horror movie this year.

The weekend after Labor Day often ranks at or near the bottom of any given year. That changed it 2017, when Warner Bros. opened “It” to $123 million, and this gross tops anything from January, March, or even August of this year.

Read More:‘The Nun’ and ‘American Horror Story’ Star Taissa Farmiga On Why She Doesn’t Like Horror Movies

“It” appears to have changed the calendar for good (the sequel opens this date next year). That means this weekend’s gross dropped less less than it has in the past — although, because “It” was so strong last year, it was still down 28 percent) — but the number still stands out on its own. Three weeks ago, when “Crazy Rich Asians” grossed $25 million ($32 million for its first five days), it was celebrated rightly as a breakthrough gross. This number (for the weekend) is double that. “It” was bigger than “The Meg,” “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again,” and “Ocean’s 8,” among other successful recent releases.

How could this happen? Timing, apart from a wide open weekend, is key. “A Quiet Place” was the last big horror entry. “Hereditary” (which, like “The Nun,” was rated R) did well for an independent film, but its total take was still less than this opening. That’s a dry spell from one of the most consistent genres out there.

Two specific elements aided its cause. The series has a good degree of credibility with consecutive entries, sustaining above-average interest despite normal downturns. Last year’s “Annabelle: Creation” achieved something highly unusual for horror sequels: It nearly tripled its opening weekend gross, a surefire sign of highly positive audience reaction.

But add its title and it gives an existing popular franchise a new life — and it’s not just domestic. International openings in 60 territories (France, Japan, and Russia among those to come, with China not likely) came to $77 million. This for a film that had a production budget of just $22 million.

Warner Bros. has held the #1 spot for five weeks, and the top two for four, apparently the first time for a single distributor doing that in over a quarter century. And they’ve done it with three diverse films (“Crazy Rich Asians,” “The Meg,” and this). Throw in “Ready Player One” and “Ocean’s 8” earlier this year, and it’s very impressive for a studio that hasn’t had the franchise tentpoles that Disney and Universal have scored with.

Courtesy of STXfilms

“Peppermint” (STX) was the other wide opening. At $13 million, credit Jennifer Garner for bringing attention to this poorly reviewed female “Death Wish” vigilante story. It’s a modern hybrid production: a leading French action director (Pierre Morel, “Taken”), substantial Chinese financing (STX’s regular partner Huayi Brothers), an American star and setting. Perhaps the most significant element is the female twist to the story, showing an increased international interest in variations from the male-centered norm. Most foreign dates are ahead, but a likely $30-35 million domestic haul will give it a shot at eventual profit.

Awkwafina and Constance Wu in “Crazy Rich Asians”

Warner Bros.

Ahead of “Peppermint” at #2, after three weeks at the top, is the year’s biggest comedy. Its 38 percent drop was the same as the similar performing “The Help” during its post-Labor Day weekend. That was a week later in its run, and saw it in adjusted gross at $160 million by that point. “Crazy” continues on track to easily reach that level and push some distance beyond. The trajectory looks to get it to somewhere in the $180-190 million level, while reaching the $198 million where “The Help” ended (adjusted) remains a smaller possibility.

“The Meg” dropped more (42 percent), still respectable off a holiday three-day total. Though it will end up slightly below “Crazy” in domestic take, its worldwide gross of nearly $500 million will be far bigger. At $130 million in initial budget, Warners is happy to see that result.

“Mission: Impossible – Fallout” (Paramount) looks to top $800 million worldwide now that it has opened in China. That’s ahead of “Rogue Nation” (which it will also top adjusted domestically). It fell out of the top four for the first time in its seven-week run.

John Cho in “Searching”

“Searching” (Sony) in its third week, expanding once again (now at 2,009 theaters), seems to be working as the studio hoped: smaller-than-usual marketing, build from a limited scale to keep word of mouth propelling it. The theater average was only about half of last weekend with 800+ more theaters, but the performance is strong enough for the film to sustain a couple more weeks at most theaters. That a studio is handling a Sundance-premiered film, much less eight months after the festival, is unusual. That they seem to be making it work is more significant. International starts up next week.

The Top Ten

1. The Nun (Warner Bros.) – Cinemascore: B+; Metacritic: 46; Est. budget: $22 million

$53,500,000 in 3,876 theaters; PTA (per theater average): $13,803; Cumulative: $53,500,000

2. Crazy Rich Asians (Warner Bros.) Week 4; Last weekend: #1

$13,600,000 (-38%) in 3,865 theaters (no change); PTA: $3,519; Cumulative: $136,222,000

3. Peppermint (STX) – Cinemascore: B+; Metacritic: 29; Est. budget: $25 million

$13,260,000 in 2,980 theaters; PTA: $4,450; Cumulative: $13,260,000

4. The Meg (Warner Bros.) Week 5; Last weekend: #2

$6,030,000 (-43%) in 3,511 theaters (-250); PTA: $1,717; Cumulative: $1,31,573,000

5. Searching (Sony) Week 3; Last weekend: #4

$4,515,000 (-26%) in 2,009 theaters (+802); PTA: $2,247; Cumulative: $14,311,000

6. Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Paramount) Week 7; Last weekend: #3

$3,800,000 (-46%) in 2,334 theaters (-305); PTA: $1,628; Cumulative: $212,117,000

7. Christopher Robin (Disney) Week 6; Last weekend: #5

$3,196,000 (-39%) in 2,518 theaters (-407); PTA: $1,269; Cumulative: $91,725,000

8. Operation Finale (MGM) Week 2; Last weekend: #6

$3,043,000 (-49%) in 1,818 theaters (no change); PTA: $1,674; Cumulative: $14,107,000

9. Alpha (Sony) Week 4; Last weekend: #7

$2,505,000 (-45%) in 2,521 theaters (-360); PTA: $994; Cumulative: $32,448,000

10. BlacKkKlansman (Focus) Week 5; Last weekend: #9

$1,565,000 (-63%) in 1,547 theaters (-219); PTA: $1,012; Cumulative: $43,455,000

Source: https://www.indiewire.com/2018/09/the-nun-box-office-crazy-rich-asians-1202001927/

0 notes

khalilhumam · 4 years

Text

Bringing a COVID-19 Vaccine to Market: Where Do We Go from Here?

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/bringing-a-covid-19-vaccine-to-market-where-do-we-go-from-here/

Bringing a COVID-19 Vaccine to Market: Where Do We Go from Here?

A lot has been written, including by ourselves, on how best to bring a COVID vaccine (or ideally, several) to market. In this blog, we review the good and the bad about where the world now stands in efforts to bringing a vaccine to market, from the perspective of payers, national governments, and country coalitions, as well as development partners. We also set out some ideas on how best to move forward.

The good

In the months since COVID-19 first came to the world’s attention, there have been positive steps forward in efforts to develop a vaccine:

The global community, including private and public actors, has moved with unprecedented speed to research, finance, test, and manufacture a COVID vaccine.

At the same time, governments have committed to cross-subsidizing the poor, backing the CEPI- and Gavi-led Covax facility. This in turn allows, in principle, for differential pricing and subsidised access arrangements for low-income countries (LICs) and for recently announced arrangements for pooled procurement via UNICEF.

Governments seem to endorse needs-based allocation principles, albeit mostly within (e.g., see the UK approach) as opposed to across national borders, especially when it comes to the wealthiest nations.

The bad

Alongside these promising developments, however, are many ongoing challenges:

Most high-income countries (HICs) are also engaging in bilateral deals or local buyers’ clubs, with details about these arrangements emerging on a daily basis. Linked to this, there is a general pushback against globalisation and a reversion to vaccine (and other commodity) nationalism and self-reliance.

In the “arms race” for securing as many doses of as many frontrunner products as possible, usually through advance purchase contracts (APCs), there has been no appetite for or attempt at risk-sharing with the private sector. Further, a “picking winners” approach may well crowd out private investment and undermine public support for the less prominent candidates

The current approach to bringing a vaccine to market seems to have completely missed a large number of non-producer HICs but also upper-middle-income countries; what we called the “missing middle.” The latter in particular seem to be invisible to the newly shaped market as they neither fit under the Gavi LICs arrangement nor do they have the frameworks and means to aggregate and make visible to manufacturers their demand signals (with the exception of China). This has led some of the bigger BRICs (e.g., India and Russia) to rush to announce their own successful domestic candidates.

Despite expressed interest, it seems that the Covax facility is viewed more like an ODA solution by the richest countries (e.g., EU), resulting in much lower-than-expected financing (less than 10 percent for the overall ACT Accelerator needs as of 10 August 2020) and hence limited pull power, though it remains to be seen how many of the expressions of interest turn into pledges, and what fraction of that into disbursements.

Despite the WHO allocation principles and verbal commitments by some governments to share with the rest of the world and by some but not all companies to price at cost, there is no procedural governance mechanism with teeth to enforce these allocation principles as doses of different kinds of vaccine become available, leaving companies to have to make difficult decisions in the midst of a bidding war amongst nations. Indeed, the 3 percent and 20 percent benchmarks to reflect healthcare professionals and elderly populations are hardly applicable equally around the world (e.g., Norway has more healthcare professionals and more older people than Malawi).

In a rather circular/insular way, the international aid community seems to be taking for granted that a successful vaccine will be developed, licensed, and produced in a timely fashion. The aid community is focusing on delivering on its own target of 2 billion doses, notwithstanding that these doses do not yet exist, and even if they did, they would be nowhere near enough to get the global economy moving. The, perhaps inevitable, division between aid for LICs and the rest of the world is making half the market (by volume) invisible and segmenting policy environments with no clear avenue (other than HICs joining Covax) for bringing the bilateral and ODA discussions together in terms of research, licencing, procurement, and distribution.

What next?

As efforts to bring a COVID-19 vaccine to market progress, governments must publicly acknowledge and signal to manufacturers and investors that they expect several generations of vaccines with improving efficacy as opposed to a single first-to-market one, and make sure producers know that if they produce a better vaccine there will be demand for it (as opposed to health systems being locked into contracts requiring buying one suboptimal product) Equally and importantly for the first generation products already in APCs as well as future ones, governments must set out HTA-type value assessment frameworks for assessing comparative effectiveness over and above the safety and efficacy hurdle of licensing bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. HTA-type frameworks are also needed for negotiating prices that reflect health benefit as well as to prevent double paying (given the record amounts of push and down payment monies) and to avoid the sunk cost fallacy of adopting a substandard product just because a government had originally bet on it.

Such an assessment and pricing framework will signal that better performance for later entrants will be reflected in a price premium (as we have discussed elsewhere), ensuring the pipeline doesn't dry out too early.

It will help address the challenge of parsing out relevant public investments from private investments and different contractual obligations and pricing expectations (reductions for heavy public investment or to enable cross subsidizing within a buying group).

Further, such an HTA framework, which many industry players are using and are keen on, will help send clearer market signals and clearer market mechanisms than an opaque patchwork of public contracts and quasi market mechanisms. This will enable us to move from round-one national picks to enhanced and performance-linked choices over time. This is particularly important as most companies have understandably signalled that they will not be adhering to cost-plus pricing principles, especially past the first wave of the outbreak. Assessing health benefit will be key to pricing to incentivise more and better vaccines.

Major governments through vehicles such as the G20 and the WHO must come together to convene a multinational platform of trusted experts working with local analysts and planners to translate the WHO allocation principles into actionable/implementable steps under different scenarios of vaccine profiles and epidemiological realities. Such principles can then be hardwired into (ideally) existing and all new contracts. Allocating constrained supply across markets whilst governments are seeking to pre-empt supply through APCs is a critical issue the world must address to achieve an effective response. As well as political will, it requires local modelling and analysis which must start now to enable implementation once the first products are out. Finally, there is a need for licensing agreements and transfers of technology so successful candidates transfer production in the poorest regions of the world at affordable tail prices. We have already seen legal challenge between innovators and the companies they contract with to manufacture the vaccines, and this is likely to get worse as new products come to market whilst others fail. Ideally we will see deals where HICs bring companies into arrangements which both deliver value to the company and also facilitate necessary technology transfer and licencing out of production (to be paid for by the likes of Gavi) as a condition of accessing that value.

0 notes

gizedcom · 4 years

Text

The US Election Does Not Matter for Afghanistan: Op-Ed

Since the tragic death of US Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul during the Saur Revolution in 1979, US-Afghanistan relations have been turbulent. In the four decades since, the aims of both sides have been ambiguous and questioned by the other. At the moment, the question is: Why are the Americans in Afghanistan?

After four decades of American involvement and two decades of physical presence, many Afghans and Americans are still misinterpreting the American goal by wrongly connecting it to reconstruction projects, international aid, the establishment of democracy and good governance, and promoting women’s rights. In February 2020, President Donald Trump tried to end this narrative by signing a historic agreement with the Taliban, which paved the way to end the longest American war.

Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from the region created an emotional shockwave among the young generation of cosmopolitan Afghans, the Afghan civil society, Afghan journalists, and women’s rights organizations. Many of them, who supported the US presence in the past two decades, feel frustrated and betrayed by their American counterparts who will now leave them alone at the negotiation table with the Taliban.

The two secret security annexes of the Doha agreement have also raised concerns among Afghan security experts. Some argue that the Taliban has been contracted by Washington to fight al-Qaida, and others suggest that these security annexes will come into effect in the future, preventing the US from sharing its military and intelligence information with the Afghan security forces about the Taliban presence and their activities in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, since the agreement’s signing, the Taliban chose to repeat their unpleasant message to the Afghan government that they won the war against the Americans and forced the invaders to leave Afghanistan. In all interviews, including in the recent Aljazeera interview, the Taliban leaders made it clear that they want a “rerun” of their previous time in power in Afghanistan, without a single time mentioning the future role of the current administration.

While the fight between the Taliban and the Afghan security forces continues, more than 4,000 Taliban prisoners have been released, but neither side has yet fulfilled the terms of the agreement, and the intra-Afghan negotiations–which should bring both parties to the table–have not yet started. Besides, President Ashraf Ghani and his inner circle appeared to get personally offended when the Trump administration forced them to form another power-sharing coalition with Dr. Abdullah. All these events further degraded relations between Kabul and Trump’s administration.

As a result, some experts indicate that the Afghan government and President Ghani’s team are trying to postpone the negotiation with the Taliban in hopes that the US presidential election outcomes in November 2020 will change the current course of US policy toward Afghanistan. They hope that if former vice president Joe Biden wins the election, the new policy of the White House administration will be hardened towards the Taliban.

To explain why they are mistaken, and why this prediction is dangerous for the peace process, we have to consider American involvement in Afghanistan in three separate phases. The first phase was the Cold War, where the United States with a “containment policy” supported the Afghan mujahedeen in order to keep the Soviets and its communist regime at the Pakistan border. Once the “godless” communists were defeated, the first phase ended, and Washington left the mujahedeen to their destiny, which resulted in the Afghan civil wars.

The second phase started in 2001 with the American invasion as a response to the September 11 attack and the Taliban link to al-Qaida. This phase also officially ended when the American military killed Osama Bin Laden, and the Obama administration started downsizing the military presence in Afghanistan.

The third and ongoing phase started with President Trump’s new South Asia strategy. He prioritized the withdrawal of its troops from the region and intensified the US’s relationship with India to counterbalance the threat of China’s rise.

This phase, one may argue, also officially ended when the historical agreement between Washington and the Taliban was signed in Doha. Even if this phase is not ended yet, it is now past the 135 days–a significant marker mentioned in the document–which US Special Representative Zalmai Khalilzad on Twitter called “a successful milestone in implementing this agreement.”

As I argued in another op-ed here in TOLOnews, the Afghan politicians, who primarily benefited via corruption from the American presence in the past two decades, failed to build a strategic partnership with the United States and missed the changing American policy in South Asia. From the Afghan media landscape, it seems that not only Afghan politicians misinterpreted the primarily goal of the American presence in Afghanistan, but the Afghan civil society, the women’s rights organizations, and the well-educated Afghans misjudged the goal as well. These individuals and groups saw America as primarily liberators who would promote democracy. It seems that many of them became fully immersed in this false narrative, and now they can hardly believe that Americans are leaving them without finishing those tasks.

Working closely with both the Afghan and American government, I can say that from the American perspective, all three administrations, including the Obama administration–where Joe Biden served as vice president—clearly articulated why Americans went to Afghanistan. In all those years, the White House and Pentagon spokespersons openly communicated that the main reason to engage in Afghanistan is to protect the United States from international terrorism.

It’s also not a secret that the United States used the international development aid budget primarily as a counterinsurgency tool to win the foreign nation’s ‘hearts and minds’ in order to protect US security interests. Therefore, the USAID funding to promote democracy or women’s rights in Afghanistan—and everywhere else in the world–always has been an integral part of the US national security policy.

This false narrative–that American troops came to Afghanistan to promote women’s rights or build girls’ schools–has been largely promoted in the past two decades by Western NGOs, DC/London/Brussel/Dubai consulting firms, opportunistic Afghan diaspora, corrupt Kabul elites and indirectly by policymakers in Europe. I mention Europe because it was the European leaders who had difficulty at home explaining why EU troops needed to be deployed to Afghanistan. After the mismanaged conflict in the Balkans, the EU leaders–who were reluctant to send their forces outside the European wall–chose to use the cause of women’s rights and the building of girls’ schools as a means to cover their military participation in the ‘big brother’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, both wars have already ended for the United States and its allies, and now they are committed to leave Afghanistan. In addition, as Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes wrote in The Atlantic, “the 9/11 era is over” and the idea that every day could be September 12 is over. The coronavirus and new American challenges in Asia, where assertive China and revanchist Russia are each trying to become the dominant player in the region, are more substantial problems than the Taliban.

Also, within the United States, the narrative of the War on Terror is outdated. The current generation of Americans, as Mr. Rhodes describes, are now more worried about climate change, student loans, economic and social inequality, than the threats from a group of few hundred disillusioned radical al-Qaida or ISIS-K fighters in the mountains of the AFPAK region. This is not only the mindset of young Democrats or Republicans who are voting for former VP Joe Biden or President Trump but it is also widely shared by members of American think tanks and academia, policymakers, and among diplomats and military officers here in Washington. The majority of former State Department, DoD, or White House advisers who previously thought differently about the Taliban are today in agreement that the United States needs to end this war and leave an unsuccessful Afghanistan chapter behind in US foreign policy.

Therefore, in terms of Afghanistan’s fate, it doesn’t matter who gets re-elected in the US in November. The next president of the United States–in January 2021–will primarily be busy with internal affairs or much bigger problems in the world, rather than thinking about new Afghanistan policy.

The fact that some Kabul elites believe that presidential candidate Joe Biden will change the current US Afghanistan policy and keep pouring USAID funding into their corrupt system, proves that Afghan politicians lack the capacity to understand why Americans originally came to Afghanistan in the first place, and why they are leaving now.

In the end, it will be unwise for Afghan officials to postpone the peace process again and demolish the last chance for peace that Afghanistan has. After almost half a century, the Afghans have the right to end this bloody conflict where every day Afghans lose their lives for a war that no one benefits from. The Afghan leaders cannot use any more external excuses to stop the negotiation process, as they have in the past. On the Taliban side, they should stop the violence, accept the current pluralistic Afghan society and demonstrate the willingness and commitment to become normal non-violent political players. Also, the US, EU and other influential “stakeholders” with representatives in Kabul should not keep silent and watch how the leaders of both parties—from their safe palaces in Kabul and Doha—order their forces to continue killing and proudly announce “victories” in the media, while at the same time saying to the world that they are working on negotiation. It’s time for real talks for everyone.

About the author: Arash Yaqin worked previously as a communication adviser for the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies, and as Senior Cultural Affairs Adviser for the US Department of State within the US Embassy Kabul. Currently, he is an M.A. candidate for National Security Affairs at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C.

All are welcome to submit a fact-based piece to TOLOnews’ Opinion page.

The views expressed in the opinion pieces are not endorsed or necessarily shared by TOLOnews.

Contributors are responsible for the accuracy of the information in an opinion piece, but if it is discovered that information is not factual, a correction will be added and noted.

Credit: Source link

The post The US Election Does Not Matter for Afghanistan: Op-Ed appeared first on GIZED - Breaking News Worldwide.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2CrIQZt via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

endenogatai · 5 years

Text

Exclusive: Tony Blair on regulating Big Tech, Facebook, Russia, China and Brexit

As history tells us, the break-up of ‘Big Oil’ and ‘Big Telco’ in the past, led to more competition and innovation. What to do in the era of ‘Big Tech’? Living in 2019, we know more than ever before about how Big Tech, particularly in the shape of Facebook, Twitter and Google – as the prime arbiters of information and social media online – have shaped and affected politics today. At the same time, we’re about to face several huge sea-changes in the global system, not least of which will be the next US election, Brexit, the rise of China and challenges of the climate crisis.

Speaking at Web Summit in Lisbon this week, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair brought out a new report from the Institute which bears his name to address the turmoil of Western politics from the prism of the backlash against globalisation after the 2007–2008 financial crisis, the rise of populist movements and the effects technology is having on society, politicians and policymakers.

A policy framework designed for the offline world may well have served many people well for many decades, but in an age of exponential technology is it fit for purpose?

Platform companies like Facebook, aggregators like Google, Amazon and Uber have, says the Institute, stripped traditional gatekeepers of their power, delivered real progress for consumers and businesses, and increased many freedoms. But they have also brought significant economic upheaval and heightened cultural pressures, along with huge unknowns about the future. The tech wolf has also now concentrated power in the hands of a relatively small number of companies that “all too often wield it clumsily and without sufficient legitimacy.”

This comes at a time when the West’s lead on technology is “facing a clear and present challenge from determined Russian aggression and a concerted push from China to take a global lead in AI.”

Blair’s Institute makes it plain in it’s new report (“A New Deal for Big Tech: Next-Generation Regulation Fit for the Internet Age”) that the current set of regulations designed for legacy industries is “a poor fit for the pace and scale of the Internet” and a new approach, based on stronger accountability coupled with more freedom to innovate, might be the best way to align private incentives with the public interest.

Blair is calling for a “new generation of regulator” that can take an international outlook, have technical expertise comparable with the big tech companies and be fluent in the same fundamentals of ‘Big Tech’.

But how? How is all this going to operate? What are Blair’s view on Russia, disinformation on Facebook and Twitter, and whether tech will have an effect on the outcome of Brexit?

TechCrunch sat down with Mr Blair for the following, exclusive, interview:

Mike Butcher (MB): You’ve released this new report into regulating ‘Big Tech’. Do you want to outline it’s main thrust?

Tony Blair (TB): Essentially what we’re saying is: there’s no way ‘big tech’ is going to avoid regulation, and regulation that will treat them almost like public utilities because of their power, their reach, and their impact. But the question is about getting the right form of regulation. So what we’re trying to do is to make sure that it’s the kind of regulation of big tech that recognizes that [big tech has] actually brought enormous benefits to people, but at the same time protects people, whether it’s on issues around privacy, competition [and] making sure that consumers get adequate access – all of those types of things – and translate this into a set of proper principles. What I say to the big tech companies is that even though you may not want to have a lot to do with politics, as you can see – and I’ve been saying this for several years to them – it’s going to come your way. Because you’re just too powerful not to be under some system of objective regulation, and you can’t just regulate yourselves.

MB: On that note, many big tech companies have actually called for regulation, but do you think that’s a “sop” to governments in order to allow them to build even bigger monopolies? Because then everybody will have to be regulated, including smaller companies?

TB: I think the whole point about regulation is that it can be bad or it can be good. So you really want to make sure that the regulation you’re introducing is not an imposition on the companies for providing the service they do, but it is giving people proper protection and it’s recognizing, as I say, the power that these companies have. People won’t find it acceptable that things continue without proper regulation. The fact that Mark Zuckerberg comes out in favor of regulation… I mean, I think that’s good. But the question is what type of regulation. And there, obviously, he and Facebook should have an input. But they can’t decide that. That’s – in the end – got to be decided by policymakers. And one thing my institute – which Chris [Chris Yiu, Executive Director, Technology and Public Policy] heads up, which is based in London but has strong links in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the world – is to say there needs to be a dialogue between what I call the ‘change-makers’ and the policymakers that leads to good policy.

MB: But national governments making policy on their own surely isn’t going to address the issue, given Big Tech is global? What institutions can address this? Some sort of supranational body?

TB: Well, I think, ultimately, on certain issues you’ll need a global agreement. For example cybersecurity, I think we’ll, for sure, need that.

MB: There’s no ‘United Nations Declaration’ for arms control on cybersecurity for instance.

TB: The one thing I’m noticing about cyber, even in the last year… the number of people I meet whose companies have been subject to actual attacks… In the end, if every country is going to want to protect its business and every country will recognize ultimately that if the big players don’t come together and agree some rules then… I mean, it’s just anarchy.

In regards to regulation, I would like to see Europe and America create a new transatlantic partnership around regulation. This is one of the reasons I’m so opposed to Brexit… You are taking Britain out of that conversation with Europe at the very time that it needs to be in it.

MB: The pace of change at this point is now exponential. The rise of AI, Quantum computing etc. Politicians have known about the rapid, changing nature of technology for a number of years. What do you think has been stopping them from grappling with the subject?

TB: It’s partly generational. It’s partly because politicians don’t often understand the technology. It is actually technical. It requires hard work. Some of it is like rocket science. It’s not easy. So that’s part of the problem. And the other problem is that I think the change-makers – the tech developers – their basic attitude, often, to government, is just to just ‘keep away from it’. And I completely get it. But it’s not sensible. They’ve got to engage with government today, and that’s why we’re trying, through the Institute, to establish that dialogue. And you know, if that doesn’t happen, you’ll find, as we did during the 19th-century industrial revolution, how long it took politics to catch up with the fact that the world was being revolutionized. It took decades to catch up. For a long time, society was subject to one change, and politics was still debating things that were from a different era. I mean, if you look at British politics today, with this debate where, on one side is Brexit, one on the other side is – basically – who spends more money in the next Parliament… we could have had this debate at any point in the last 30 years. It’s got no relevance, really, to how the world’s changing.

MB: Are you concerned about how social media has enabled populism?

TB: Yes, I think social media is a revolutionary phenomenon and it’s revolutionized everything, including politics. And we’ve got to work out ways of dealing with that because it is rupturing politics in a serious way.

The problem is that political leaders are always trying to ‘step out in front’, but not so much that they lose touch with their people. So that’s a calibration, all the time, between leadership and listening. If the ‘listening’ part of it becomes ‘instrumentalized’ through social media, then the risk is that politicians just lose their compass. They don’t know where they’re going, they are just buffeted by waves of opinion. And then, if you’re not careful, what happens is that the people who rise to the top in those circumstances are the people who ride that.

MB: Should Twitter shut down Trump’s account?

TB: Well how’s that going to help? I mean, honestly, I don’t think that’s relevant.

MB: Facebook has said it’s going to be changing its policy on political advertising, and won’t be regulating disinformation on political ads. What’s your opinion on that?

TB: My opinion is that it’s very hard, if you’re Facebook, to stop people having political ads. But, to me, the the whole concept that Facebook is ‘self patrolling’ as to what should come on the Internet or not, is an indication of why you need proper regulation. The decision as to whether something’s fit for consumption or not, shouldn’t be left to a few thousand people employed by Facebook, you know, sitting and looking at crazy stuff on Facebook all day. I mean, this is to me just a further indication of why you’ve got to put everything within a proper system of regulation. Otherwise, it’s not actually fair to ask the company to do that. How can they decide what is a political ad or not? But someone should.

MB: What do you think of Twitter’s decision not to take any political advertising?

TB: In some ways I understand that, and in some ways I welcome that, but I think Facebook’s in a slightly different position just in terms of scale, right?

MB: China is deploying technology in its society at a huge, exponential rate, in terms of things like facial recognition and the surveillance of its population. Its ability to hoover-up all this data is effectively giving it enormous power to create, possibly, the next, powerful, AI, because the more data you have the more you can improve an AI. Do you think that the Western approach, with its tradition of more democratic institutions that have moved more slowly than a command-and-control system, means that we are effectively going to be left behind by political systems that err towards the more dictatorial?

TB: Well I think there’s a huge debate that’s going to go on about China, more generally, in the West which is what I call the debate about whether you ‘decouple’. Do you accept that there’s two systems that are going to remain very distinct, also in technology? This is part of what underpins the Huawei debate regarding 5G. Or do you try to get to what Henry Kissinger calls a form of ‘cooperative competition’? Now, I prefer the latter not the former course, because I think decoupling is very difficult. But, what that means, in my view, is that the West has got to get its act together, because otherwise China will achieve superiority in AI and, in some regards, it already is. If you think of all the devices that we use in the West that are Chinese… You can see this with [the rise of] Tik Tok, for instance.

MB: The UK general election is now on and people are using technology to ‘get out the vote’. There is a lot of talk about ‘tactical voting’ and lots of tactical voting recommendation websites appearing. Do you favour any particular approach?

TB: So, here’s where technology obviously has a beneficial purpose. If people decide that they want to vote tactically – and I completely understand that because of Brexit being mixed up [in the election], and frankly, dissatisfaction with both main parties – then web sites that tell you how to do that intelligently and provide the information, then… great. You’ve got ones from Best For Britain, People’s Vote, Gina Miller has one and there are others. Yeah, fine, people should look at them I think.

MB: Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee has been prevented by Number 10 from releasing its intelligence report and it allegedly contains information about how Russia affected British politics and society using technological means in the last few years. What are your concerns about Russia’s incursion into UK politics using technology?

TB: I think this is not just a Russian question, although there’s been a lot of focus on what Russia has done. You’ve got to put all of this out on the table and I think, again, Western governments should be cooperating together to say… if there is outside interference – and I don’t really know the scale of it because you’ve got to go into the detail – how people are influencing media, how people are using techniques to try and influence voters, from the outside, trying to destabilize your politics… all of it should be out in the open. Because that’s the best way of stopping it, and then you can take action against people who are doing it. But this is another reason why I think this is a slightly different form of cybersecurity, if you like, but it’s somewhat akin to it. Because, in the end, if you’ve got people, for example, changing their votes – particularly in tight-run elections – changing their votes on the basis of misinformation that’s coming from a foreign government that’s deliberately trying to destabilize your politics, then at least you should know about it. Now, this is going to be a big big issue for the future.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/2WWnd9y via IFTTT

#IFTTT #RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425

0 notes

sheminecrafts · 5 years

Text

Voter manipulation on social media now a global problem, report finds

New research by the Oxford Internet Institute has found that social media manipulation is getting worse, with rising numbers of governments and political parties making cynical use of social media algorithms, automation and big data to manipulate public opinion at scale — with hugely worrying implications for democracy.

The report found that computational propaganda and social media manipulation have proliferated massively in recently years — now prevalent in more than double the number of countries (70) vs two years ago (28). An increase of 150%.

The research suggests that the spreading of fake news and toxic narratives has become the dysfunctional new ‘normal’ for political actors across the globe, thanks to social media’s global reach.

“Although propaganda has always been a part of political discourse, the deep and wide-ranging scope of these campaigns raise critical public interest concerns,” the report warns.

The researchers go on to dub the global uptake of computational propaganda tools and techniques a “critical threat” to democracies.

“The use of computational propaganda to shape public attitudes via social media has become mainstream, extending far beyond the actions of a few bad actors,” they add. “In an information environment characterized by high volumes of information and limited levels of user attention and trust, the tools and techniques of computational propaganda are becoming a common – and arguably essential – part of digital campaigning and public diplomacy.”

Organised social media manipulation campaigns are now prevalent in 70 countries around world, (more than doubling from 28 in 2017) finds latest @oiioxford @polbots report #cypbertroops2019 https://t.co/pZ7TgAo73t pic.twitter.com/L0er8bKpfK

— Oxford Internet Institute (@oiioxford) September 26, 2019

Techniques the researchers found being deployed by governments and political parties to spread political propaganda include the use of bots to amplify hate speech or other forms of manipulated content; the illegal harvesting of data or micro-targeting; and the use of armies of ‘trolls’ to bully or harass political dissidents or journalists online.

The researchers looked at computational propaganda activity in 70 countries around the world — including the US, the UK, Germany, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and Australia (see the end of this article for the full list) — finding organized social media manipulation in all of them.

So next time Facebook puts out another press release detailing a bit of “coordinated inauthentic behavior” it claims to have found and removed from its platform, it’s important to put it in context of the bigger picture. And the picture painted by this report suggests that such small-scale, selective discloses of propaganda-quashing successes sum to misleading Facebook PR vs the sheer scale of the problem.

The problem is massive, global and largely taking place through Facebook’s funnel, per the report.

Facebook remains the platform of choice for social media manipulation — with researchers finding evidence of formally organised political disops campaigns on its platform taking place in 56 countries.

We reached out to Facebook for a response to the report and the company sent us a laundry list of steps it says it’s been taking to combat election interference and coordinated inauthentic activity — including in areas such as voter suppression, political ad transparency and industry-civil society partnerships.

But it did not offer any explanation why all this apparent effort (just its summary of what it’s been doing exceeds 1,600 words) has so spectacularly failed to stem the rising tide of political fakes being amplified via Facebook.

Instead it sent us this statement: “Helping show people accurate information and protecting against harm is a major priority for us. We’ve developed smarter tools, greater transparency, and stronger partnerships to better identify emerging threats, stop bad actors, and reduce the spread of misinformation on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. We also know that this work is never finished and we can’t do this alone. That’s why we are working with policymakers, academics, and outside experts to make sure we continue to improve.”

We followed up to ask why all its efforts have so far failed to reduce fake activity on its platform and will update this report with any response.

Returning to the report, the researchers say China has entered the global disinformation fray in a big way — using social media platforms to target international audiences with disinformation, something the country has long directed at its domestic population of course.

The report describes China as “a major player in the global disinformation order”.

It also warns that the use of computational propaganda techniques combined with tech-enabled surveillance is providing authoritarian regimes around the world with the means to extend their control of citizens’ lives.

“The co-option of social media technologies provides authoritarian regimes with a powerful tool to shape public discussions and spread propaganda online, while simultaneously surveilling, censoring, and restricting digital public spaces,” the researchers write.

Other key findings from the report include that both democracies and authoritarian states are making (il)liberal use of computational propaganda tools and techniques.

Per the report:

In 45 democracies, politicians and political parties “have used computational propaganda tools by amassing fake followers or spreading manipulated media to garner voter support”

In 26 authoritarian states, government entities “have used computational propaganda as a tool of information control to suppress public opinion and press freedom, discredit criticism and oppositional voices, and drown out political dissent”

The report also identifies seven “sophisticated state actors” — China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela — using what it calls “cyber troops” (aka dedicated online workers whose job is to use computational propaganda tools to manipulate public opinion) to run foreign influence campaigns.

Foreign influence operations — which includes election interference — were found by the researchers to primarily be taking place on Facebook and Twitter.

We’ve reached out to Twitter for comment and will update this article with any response.

A year ago, when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was questioned by the Senate Intelligence Committee, he said it was considering labelling bot accounts on its platform — agreeing that “more context” around tweets and accounts would be a good thing, while also arguing that identifying automation that’s scripted to look like a human is difficult.

Instead of adding a ‘bot or not’ label, Twitter has just launched a ‘hide replies’ feature — which lets users screen individual replies to their tweets (requiring an affirmative action from viewers to unhide and be able to view any hidden replies). Twitter says this is intended at increasing civility on the platform. But there have been concerns the feature could be abused to help propaganda spreaders — i.e. by allowing them to suppress replies that debunk their junk.

The Oxford Internet Institute researchers found bot accounts are very widely used to spread political propaganda (80% of countries studied used them). However the use of human agents was even more prevalent (87% of countries).

Bot-human blended accounts, which combine automation with human curation in an attempt to fly under the BS detector radar, were much rarer: Identified in 11% of countries.

While hacked or stolen accounts were found being used in just 7% of countries.

In another key finding from the report, the researchers identified 25 countries working with private companies or strategic communications firms offering a computational propaganda as a service, noting that: “In some cases, like in Azerbaijan, Israel, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, student or youth groups are hired by government agencies to use computational propaganda.”

Commenting on the report in a statement, professor Philip Howard, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, said: “The manipulation of public opinion over social media remains a critical threat to democracy, as computational propaganda becomes a pervasive part of everyday life. Government agencies and political parties around the world are using social media to spread disinformation and other forms of manipulated media. Although propaganda has always been a part of politics, the wide-ranging scope of these campaigns raises critical concerns for modern democracy.”

Samantha Bradshaw, researcher and lead author of the report, added: “The affordances of social networking technologies — algorithms, automation and big data — vastly changes the scale, scope, and precision of how information is transmitted in the digital age. Although social media was once heralded as a force for freedom and democracy, it has increasingly come under scrutiny for its role in amplifying disinformation, inciting violence, and lowering trust in the media and democratic institutions.”

Other findings from the report include that:

52 countries used “disinformation and media manipulation” to mislead users

47 countries used state sponsored trolls to attack political opponents or activists, up from 27 last year

Which backs up the widespread sense in some Western democracies that political discourse has been getting less truthful and more toxic for a number of years — given tactics that amplify disinformation and target harassment at political opponents are indeed thriving on social media, per the report.

. @facebook hard at work 'Connecting people' https://t.co/GtIOXa1X2q

— Natasha (@riptari) September 24, 2019

Despite finding an alarming rise in the number of government actors across the globe who are misappropriating powerful social media platforms and other tech tools to influence public attitudes and try to disrupt elections, Howard said the researchers remain optimistic that social media can be “a force for good” — by “creating a space for public deliberation and democracy to flourish”.

“A strong democracy requires access to high quality information and an ability for citizens to come together to debate, discuss, deliberate, empathise and make concessions,” he said.

Clearly, though, there’s a stark risk of high quality information being drowned out by the tsunami of BS that’s being paid for by self-interested political actors. It’s also of course much cheaper to produce BS political propaganda than carry out investigative journalism.

Democracy needs a free press to function but the press itself is also under assault from online ad giants that have disrupted its business model by being able to spread and monetize any old junk content. If you want a perfect storm hammering democracy this most certainly is it.

It’s therefore imperative for democratic states to arm their citizens with education and awareness to enable them to think critically about the junk being pushed at them online. But as we’ve said before, there are no shortcuts to universal education.

Meanwhile regulation of social media platforms and/or the use of powerful computational tools and techniques for political purposes simply isn’t there. So there’s no hard check on voter manipulation.

Lawmakers have failed to keep up with the tech-fuelled times. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given how many political parties have their own hands in the data and ad-targeting cookie jar, as well as pushing fakes. (Concerned citizens are advised to practise good digital privacy hygiene to fight back against undemocratic attempts to hack public opinion. More privacy tips here.)

The researchers say their 2019 report, which is based on research work carried out between 2018 and 2019, draws upon a four-step methodology to identify evidence of globally organised manipulation campaigns — including a systematic content analysis of news articles on cyber troop activity and a secondary literature review of public archives and scientific reports, generating country specific case studies and expert consultations.

Here’s the full list of countries studied:

Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Myanmar, Netherlands, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2nwcCED via IFTTT

#IFTTT #iraidajzsmmwtv

0 notes

technicalsolutions88 · 5 years

Link

“Although propaganda has always been a part of political discourse, the deep and wide-ranging scope of these campaigns raise critical public interest concerns,” the report warns.

The researchers go on to dub the global uptake of computational propaganda tools and techniques a “critical threat” to democracies.

— Oxford Internet Institute (@oiioxford) September 26, 2019

The problem is massive, global and largely taking place through Facebook’s funnel, per the report.

We followed up to ask why all its efforts have so far failed to reduce fake activity on its platform and will update this report with any response.

The report describes China as “a major player in the global disinformation order”.

Other key findings from the report include that both democracies and authoritarian states are making (il)liberal use of computational propaganda tools and techniques.

Per the report:

In 45 democracies, politicians and political parties “have used computational propaganda tools by amassing fake followers or spreading manipulated media to garner voter support”

Foreign influence operations — which includes election interference — were found by the researchers to primarily be taking place on Facebook and Twitter.

We’ve reached out to Twitter for comment and will update this article with any response.

Bot-human blended accounts, which combine automation with human curation in an attempt to fly under the BS detector radar, were much rarer: Identified in 11% of countries.

While hacked or stolen accounts were found being used in just 7% of countries.

Other findings from the report include that:

52 countries used “disinformation and media manipulation” to mislead users

47 countries used state sponsored trolls to attack political opponents or activists, up from 27 last year

. @facebook hard at work 'Connecting people' https://t.co/GtIOXa1X2q

— Natasha (@riptari) September 24, 2019

“A strong democracy requires access to high quality information and an ability for citizens to come together to debate, discuss, deliberate, empathise and make concessions,” he said.

Here’s the full list of countries studied:

from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/2nwcCED Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com

#Technical Solutions #SEO #Online Earning #Youtube Marketing #Android Developer

0 notes

terabitweb · 5 years

Text

Original Post from SC Magazine Author: Doug Olenick

No doubt about it, these women, with their diverse backgrounds and different career trajectories, are powerhouses in the cybersecurity field.

Dawn Beyer senior fellow, Lockheed Martin

Dawn Beyer didn’t know it when she left her Florida home at age 17 some 30 years ago to go into the Air Force, but she was about to embark on a long career in the military, intelligence and cyber.

Over a 24-year career in the Air Force, Beyer says the military helped pay for four degrees, culminating with a doctorate in information systems from Nova Southeastern University.

Beyer says her first job in security was as a terminal area security officer where there might be an office of 10 people and only one or two desktop computers available to the staff. She says the job mostly entailed running checklist items, but gave her a background in IT security that the military put to work for more than two decades.

“I had experience in IT security, and was also trained to handle sensitive information, which fit in well with my work in IT,” Beyer says.

Then in 1998 there was a security event with an advanced persistent threat (APT) involving a nation-state that heightened Beyer’s interest and awareness in security. From that point, Beyer recognized how important the field was becoming and how important it was to national defense.

When asked about being a women in a male-dominated field, she says for most of her career, she would go into a meeting thinking about the points she wanted to make in a meeting – and never noticed that the room was all men.

“Some of my best supervisors were men. They would always support my goals and would let me work on the type of projects I was interested in,” she says.

Then in the past year Beyer was in a meeting with one of her leaders and was asked how many women participated in a recent cyber event. She said that there was only one.

“From that point on I made it more of a goal to help women work through the challenges of working in a male-dominated field,” Beyer says. “In many ways it’s not about a women’s technical capabilities, they are often brilliant. The best thing we can do is encourage women to take risks in their careers and build up their confidence.”

Beyer says Lockheed Martin works closely with local high schools, community colleges and universities to attract women into the IT and cybersecurity fields. She tries to expose interested candidates to the broad number of opportunities in cybersecurity. Beyer says many people assume cybersecurity personnel work mainly on incident response, but there are many jobs in the field, including analysts in a security intelligence center, threat research, forensics, embedded security, privacy and risk analysis and management.

“People are often limited about what they know about the field,” Beyer says. “But once I point out all the possibilities, they often say they didn’t realize cybersecurity was so broad.” – Steve Zurier

Jadee Hanson CISO, vice president of information systems, Code42

Jadee Hanson’s cybersecurity bonafides are clearly recognizable – CISO at Code42, Target’s senior director of information security – but it’s the numerous activities in which Hanson is involved that push her to Power Player status.

In her role at Code42, Hanson serves as a mentor and advocate for women, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. She often participates in speaking with local security groups on the issue of boosting the role of women in security and discusses the issue in outlets like WeAreTheCity. This organization was started in 2008 as a centralized site that houses a multitude of career development resources helping women gain new skills, grow their networks and ultimately progress in their careers, including cybersecurity.

“Jadee is not only committed to putting the protection of our customers’ data first, but is also an advocate for women in technology and drawing on diverse viewpoints to solve business challenges,” says Joe Payne, Code42’s president and CEO.

Hanson was behind having Code42 work with the Girl Scouts. In the past year Code42 has hosted two events with the Girl Scouts at which more than 150 girls earned STEM and Cybersecurity badges.

“We have to start encouraging participation at the next generation of workers. One of the ways we do this at Code42 is through a partnership with Girl Scouts. We house Girl Scouts here to get their STEM Badge or Cybersecurity Badge. In fact, we’re the first company within the River Valley region of Girl Scouts to host the Cybersecurity Badge. They’re not all going to choose a career in cybersecurity, but the thing that we’re trying to do is make sure that the younger generation knows and believes that if they do want to choose this career path, there’s a place for them,” Hanson said in a GRA Quantum article.

“The active role Jadee takes in developing her team, supporting professional networks and championing educational events with children is paving the way for women to make a bigger impact on the security industry in the future,” Code42 said about her actions.

In addition to numerous extracurricular efforts to boost the number of women in security, Hanson has also worked tirelessly internally to improve her Code42 team. This includes crafting a vision statement for the security department with a philosophy that the team should be a collaborative service organization that enables innovation rather than a mysterious, feared entity – one that says yes instead of no.

Hanson’s efforts to help others also extends outside the tech field. She is the founder of Building Without Borders, a non-profit started in 2015 with the mission to serve those in poverty-stricken locations around the world through housing services. Since April 2015 it has built 42 homes in the poorest areas of the Dominican Republic. – Doug Olenick

Priscilla Moriuchi director of strategic threat development, Recorded Future

Asia is home to some of the world’s most sophisticated state-sponsored hacking groups, but just because they share a continent doesn’t mean they operate by the same playbook.

That’s what makes Priscilla Moriuchi’s expertise so valuable: she has that unique combination of government background, cybersecurity knowledge, and geo-political experience that allows her to develop a keen understanding of foreign cyber operations.

As director of strategic threat development at cybersecurity company Recorded Future, Moriuchi serves as a preeminent expert on Asian cyber activity, with in-depth knowledge of China and North Korea. Moriuchi joined Recorded Future in April 2017 after spending 12 years at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), most recently as its enduring threat manager, leading the agency’s East Asia cyber threats office. Among her responsibilities at the time was assessing whether China was adhering to its 2015 agreement to refrain from stealing intellectual property and trade secrets from U.S. corporate firms.

Earlier this year, Moriuchi authored a paper released during the annual RSA show revealing how China exploits social media platforms to sway the opinions of Westerners and portray China in a more sympathetic light. According to the report, Chinese state-run news agencies use social media to spread biased, English-language content that favors China’s stance on global issues such as the ongoing trade war with America.

As part of Recorded Future’s Insikt Group research team, Moriuchi has also recently investigated how China and Russia manage their respective national vulnerability databases. The team found that China is on average much faster than the U.S. at reporting the latest confirmed product vulnerabilities in its National Vulnerability Database (CCNVD). However, Recorded Future also accused China of manipulating CCNVD records to cover up evidence that the Ministry of State Security withheld public disclosure of certain vulnerabilities while it evaluated the viability of exploiting them in offensive cyber operations.

Meanwhile, research into Russia’s vulnerability database, the BDU, found it to be far less comprehensive than its American counterpart, omitting many critical bugs while focusing heavily on flaws that appear to be specifically relevant to Russian state information systems.

Moriuchi also collaborated on research into the digital behavior of North Korea’s most senior leadership. The investigation revealed that the country’s ruling elite are technologically savvy and use the internet to circumvent international sanctions, as well as generate revenue through means such as cryptocurrency theft.

Moriuchi has become a prominent voice in the cyber industry, speaking out on the need to recruit more women as skilled talent, while openly acknowledging the challenges these women can face when entering the field. – Bradley Barth

Eve Maler vice president of innovation and emerging technology, ForgeRock

A strategist and innovator in the digital identity, security and privacy space, Eve Maler has been assigned quite a few of her own “digital identities” over an accomplished 34-year career.

For starters, she earned the nickname “XMLgrrl” for her work as a co-creator of Extensible Markup Language (XML), which debuted in the late 1990s. She was later called “SAML Lady” for her role in the invention of the Security Assertion Markup Language standard for exchanging authentication and authorization data between parties.

And she has referred to herself as “chief UMAnitarian” for founding and leading the User Managed Access Work Group that’s been developing UMA, an OAuth-based access management protocol standard. The group operates under the auspices of the non-profit Kantara Initiative, whose website describes the group’s mission as developing “specs that let an individual control the authorization of data sharing and service access made between online services on the individual’s behalf, and to facilitate interoperable implementations of the specs.”

Currently vice president of innovation and emerging technology at identity and access management provider ForgeRock, Maler drives advances in privacy and consent that enable user-controlled and compliant data sharing across web, mobile, and Internet of Things contexts.

She also directs the company’s engagement in interoperability standards such as Health Relationship Trust (HEART), which is a set of profiles that gives health care patients the power to specify how, when, and with whom their clinical data is shared. In fact, Maler co-founded and co-chairs the OpenID Foundation’s Health Relationship Trust Work Group.

Additionally, she serves as a trusted advisor to public and private forums specializing in key initiatives such as open banking, which requires strong authentication protocols.

Prior to ForgeRock, Maler was a principal analyst at Forrester Research, where she consulted with clients on such topics as emerging identity and security solutions, consumer-facing identity, distributed authorization, privacy enhancement and API security. Before that, she was named distinguished engineer of identity services at PayPal, which followed a long stint with Sun Microsystems, where she served as technology director and XML standards architect. Other key stops along her journey included Arbortext and Digital Equipment Corporation.

“Even is an extremely bright and quick technologist with deep insight into standards and politics surrounding them,” said Gerald Beuchelt, CISO at LogMein, in a recommendation posted on Maler’s LinkedIn page.

“I consider her to be one of the leading figures in user-centric identity, having contributed to many internet standards, adds John Bradley, senior architect at Yubico, in another recommendation. – Bradley Barth

Lisa Monaco partner, O’Melveny

Two years ago at the Council on Foreign Relations, Lisa Monaco, then counterterrorism advisor to President Obama, called out compromised data integrity as a serious threat going forward and stressed that the U.S. was open to using every tool in its arsenal to battle nation-state cyberinterference, noting the country just need to be nimbler and quicker on the draw.

Well-known for her work with the White House and as the assistant attorney general for mational security in the Justice Department, Monaco regularly drew praise for making cybersecurity a priority, including her leadership in the U.S.’s response to a number of security risks, cyber and otherwise, both domestically and internationally.

As the chair for the Homeland Security Principals Committee, she helped develop and coordinate policy and response to cyber threats, terror attacks and other crises. Her latest gig as a partner with O’Melveny, heading the Data Security and Privacy group with partner Steve Bunnell, leverages her 15 years of experience at Justice and stint in the Obama administration to guide clients through security-related sensitive governance, legal, regulatory and policy concerns.

A Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University Law School and at NYU’s Center on Cybersecurity, Monaco also serves as co-chair for the Aspen Institute’s Cybersecurity Group, a public-private forum that includes industry leaders, former government officials, Capitol Hill leaders, and members of academia and journalism aimed at bringing cybersecurity to the forefront and putting action to words.

She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center on Science and International Affairs and a senior national security analyst at CNN.

After graduating Harvard and the University of Chicago Law School, Monaco clerked for Judge Jane R. Roth on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Her dedication to public service has garnered her a number of awards, including the Justice Department’s highest hone – the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service – as well as the Edmund J. Randolph Award, which recognizes outstanding contributions to the department. – Teri Robinson

Malini Rao vice president, information security, Deutsche Bank

With more than 18 years in cybersecurity, Malini Rao has extensive experience and expertise working globally for Fortune 500 clients in various areas of cybersecurity such as application security, cloud security, DevSecOps, security operations, governance, risk and compliance management, cyber risk management, IOT security and identity and access management.

Malini has managed large multimillion dollar projects and large teams globally. She has rich experience working in various industry verticals like financial services, retail, consumer goods, energy as well as for oil and gas industry clients globally. She has worked as a program manager, CISO and a global practice head in the various roles she has taken on over the years. – Teri Robinson

Lisa J. Sotto managing partner, New York office, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

In the 20 years since Lisa Sotto started building what eventually became the storied privacy and cybersecurity practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth, she’s helped prominent clients like Hudson’s Bay Company and Yahoo! navigate thorny privacy issues as they try to recover from massive breaches.

Sotto’s influence has been felt on boards around the country and across industry sectors that she advised on information governance issues surrounding privacy and safeguarding data. She’s worked side by side with organizations to develop and enhance formal privacy programs compliant with an array of legal and regulatory requirements worldwide, encompassing technologies such as facial recognition, wearables, retail tracking and geolocation as they emerge.

Sotto spent the better part of 2018 preparing more than 50 U.S.-based multinational clients like PepsiCo, Tiffany & Co., The Western Union Company and Proctor & Gamble to meet GDPR requirements, which took effect in May 2018. Her more recent work included helping organizations like Verisk and Rite Aid comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 by its January 1, 2020 deadline.

In 2017, she was tapped by the U.S. Department of Commerce to aid in its first joint review with the European Commission (EC) of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework for data protection compliance. Sotto brought her voluminous expertise to bear during testimony before the EC, various U.S. regulatory agencies and several EU Data Protection Agencies (DPAs).

For the Judicial Reform and Government Accountability Project funded by USAID, Sotto advised the Serbian government on the legalities of global data protection and has been invited by other governments in China, Thailand and Myanmar to inform them on global privacy and data security law. She is currently working on Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand’s lawyers’ committee and has briefed candidate Pete Buttigieg on privacy and security issues.

For the past 13 years she has been a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, where she is now the chairman. Sotto has worked closely with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on its global data breach notification laws report – she and FTCD Chairman Noah Phillips presented the report in Brussels last October.

She is also editor and lead author of the best-selling Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Deskbook, a treatise to guide those tasked with managing privacy and cybersecurity law issues. The book includes a roadmap for compliance with global data protection laws as well as state breach notification requirements. – Teri Robinson

The post Women in Security: PowerPlayers appeared first on SC Media.

#gallery-0-6 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-6 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-6 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-6 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Go to Source Author: Doug Olenick Women in Security: PowerPlayers Original Post from SC Magazine Author: Doug Olenick No doubt about it, these women, with their diverse backgrounds and different career trajectories, are powerhouses in the cybersecurity field.

#SC Magazine

0 notes

mideastsoccer · 6 years

Text

Players’ Skewed Maps complicate Eurasia’s 21st Century Great Game

By James M. Dorsey

A podcast version of this story is available on Soundcloud, Itunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn and Tumblr.

The United States and China are playing Eurasia’s 21st century Great Game from different but equally skewed maps. While the US map appears to be outdated, the Chinese map portrays a reality that is imagined.

If the skewed realities of both China and the United States have one thing in common, it is in strategist Parag Khanna’s mind the fact that neither realizes that the Great Game’s prize, a new world order, has already been determined.

“We are living – for the first time ever -- in a truly multipolar and multicivilizational order in which North America, Europe and Asia each represents a major share of power,” Mr. Khanna says in his just published book, The Future is Asian.

While the United States sees the Great Game as an as yet open-ended battle for influence in Europe and Asia and looks at Russia as a European rather than a Eurasian power, China overestimates what its future position, aided by its US$1 trillion infrastructure and energy-driven Belt and Road initiative, is likely to be.

The skewed perceptions of both the United States and China create spaces for multiple other powers like Russia and various Middle Eastern states to carve out positions of their own.

China, nonetheless, alongside Russia has one advantage. In contrast, to the United States, it adopts the notion put forward by former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macias that the number of the world’s continents is shrinking from seven to six. Increasingly, Europe and Asia no longer see their common landmass as two separate continents and are gravitating towards what Mr. Macias calls a “supercontinent.”

Mr. Khanna implicitly acknowledges Mr. Macias’ notion by concluding that contrary to perceived Chinese expectations “ultimately, China’s position will be not of an Asian or global hegemon but rather of the eastern anchor of the Asian – and Eurasian – mega-system.”

China’s perceived other advantage, its economic and financial muscle, in the juggling for position on the new supercontinent is also proving to be its Achilles Heel.

The belief that the driver of the Belt and Road is geopolitics rather than economics is bolstered by predictions that none of China’s Indian Ocean port projects have much hope of financial success.

A Financial Times study last year concluded that 78 countries targeted by China for project development are among the world’s most risky economies. On a scale of one to seven, the highest level of country risk, Belt and Road countries ranked 5.2, a significantly higher risk than the 3.5 average for emerging markets. They had a median rating by Moody’s, the credit rating agency, that was the equivalent of non-investment junk investment grade.

The risk was reflected on the balance sheets of major Chinese state-owned companies that build, operate and invest in many Belt and Road projects. The study reported that China’s top internationally active construction and engineering contractors were almost four times more highly leveraged than their non-Chinese competitors.

In a bid to avert a financial crisis, the government has ordered state-owned companies to reduce their debt burden, in part by attributing greater importance to the viability of overseas projects.

The risk to China is not purely economic. It is also geopolitical and reputational. Increasingly, China is forced to focus short term less on the Great Game itself and more on countering the negative effect of a growing perception that China’s projection of the Belt and Road as a mutually beneficial proposition is more fantasy than fact.

A growing number of countries, like Pakistan, Malaysia, Myanmar and Nepal, question the benefits of Belt and Road projects and are resisting China’s often onerous commercial and funding terms.

Ironically, China’s immediate rivals in efforts to maintain its status and ensure that it does not lose hard-won ground are not the United States, India or Japan but its newly assertive, geopolitically ambitious friends in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as Iran.

That is nowhere truer than in Pakistan, a Belt and Road crown jewel, where Saudi Arabia and the UAE have exploited to their advantage Chinese irritation with Pakistani demands to shift the emphasis of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from infrastructure and energy to agriculture, job creation and the enabling of third-party investment, primarily from countries in the Gulf.

Chinese chagrin has been evident in China’s hesitancy to respond to Pakistani requests for help in averting a financial crisis.

Filling the gap, massive Saudi and UAE aid and investment to the tune of US$30 billion in balance of payment support, deferred oil import payments and investment in the troubled Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders Iran has helped the government of Imran Khan avoid asking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cap in hand to bail it out.

China fears that Pakistan’s mounting dependence on Saudi Arabia and the UAE coupled with a US campaign intended to curb Iran’s regional projection potentially complicates the security of its massive US$45 billion plus investment that to a large extent targets Balochistan.

The United States and Saudi Arabia see Balochistan as a possible launching pad for possible efforts to destabilize the Islamic republic by stirring unrest among its Baloch population and other ethnic minorities.

Increased Saudi and UAE influence in Balochistan could, moreover, suck China into the escalating maelstrom of the two countries’ rivalry with Iran.

Ironically, Saudi and UAE investment has at the same time shielded China from potentially embarrassing disclosure of the financial terms of CPEC-related projects that the IMF was demanding as part of any bailout. Media reports said that Pakistan had informally told the IMF that it would be paying China US$40 billion over 20 years for US$26.5 billion in Chinese funding of CPEC-related projects.

The impact of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, like much of the rest of the Middle East, goes far beyond Balochistan. It also puts its mark elsewhere on the Eurasian supercontinent. In the words of analyst Galip Dalay, the Middle East or West Asia will, for better or for worse, shape each other.

“The contemporary Middle East is no longer the geopolitically US-centric space that the Europeans once knew. Europe can respond in several ways: proceed with its largely ad-hoc, incoherent and crisis-driven policies of recent years; continue to be incorporated into someone else's game plan, as with the French-German involvement in the Russian-led Astana (peace) process for Syria; or craft a more coherent policy towards the region, with a strong emphasis on democratisation, reform, good governance, inclusion and reconciliation… If Europe doesn’t engage and invest in the transformation of the Middle East, regional developments will dramatically transform it, whether through radicalism, refugees, terrorism, xenophobia or populism. Interactions between Europe and the Middle East will be transformative, for better or for worse.,” Mr. Dalay said.

The Middle East is similarly crucial to the success of China’s Belt and Road with Iran and Turkey representing key nodes that further the rise of Eurasia through Chinese-funded rails that link the Atlantic coast of Europe to the People’s Republic.

The Middle East’s impact is one facet of a bigger game in which world and regional powers are competing for position in Mr. Khanna’s multipolar and multicivilizational order.

Robert Malley, a former Obama National Security Council official and head of the International Crisis Group argues that autocratic and authoritarian leaders are testing the limits of the Great Game as the power of Western nations erodes and embattled concepts of multilateralism no longer serve to constrain them.

“As the era of largely uncontested U.S. primacy fades, the international order has been thrown into turmoil. More leaders are tempted more often to test limits, jostle for power, and seek to bolster their influence—or diminish that of their rivals—by meddling in foreign conflicts… Having annexed parts of Georgia and Crimea and stoked separatist violence in Ukraine’s Donbass region, Russia is now throwing its weight around in the Sea of Azov, poisoning dissidents in the United Kingdom, and subverting Western democracies with cyberwarfare. China obstructs freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens… Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Malley said.

By implication, Mr. Malley was suggesting that efforts to push the envelope were enabled by the US’ failure to recognize that Europe and Asia were becoming one supercontinent.

That failure was mirrored in the U.S. National Security Strategy published in 2017 by the White House and a study by Rand Corporation in 2018 designed to conceptualize current geopolitics as an era of intensifying international competition.

Rather than recognizing an increasingly evident divergence of interests between the United States and Europe, the study suggested that the US would continue to have the opportunity, if it chooses, to lead a predominant coalition of value-sharing democracies and other largely status quo states to help preserve stability.”

The study appeared to downplay any divergence by reducing differences to “identity-fuelled nationalism” that aims to recapture (countries’) “rightful place” in world politics,” a reference to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as well as European nations grappling with the rise of nationalist, populist and far-right forces and a Middle East that is shaping Europe through highly emotive issues such as migration, political violence and religious identity.

The US focus on Russia as a European rather than a regional power with global ambitions also means that it underestimates Moscow’s play in the Middle East despite its military intervention in Syria.

Russia national security scholar Stephen Blank argues that President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in the region is rooted in the thinking of Yevgeny Primakov, a Middle East expert and linguist and former spymaster, foreign minister and deputy prime minister, who like Mr. Khanna envisioned the emergence of a multi-polar, multi-civilizational world with Eurasia at its centre.

Mr. Primakov saw the Middle East as a key arena for countering the United States that would enable Russia, weakened by the demise of the Soviet Union and a subsequent economic crisis, to regain its status as a global and regional power and ensure that it would be one pole in a multi-polar world.

By identifying the region as a preferred battleground, Russia benefitted in the words of historian Niall Ferguson from the fact that its significant oil reserves made it “the only power that has no vested interest in stability in the Middle East.”

Mr. Blank argued that “in order to reassert Russia’s greatness, Primakov and Putin aimed ultimately at strategic denial, denying Washington sole possession of a dominant role in the Middle East from where US influence could expand to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),” a regional grouping of post-Soviet nations.

They believed that if Russia succeeded it would force the United States to concede multi-polarity and grant Russia the recognition it deserves. That, in turn, would allow Mr. Putin to demonstrate to the Russian elite his ability to restore Russia to great power status.

Syria offered Russia the opportunity to display its military prowess without the United States challenging the move. At the same time, Russia leveraged its political and economic clout to forge an alliance with Turkey and partner with Iran. The approach constituted an effort to defang Turkish and Iranian influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Similarly, Russia after brutally repressing religiously inspired Chechen rebels in the 1990s, was proving to be far defter than either China or the United States at promoting politically pacifist or apolitical Islam in a complex game of playing all sides against the middle.

Russian engagement runs the gamut from engaging with militants to cooperating with Muslim autocrats to encouraging condemnation of the kind of Islam adopted by partners such as Saudi Arabia.

Said Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and a former Russian military officer: “Russia is not the Soviet Union. It does not see the Middle East as a region that it can dominate. Displacing the United States from the leading position in the Middle East is way above Russia’s capacity, and keeping the region in its sphere of influence is way above Russia’s resources. Russia has certainly benefited from waning U.S. interest in the Middle East as, absent an active America, Russia can act with more confidence and ease.”

Describing Russia as “a lonely power,” Mr. Trenin went on to say that the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union was that the “Soviet Union was heavily engaged around the Middle East in spending money on an ideological and geopolitical project, the Russian Federation is active in the region trying to make money. The Soviet Union was about an idea. Russia’s idea is about Russia itself.”

In the Great Game’s jostling for position, Mr. Trump’s America First approach mirrors Mr. Trenin’s portrayal of Russian policy. That leaves China tied up in the contradictions of a policy that is packaged in assertions of lofty ideals but like the United States and Russia is in effect first and foremost about the pursuit of Chinese interests.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa and recently published China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom

#China (PRC)#china #United States #Trump #Russia #putin #europe #pakistan #saudi #saudi arabia #uae #Belt and Road Initiative

0 notes

strategyr-blog · 6 years

Text

The Global Market for Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services is Projected to Reach US$643 Billion by 2024

Strong Demand from Telecommunications and Consumer Electronics Sectors to Drive the Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services Market, According to a New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

GIA launches comprehensive analysis of industry segments, trends, growth drivers, market share, size and demand forecasts on the global Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services market. The global market for Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services is projected to reach US$643 billion by 2024, driven by rapid rise in demand for consumer electronics, digital and smart TVs, smartphones, and wireless Internet enabled devices.

Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services (ECMS) market includes companies engaged in providing manufacturing services to various OEMs around the world. Over a period of time, electronic manufacturing services (EMS) companies were able to broaden the spectrum of services - from simple manufacturing of components, to more complex manufacturing services, thus leading to increased number of OEM’s outsourcing much of their manufacturing. Growing trend by OEM’s to outsource manufacturing led to the development of a new industry model altogether, called the original design manufacturers (ODMs). The overall EMS industry, including ODM firms, posted sizable growth over the years due to rapid consolidation among the bigger EMS firms, grabbing newer markets and faster adoption of changes in the market place. With computers & peripherals representing the largest manufactured products market for the industry in the recent past, the rapid decline in desktop & notebook market and the corresponding rise of smart devices such as tablets and smartphones, prompted realignment of manufacturing towards tablet and smartphones. Companies from Asia-Pacific such as Taiwan and China provide design and production outsourced services at lower costs. Given the rising environmental consciousness, vendors are focusing on green production practices and technologies.

With electronics manufacturing industry constantly evolving, the electronics manufacturing management technology of the future is expected to be significantly different in comparison to its existing counterpart. Complex manufacturing environments find themselves converting into huge autonomous machines, where the ease of operating a shop floor would be comparable with that of operating a dedicated machinery in which inputs and outputs alone matter. Going forward, electronics production management technology is expected to take the form of virtual factories, which, while located in economically viable locations, would leverage the Internet to enable management of production from virtually anywhere. Thus, companies, as well as private users, hosting or renting virtual manufacturing services would be able to manage the services remotely. In the past few years, rising penetration of mobile devices such as smartphones has been driving gains in the market. However, the market is facing pressures due to technology obsolescence, and in-house production. Increasing outsourcing trends in the other end-use segment constituting defense, automotive, medical devices and other non-technical segments are likely to augment their market positions in the forthcoming years. In the automotive sector, electric vehicles are rising in demand, which is fueling the requirement of contract manufacturing services in this industry. Similarly in the healthcare sector, electronic contract manufacturing services are registering growth, for offering medical hardware, given that developing countries are increasingly purchasing medical equipment and are focusing on improving health facilities and infrastructure. The rising focus on optimizing resources is the main factor supporting demand for EMS in various end-use sectors.

As stated by the new market research report on Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services, Asia-Pacific represents the largest regional market worldwide. Low labor costs, availability of large intellectual pool and favorable government policies have been successful in attracting major EMS and ODM firms to the region. The region also ranks as the fastest growing market with a CAGR of 7.6% over the analysis period. Owing to the significantly lower costs of manufacturing juxtaposed to developed markets such as Europe and North America, Asia has over the last few decades emerged as the focal point of all EMS manufacturing activity, with majority of it being based in Taiwan.

Major players in the market include Altadox, Inc., Benchmark Electronics, Inc., Celestica, Inc., Compal Electronics, Inc., Delta Group Electronics, Inc., Fabrinet, Flexcom Inc., Flextronics International, Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., KeyTronicEMS, Kimball Electronics, Inc., Plexus Corp., Sparton Corp., TPV Technology Ltd., and TT Electronics plc, among others.

The research report titled “Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services: A Global Strategic Business Report” announced by Global Industry Analysts Inc., provides a comprehensive review of market trends, growth drivers, challenges, mergers, acquisitions and other key strategic corporate developments of major companies worldwide. The report provides revenue estimates and projections for major geographic markets including the United States, Canada, Japan, Europe (France, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain, Russia, and Rest of Europe), Asia-Pacific (China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Rest of Asia-Pacific), Latin America (Brazil, and Rest of Latin America) and Rest of World. End-use markets analyzed include Consumer Electronics, Computers & Peripherals, Telecommunications, Industrial Electronics and Other End-Use Segments.

For enquiries e-mail us at [email protected] or [email protected]. To connect with us, visit our LinkedIn page.

#Electronic Contract Manufacturing Services #Services

0 notes

clusterassets · 7 years

Text

New world news from Time: Vladimir Putin Is About to Win a Fourth Term. Here’s What He’s Promised Russia

Rumor has it that Russian President Vladimir Putin struggled mightily to come up with a compelling campaign platform in the runup to Russian elections this weekend—18 years in power can have that effect. But Putin’s trudge towards the polls raises a fascinating question: what do you run on when you’ve already effectively won? Here are the four areas he’s talking about— and what he’s avoiding.

Pledge #1: Raising the living standards of Russian citizens

Like all political candidates up for reelection, Putin’s first order of business is to convince voters that their daily lives have improved under his stewardship. And given that Putin came to power in the late 1990s—when Russia was still struggling (putting it charitably) to transition into a free-market economy—that’s quite easy for Putin to do. Back in 2000, 42 million Russians were living below the poverty line; today, less than 20 million do. Russian life expectancy in 2000 was 65.5 years, today it’s 73. Under Putin, Russia’s minimum wage has also grown substantially and will be raised again on May 1.

These are legitimate wins for Putin. But problems persist—20 million Russians living in poverty is still 20 million too many, and Putin has vowed to bring those numbers down. Raising the minimum wage was a primary focus of Putin’s during his first decade in power, but that too has stagnated in recent years (Kremlin rhetoric aside). And while life expectancy increasingly is unabashedly good news, it means that pensions will need to be paid out for longer—at a time of strapped government finances.

Pledge #2: Keeping unemployment and inflation down

Those strapped finances pose a serious problem for Putin. Back in 2000, Russia’s GDP stood at roughly $260 billion (in current USD); today it’s at about $1.28 trillion, roughly a 5-fold increase. That alone would probably be enough to ensure Putin’s reelection, except for the fact that nearly $1 trillion has been wiped off the headline GDP number since 2013 following the ruble’s devaluation—a result of so much of Russia’s wealth being tied to its vast oil and gas reserves. That was all fine when the price of oil was well north of $100 a barrel; it’s a lot worse when oil prices are mired in the $60 range.

Still, Putin has plenty to tout. Unemployment has fallen from 10.6 percent in 2000 to 5.3 percent today. Perhaps even more significant, inflation—which hit near 21 percent in 2000—has stabilized near a much more manageable 4 percent in 2017. But the problem remains: Russia relies too heavily on gas and oil for its economic performance. The country overall is also too dependent on Moscow for federal funds—in 2017, just 14 of the country’s 83 regional governments gave Moscow more money than they took in subsidies. That’s a problem when you’re building a modern, 21st-century economy—though admittedly less of a problem when you’re building a cult of personality around one leader.

Pledge #3: Restoring Russia’s reputation as a major power

Just as important as those qualitative improvements in Russian lifestyles? Putin’s ability to restore a sense of pride to the Russia people, which hit an (understandable) nadir following the collapse of the USSR. For many Russians, he’s delivered.

Putin’s landgrab of Crimea and support for separatists in the Donbas region of Ukraine took any realistic option of Ukraine joining NATO off the table (if it were ever there)—NATO’s expansion eastward being a major source of anxiety for Russia. Putin’s decision to prop up Bashar Assad in Syria—in the process protecting Russia’s sole deep-water port in the Mediterranean—telegraphed to the world that Russia remains a serious player in the Middle East, and made it impossible to end the war without talking to Moscow. And Russia’s recent forays into election interference has set the entire West on edge, proving Russia is still a geopolitical force to be reckoned with.

But those victories have been costly. Crimea netted Moscow little of concrete strategic value, but has managed to thoroughly enrage an entire generation of young Ukrainians not old enough to really remember USSR life under Moscow’s thumb. Russia’s success in Syria now means it will need to remain there if it wants to preserve its hard-fought gains. Good luck with that. And while ridiculing the West’s faith in democracy may be plenty of fun for Putin at the moment, it’s also been accompanied by sanctions that have taken a real bite out of the Russian economy. They won’t go away anytime soon.

Pledge #4: Making Russia compete with Silicon Valley

Then there’s tech. If you caught Putin’s “state of the federation” speech a couple weeks ago, you may have been surprised to hear Putin talk of an “invincible” nuclear weapon, accompanied by a video simulation that included a shot of warheads heading toward Florida. For Putin, technology and security are intertwined—that makes sense given that from a state perspective, only the military has consistently enjoyed generous government spending and R&D. There was a brief moment in 2009 when Putin’s political stand-in Dmitri Medvedev launched the Skolkovo Innovation Center as an aspirational competitor to Silicon Valley, complete with tax breaks for start-ups. But Skolkovo was a prestige project with limited scope. Russia’s burgeoning tech industry, with competitors to Google like Yandex and well-developed social media, hold promise but must navigate Russia’s difficult business environment. A real focus on technology is not just a luxury in the 21st century, it’s a must-have—especially when 350,000 Russians emigrated from their home country in 2015 alone, a tenfold increase from 2010 figures.

What Putin isn’t talking about

As the half-hearted campaign rounds into its final days, more can actually be gleaned by what Putin hasn’t said on the political trail. He doesn’t talk much about corruption because it remains rampant in the country (Russia ranks 135 on Transparency International’s 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index, tied with Mexico and Honduras). He doesn’t talk all that much about China’s growing influence in the same Eurasian region for which Putin fought so hard for an economic union, a footprint that will only get bigger as Beijing’s ambitious infrastructure One Belt One Road project takes off. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. elections barrels on, and while Putin publicly dismisses the investigation, it may yet provide impetus for even more sanctions.

But the biggest problem Putin faces this week? A decided lack of enthusiasm among the Russian electorate. A year ago Putin was reported to be aiming for a 70/70 split—a 70 percent turnout for the election, with 70 percent of those folks casting a vote for Putin. But it’s highly unlikely that 70 percent of Russians make it to the polling booths — though it is likely that somewhere near 70 percent of those that do will vote for Putin. He may not like it, but he’ll take it—it’s not like he has a lot of options at this point. Then again, neither do the Russian people.

March 16, 2018 at 09:41PM ClusterAssets Inc., https://ClusterAssets.wordpress.com

#Time #world #news #ClusterAssets #ClusterAsset #Cluster Asset Inc.#ClusterAssets Inc.

0 notes

ramialkarmi · 7 years

Text

A billionaire just launched a company to sell hotel reservations in space — and outdo NASA with a 'monster' space station

On Tuesday, hotel billionaire Robert Bigelow announced the launch of Bigelow Space Operations.

The new company will operate inflatable space stations called B330s, which are being developed by Bigelow Aerospace (a space hardware company).

The first two B330 modules are slated for launch in 2021.

BSO is also working with the International Space Station to carry its payloads.

Bigelow hopes to build an inflatable space station more than twice as big as the ISS.

Robert Bigelow, who made his billions from the hotel chain Budget Suites of America, has officially launched a new spaceflight company called Bigelow Space Operations (BSO).

Bigelow, age 72, founded Bigelow Aerospace in 1999. That company develops space hardware and built an inflatable room, called the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module, which NASA attached to the International Space Station in 2016.

But the hotel mogul has grand ambitions to use BSO to commercialize space — and outdo NASA with a "monster" space station.

In 2021, BSO plans to launch two 55-foot-long inflatable modules, called B330-1 and B330-2, that link together to form a private space station. The new company wants to sell time aboard to countries in need of orbital laboratory space, as well as multi-million-dollar reservations to tourists seeking the trip (and hotel stay) of a lifetime.

"These single structures that house humans on a permanent basis will be the largest, most complex structures ever known as stations for human use in space," the company said in a press release.

Bigelow Aerospace will maintain its role developing and making space hardware. Meanwhile, BSO will market its services in low-Earth orbit — a zone about 250 miles above Earth — to nations, corporations, and space tourists.

"From a human-use perspective, we're at the very, very early beginnings of this," Bigelow told reporters during a call on Tuesday.

What Bigelow Space Operations will do

BSO is launching at an unprecedented moment for the space industry.

Over the years, NASA has handed over some control of space and astronaut research time on its space station to commercial companies. President Donald Trump has called for further privatization of the space station and proposed slashing the agency's funding to an all-time low. Trump has also suggested that NASA pull out of the global program roughly three years early, in 2025.

Meanwhile, the cost of access to space is getting cheaper with the advent of new rocket systems. Lead among them is SpaceX's Falcon Heavy, which is now the most powerful operational launcher in the world following its successful test. (The price of a launch on that system undercuts the competition four-fold.)

Bigelow's B330 space station modules can hold about six people. They would launch in a folded-up state, then be inflated with breathable air once deployed into orbit. Their thick white shields, made of impact-absorbing materials, would protect against space debris and radiation.

The units are "so diverse and so large," Bigelow's release said, "that they can accommodate virtually unlimited use almost anywhere." Depending on the prices that SpaceX and other companies charge for flights, the per-passenger cost could be in the "low seven figures" though most likely in the "low eight figures," Bigelow said. (NASA currently pays Russia about $81 million per round-trip to the ISS for its astronauts.)

Bigelow currently has a handful of people staffing BSO, but he expects to hire three to four dozen more this year. By the time the company is ready to send payloads to the ISS, he expects it to have as many as 500 employees working around the globe.

If the B330s prove successful, Bigelow wants to launch something even bigger, with just one rocket: A space station more than 2.4 times the volume of the entire ISS, which took decades to build.

"We call it the Olympus," Bigelow said. "It will weigh about 75-80 metric tonnes on launch. It will be a monster spacecraft by any current standards, and we hope that's something we can be seriously working on over the course of about eight to 10 years."

Reading a fledgling market

Construction of the ISS began in 1998 and is still underway, but the orbital laboratory is supposed to be de-orbited in 2028, after reaching its maximum safe lifespan.

Thus, BSO hopes to attract the same nations that fund the space station today and get them to invest in its newer, privately operated outfit.

The B330s wouldn't have as many restrictions as the ISS, which designates most of its payload capacity to supplies and science experiments. With BSO's space station, corporations and nations could try something more adventurous or zany in orbit.

"As badly as we'd like to open up a Budweiser [distillery] on orbit, I think that's going to have to be deferred to a private-sector-operated station," Bigelow said.

Bigelow is bullish about the potential of the B330s and his new company, but he also expressed concern that demand for his private space station may be weak or nonexistent after the spacecraft are launched.

"There's a real lack of quality data that are telling us, 'here's what you really have globally in terms of a market.' Everybody's been talking about commercial this, commercialize that, and so on. Talk is easy," he said.

What's much more difficult, Bigelow said, is getting "people to fork over their money." To that end, BSO is spending millions to conduct an exhaustive survey by the end of 2018.

"BSO's research this year, I think, is foundational for everyone — for NASA, for our government, for even other competitors to Bigelow, to understand what the hell does a commercial market really look like, on a global basis, once and for all?" he said. "We're going to be spending millions of dollars to try and get to that answer."

Brewing uncertainty in low-Earth orbit

Bigelow said he foresees two major problems for his plans to establish private space hotels and laboratories: China and NASA.

China is a threat because many of the 17 partners behind the $150-billion International Space Station are being "systematically courted" to invest in a new orbital laboratory that China may launch as soon as 2022.

"They're offering very attractive terms and conditions and features that the commercial sector is going to have a horrible time trying to compete with," Bigelow said.

NASA is an issue because, under President Donald Trump's direction, the agency plans to pull out of the ISS in 2025, then invest roughly $3 to $4 billion per year in a deep-space gateway to help astronauts get to the moon and Mars.

"It's going to be a political episode," Bigelow said. "It needs to have a solution that needs to be worked on now in conjunction with the commercial space station players. This is a very serious problem."

The core issue is that NASA has helped fund a nascent industry of private space companies, including SpaceX and Bigelow. It also provided a semi-permanent destination in orbit for the companies to work with: the ISS.

If NASA abandons the ISS for deep-space missions without figuring out new roles for the companies it has invested in, many could be left in the lurch.

"I get an uneasy feeling that there is not a plan, there is not something in place, to actually embrace all of the partners and say, 'we have a future for you,'" Bigelow said. "There needs to be an alternative to them that's attractive, and that needs to be a discussion that is administered by the White House in conjunction with NASA and in conjunction with companies like ourselves."

If there isn't a plan, and BSO's research finds a stagnant market, Bigelow said he may keep the B330s on Earth indefinitely.

"We would pause, after developing two or three 330s, and they would be sitting on the ground, waiting for deployment if, in fact, the business simply wasn't there," Bigelow said, adding, "that would kind of be the worst-case scenario."

SEE ALSO: 25 photos that prove we're all stowaways on a tiny, fragile spaceship

DON'T MISS: Astronauts may soon have no way to reach NASA's $100 billion space station

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: There's a place at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean where hundreds of giant spacecraft go to die

#Tech Insider #Arab #Entrepreneurship #sillicon alley insider

0 notes