Nextgov/FCW - Authors - Brian Resnick

Computers Can Tell Republicans From Democrats Based on How They Talk

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:46:11 -0400

Ted Cruz said one of the following quotes in his presidential campaign announcement. Hillary Clinton said the other in her first major speech of the campaign. Can you guess which is which?

"... imagine in 2017 a new president signing legislation repealing every word of Obamacare."

"I believe that success isn't measured by how much the wealthiest Americans have, but by how many children climb out of poverty."

Easy, right?

For humans with some political knowhow, this task is simple. The word "repeal" in the context of "Obamacare" immediately signals a Republican talking point, whereas Democrats are more likely to refer to "the wealthiest Americans" in a statement about poverty.

The question that data scientists at Quorum, a political analytics firm, sought to answer was this: Can computers use a similar process to come to the same conclusion? Could they teach a computer to predict political party from speech?

Mining the text of House and Senate floor speeches in the Congressional record, Quorum cofounder Jonathan Marks and his team wanted to see if they could accurately predict which congressional members belong to which party.

"We gave the computer a large amount of text, which had been fed by Republicans and Democrats," Marks explains. "And then we asked it to identify patterns in the way that Democrats and Republicans talk that make them different."

The program searched for the favorite words used by each party, but it also searched for the words that were uniquely favored by each party. Each party may say "America" often. But Republicans are much more likely to say "bureaucrats," for example.

According to Marks, about 80 percent of the variation in the difference between what representatives say in Congress can be explained by party affiliation. According to his computer program, here are the words and phrases with the greatest predictive power for both parties.

Republican Words

Bureaucrats

Obamacare

Job creators

Raise taxes

Mandates

IRS

Illegally

Stimulus

Promises

Liberal

Obama administration

Burdensome

Government spending

American energy

Amnesty

Democratic Words

Wealthiest

Tax breaks

Republican colleagues

Minimum wage

Climate change

Comprehensive immigration

Tax cuts

Pollution

Unemployment insurance

Republican budget

African-American

Republican leadership

Equality

Working families

Middle class

(Image via Mircea Maties/ Shutterstock.com)

]]>

What Do Americans Hate More: Their Internet Providers or Their Government?

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:28:11 -0500

No big surprise here: According to a recent American Customer Satisfaction Index Survey, Americans aren't happy with their government. On a scale of 100, citizen satisfaction with government services is at 64.4, down for the third consecutive year. Compared with the private sector, this rating is very low. "Only Internet service providers have a lower score," the report reads. Ouch.

The survey of 1,772 found that, in particular, ratings of "courteousness and professionalism of agency staff" have declined the most. According to ACSI, it's possible the decline may have to do with the reduction in the number of workers in the federal government. The types of services included in the survey are, for example, pension benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, tax filing with the IRS, and the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. The Treasury Department, which houses the IRS, ranks among the lowest government departments in terms of customer satisfaction. The Defense Department ranks the highest.

There are some bright spots in the survey. ACSI finds that the National Recreation Reservation Service has great customer service. People are also happy with the FAFSA call center.

But for the most part, interaction with the federal government will continue to be unavoidable and mildly unpleasant for many, many Americans.

(Image via Gil C/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Free Speech, Meet the Quadcopter

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:39:08 -0500

CNN announced Monday it has come to an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration: The news network will be allowed to test drone systems for news-gathering.

"Our aim is to get beyond hobby-grade equipment and to establish what options are available and workable to produce high-quality video journalism using various types of UAVs and camera setups," CNN Senior Vice President David Vigilante, said in a press release.

The development is significant because currently the FAA does not allow Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for commercial use, save for a few exceptions for the entertainment industry andagriculture. This loosening of the rules could pave the way not just for aerial news-gathering but also for Amazon's proposed air delivery service.

In May, more than a dozen media companies banded together in a complaint against the FAA, saying the current policy has "an impermissible chilling effect on the First Amendment news-gathering rights of journalists." A few months prior, a judge on the National Transportation Safety Board overturned the rule. But the FAA appealed, and it was reversed. The FAA was supposed to release draft rules in 2014 for small unmanned aerial systems (drones weighing under 55 lbs.), but the agency is behind schedule.

"I think it's great that the Federal Aviation Administration is willing to work with journalists who wish to use remotely piloted aircraft systems," Matthew Schroyer, president of the Professional Society of Drone Journalists, writes in an email. "However, what would really help journalists is the FAA performing its legal obligation to produce small UAS rules in a timely manner, which it has been unable to do."

How might a drone be used in journalism? The obvious possibilities include aerial shots that are usually supplied by helicopter—car chases and building fires come to mind. But CNN and the FAA will have to work out ethical boundaries. Will it be OK for paparazzi-types to take photos of celebrities via drone? What about flying the drones over private properties?

A 2013 paper out of the University of Texas (Austin) raised some of these concerns. "As previous research on surveillance technologies has suggested, UAVs equipped with cameras will further blur the public–private distinctions understood by earlier eras," the authors wrote. It will be important to strike the right balance.

]]>

A Brief History of Militarized Lasers

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 17:08:31 -0500

Welcome to the future: The United States Navy's laser cannons are now fully operational. On Monday, the military unveiled the all-too-boringly named "Laser Weapon System" (LaWS), a 30-kilowatt weapon perched aboard the USS Ponce in the Persian Gulf.

Like a hair dryer, LaWS can be operated on a number of power settings. On low, it can "dazzle" (the Navy's term), disrupting enemy electronics. You can imagine a captain shouting the order with dramatic glee: "Set the laser to DAZZLE!!!" Turned up high, a full blast can destroy an unmanned aircraft or punch a hole in a boat. See for yourself:

The laser is still considered a prototype, a Monday's demonstration with reporters shows it can unleash arresting force. However, under the protocols of the Geneva Convention, the use of lasers against humans is banned. The Navy intends to comply. "We will not point lasers at people," Adm. Matthew Klunder, the Navy's research chief, told reporters . And it's easy to operate. "Any of you that can do Xbox or PS4, you'll be good with this," Klunder said.

The LaWS is a 60-year-old dream in the making. Since the invention of the laser in the 1960s, military leaks and journalist reports have been speculating on the development of the laser cannon and laser weapons. Here's a quick history.

The 1960s

Popular Mechanics —that century-old compendium of everything gee-whiz—heralded the age of the laser in a 1962 issue . "Magic crystals called lasers may form the basis for a real science-fiction weapon—a 'death ray,' " the magazine informed readers.

"Scientist have tripped the light fantastic," The Washington Post exclaimed in 1962. "Nothing in recent memory has so excited physicists, engineers, industrial managers and military planners as has the potential of these extraordinary beams of light called lasers."

The Post did leave some room for doubt on the promise of laser weapons, though. "There is a healthy skepticism of the notion that lasers will prove to be the 'ultimate' or 'all-out' weapon, or indeed, an effective weapon at all," The Post wrote. But, as The Post warned, "Soviet Russia is just as hard at work at laser research as is the United States." Which assured continued research and funding.

According to From Glow to Flow: A History of Military Laser Research and Development by Robert W. Seidel , in the early '60s, the military quickly enlisted contractors work on the technology. In 1962, lasers were already a $50 million industry. "I feel as do others here that the LASER may be the biggest breakthrough in the weapons area since the atomic bomb," the head of the Army Ordnance Missile Command wrote in 1962.

But for all the money spent, weaponized laser cannons were very slow to materialize. It simply took too much power to create a beam that could pack a punch. "What the story of laser development does show is that attempts to scale lasers to very high powers have been costly, and that they have not yet produced a beam weapon for field use," Seidel wrote .

The '70s

In 1972, T he Post reported on a laser-based "eye-popper" device that would blind pilots in midair by actually destroying part of their retina.

"This strangest of weapons was dreamed up in the early sixties as a means of exploding the eyes of enemy soldiers and their officers from distances of more than a mile," reported The Post , which had obtained a copy of the classified research. "Giant pulse lasers were used to bring rabbit and monkey eyes to the boiling point, causing bleeding and actual explosion in the eye."

Development of the weapon, dubbed C-CLAW (combat laser assault weapon), continued into the '80s, according to Post archives. But the ethics of such a device were debated within the military. The Post said the weapon under development "would sweep back and forth across a battlefield blinding anyone who looked directly at it."

The '80s

Two words: Star Wars. In the 1980s, President Reagan introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative, a program to shoot down enemy missiles from space. The system would have included X-ray lasers and subatomic particle beams, among other futuristic-sounding doom devices. But the power needed to supply such weapons was prohibitive. The initiative floundered.

And as it turned out, Soviet efforts to build space lasers also amounted to nothing.

The '90s

In 1995, an update of the Geneva Conventions banned the use of blinding laser weapons internationally. The adopted language read :

It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to un-enhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices.

The 2000s

During the invasion of Iraq, the military deployed "low-powered" dazzler lasers "to warn or temporarily incapacitate individuals," according to a Post article from 2008 .

Marines were given approval to use a green laser whose beam can temporarily reduce a person's vision when aimed from a distance of 1,000 yards, according to the report. These "laser optical incapacitation devices" were being procured on a case-by-case basis.

As the lasers did not cause permanent blindness, they complied with the Geneva Conventions.

Lasers have been an essential technology for the military, but more so in the realms of missile guidance. And they have also revolutionized other industries like space travel and health care. Lasers will even pave the way for next-generation self-driving cars. But personal laser sidearms? Still science fiction.

]]>

Why the U.S. Government Is Extra Worried About the Huge Internet Explorer Bug

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:07:34 -0400

Over the weekend, Microsoft announced a huge security flaw in its Internet Explorer Web browser (in versions IE6 through IE11). "An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the current user," Microsoft wrote in its advisory.

In response, the Homeland Security Department issued its own memo, advising computer users within the federal government to "consider employing an alternative Web browser," seeing that the vulnerability "could lead to the complete compromise of an affected system," which is not desirable.

A vulnerability like this is especially bad for the U.S. government, which tends to cling to older technology. That's not to say that Internet Explorer is an "old" technology; it's updated regularly. But it is losing market share, as National Journal's Stephanie Stamm demonstrated in the graphic posted below. The browser also causes headaches for developers, because it renders Web pages differently than other browsers do. It also has a history of security glitches. Generally speaking, it's thought to be the Hotmail of Web browsers.

On National Journal's website, for instance, visitors on government computers are more than twice as likely to be using Internet Explorer as our readership overall. Plus, 10 percent of government computers still use the decade-old Windows XP, and because that operating system has been discontinued, Microsoft will not release a patch to fix Internet Explorer on those computers.

It's a dangerous time to be an Internet user, especially in the wake of the Heartbleed bug. But it's even riskier to be an Internet user on a discontinued machine.

(Image via Huguette Roe/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Why We Can't Name a Planet After Joe Biden—Yet

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 10:19:17 -0400

Astronomers have discovered a possible new dwarf planet: a cold, relatively tiny lump of ice traveling near the barrier where the sun loses all its gravitational influence.

The planet—280 miles in diameter—is roughly the size of Wisconsin. And despite the planet's relative smallness, this discovery has ignited astronomers' excitement: Its existence and orbit may be able to tell us about the origins of the solar system.

But never mind all that. More importantly, the scientists gave the planet a nickname, and that name is "Biden."

"The newfound object's official name is 2012 VP113, but the discovery team calls it VP for short, or just 'Biden,' " the journal Nature, which published the findings, reports.

It will be some time before the dwarf planet gets an official name. The International Astronomical Union needs iron-clad evidence that the celestial body does in fact exist and adheres to the definition of a dwarf planet.

But when it comes down to deciding, the planet's name will not be Biden.

It won't be for any fault in the vice president. Rather, according to the IAU, "names for persons or events known primarily for their military or political activities are acceptable only after 100 years elapsed since the person died or the event occurred."

So there will be no Dwarf Planet Biden, Bush, Clinton, or Obama until the next century.

The IAU's other planet-naming rules are wonderfully nerdy, and worth reading through. Those who find the planet are allowed to suggest a name, but the names are officially selected by a 15-judge committee.

Generally, the heavens employ a Roman theme. But in some circumstances, the rules are highly specific. For example (emphasis mine):

• "Objects in orbits between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune, and not in 1:1 resonance with any major planet, are to receive names of centaurs."

• "Objects in orbits in 3:2 resonance with Neptune are to receive names of underworld deities."

• "Names of pet animals are discouraged."

• "Names of a purely or principally commercial nature are not allowed."

So no planet Verizon, either.

]]>

Should Wikipedia Put Crimea on the Russian Map?

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 16:28:51 -0400

Above, you see two maps of Russia as supplied by Wikipedia.

The one on the left was downloaded Tuesday at 6:31 p.m. EST, nearly 12 hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. On this map, Crimea is not in Russia. The map on the right was accessed Wednesday morning, around 10. By then, the community of editors tending to the world's largest repository of human knowledge recognized Russia's claim to the region.

"Light green represents a claimed territory, claimed territories do not necessarily have to be territories outside of de facto control, but rather can be territories under disputed legal claims," an editor explained on a discussion board. Others argued that Crimea should appear striped on the map, to indicate outright annexation (as seen on this map of Morocco). That tension reflects the world's as it grapples with how to deal with Russia's landgrab. Is it a disputed territory, or thoroughly Russia's?

This map decision came after a bit of an editing war Tuesday, when Crimea was added and then subtracted from the map four times before the page was locked by an administrator.

Such a small detail—a shading of green—is a difficult choice for the site's editors. (On controversial topics, editors are limited to vetted Wikipedians.) As one of the top search results for both "Crimea" and "Russia," Wikipedia will provide the basis of public understanding of the region.

Traditional media have been grappling with this question, too. On Tuesday, National Geographic—a magazine so associated with maps that it publishes them as centerfolds—decided to add Crimea to Russia, though also in a special shade to designate the dispute. "We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be," Juan Valdés, the magazine's top mapmaker, told U.S. News & World Report.

The Crimea question on Wikipedia is far from over. The map might show Crimea in light green for now, but on both the "Russia" and "Crimea" article pages on the English Wikipedia site, the peninsula's status is described as "disputed."

On the discussion boards for these pages (where editors debate the editorial strategy of the entries) the Russian annexation of Crimea has fueled something of a philosophical debate of how Wikipedia should cover fast-changing world events.

"The biggest disappointment would be to let this article use for propaganda purposes of involved sides, USA, EU and Russia," an anonymous editor wrote on the Crimea-article discussion page.

"Such a designation has not been officially recognized yet by any major government or the United Nations," wrote a user called Daydreamer302000. "It is not in Wikipedia's charter to recognize the existence of nations."

"As of now it has been recognized by Russia," a user called Cheesenibbles retorted.

"IMO this article is/should be about the geographical area considered the Crimea, not the political lines in the sand (in the same way that the article on Kosovo is separate to the article on the Republic of Kosovo). We should however change the map to reflect that political it's no longer part of Ukraine and update the description accordingly," another user wrote.

Currently (10:20 a.m. Wednesday), the actual article text reads, "Due to recent political instability in the region and occupation by Russian military forces, national sovereignty over the peninsula is currently being disputed by Russia and Ukraine."

But that could very well have changed by now.

]]>

Latest NSA Leak Nears Science Fiction Levels

Brian Resnick and Marina Koren, National Journal — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 07:28:02 -0500

The latest intelligence leak from Edward Snowden may be the most science fiction-like revelation yet: the National Security Agency is building a quantum computer, a machine thousands of times faster than the fastest computers on the planet.

The NSA acknowledged in 2009 that its research includes quantum computing. But now we know that such technology could be used to further bypass privacy encryptions on the Web.

"A working quantum computer would open the door to easily breaking the strongest encryption tools in use today," explains The Washington Post, which first reported the leak Thursday.

The NSA is not alone in the arms race for world's most powerful computer. NASA, along with Google and the Universities Space Research Association, purchased a $10 million version of the machine in 2012 from Canadian company D-Wave Systems. The trio seeks to apply the machine in areas ranging from air traffic control and robotics to the search for habitable planets.

Scientists say the value of quantum computers will be making sense or "optimizing" a world with increasingly complicated sets of data. The NSA, on the other hand, has bigger fish to fry than most. Its hypothetical large-scale quantum computer could crack not only the digital tools used to protect online shoppers' financial transactions, but state secrets too.

Quantum computers are a complete rethinking of computing. Traditional computers—even the most sophisticated ones—still rely on transistors, electrical circuits that are either switched on or off, producing the lines of ones and zeros that make up computer processing.

A quantum computer isn't limited by ones and zeros. It introduces many more levels of complexity by tapping into the weird physics of electrons, which can operate in several states simultaneously. Quantum computers introduce many shades of one and zero. Or to make your head explode, a qubit (a quantum bit) can be both a one and a zero at the same time.

And here's why that's a game changer: "Dividing or multiplying numbers is fairly easy for any computer, but determining the factors of a really large 500- or 600-digit number is next to impossible for classical computers," explains National Geographic. "But quantum computers can process these numbers easily and simultaneously." And modern-day encryption, explains the University of Waterloo, more or less relies on "math problems that are too tough to solve."

Just explaining how quantum computing works requires talking in multiple universes. It's that crazy. But the machines are finicky, and in the earliest stages of development. The NASA-Google computer needs to be shielded from the Earth's electromagnetic field, and it takes a month to calibrate.

The NSA appears to feel the same time and resource constraints that the space agency is dealing with. "Although the full extent of the agency's research remains unknown, the documents provided by Snowden suggest that the NSA is no closer to success than others in the scientific community," the Post writes.

While some scientists say NASA's machine, which researchers began testing this past fall, is not a true quantum computer, the agency says that "it will be the most powerful in the world." The latest NSA leak may suggest otherwise.

]]>

Task Force Blasts NSA's Collection and Storage of Personal Data

Brian Resnick, Marina Koren, and Dustin Volz, National Journal — Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:55:59 -0500

Following a federal ruling Monday calling the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs "almost Orwellian," the White House has released a report from a group of presidential advisers on reforming the organization.

The report, compiled by a surveillance review board created in August, recommends 46 changes to the NSA's counterterrorism program, which collects and stores for up to five years of Americans' phone records. The agency has remained a fixture in the news since former contractor Edward Snowden released classified documents about its collection techniques.

The NSA's status quo, the authors write, "creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty."

Some highlights from the recommendations:

(Note: the recommendations both involve decreasing transparency and decreasing leaks.)

"We recommend that Congress should end such storage and transition to a system in which such meta-data is held privately for the government to query when necessary for national security purposes."
"As a general rule, and without senior policy review, the government should not be permitted to collect and store all mass, undigested, non-public personal information about individuals."
"We recommend that legislation should be enacted that terminates the storage of bulk telephony meta-data by the government."
The NSA director should be a senate-confirmed position
Restricting who can hold classified information to only those "who genuinely need to know."
On spying on foreign leaders, one should ask "Is there a need to engage in such surveillance in order to asses significant threat to our national security?"
Designate the NSA as a "foreign intelligence organization. Missions other than foreign intelligence collection should generally be reassigned elsewhere."
"There should be a strong presumption of transparency to enable the American people and their elected representatives independently to assess the merits of the programs for themselves."

"Amazingly, we were unanimous and enthusiastic on every one of the 46 recommendations," Geoffrey Stone, dean of University of Chicago Law School and one of the task force's five authors, told National Journal. "That we were able to talk these hard, complicated issues through in a way that we all happily endorsed is sort of a marvel."

Other members of the panel include former top national security official Richard Clarke, Cass Sunstein, who worked in the Office of Management and Budget during the Obama administration, Georgia Institute of Technology's Peter Swire and Michael Morell, a former deputy director of the CIA. The task force has come under fire for its close ties to NSA director James Clapper's office.

Wednesday's public release is a long way from President Obama's immediate response to the Snowden leaks. In June the president said, "I think we have struck a nice balance," in terms of the tradeoffs between NSA power and the oversight of such power. Then, in August, he announced that his administration would be looking into ways to increase transparency, because "it's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs," he said. "The American people need to have confidence in them as well."

Still, the NSA's public image continues to buckle under the weight of one revelation after another, and the growing outcry from people who are fed up with them all.

Most recently, the White House saw pressure from the private sector to curtail the NSA's massive surveillance program. Leaders from a number of big technology companies told Obama in a Tuesday meeting that they are losing customers, especially overseas, who are skeptical of American-branded products because of this year's leaks. According to Bloomberg News, the leaks "may cost U.S. companies as much as $35 billion in lost revenue through 2016 because of doubts about the security of their systems."

More than 50 civil-liberties and Internet-freedom groups sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday in protest of an NSA reform bill, which they say offers no "real reform," proposed by Sen., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of the agency's most visible defenders.

The report was supposed to be released in January. But as White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters today, "We felt it was important to allow people to see the full report to draw their own conclusions. For that reason we will be doing that this afternoon."

After multiple industry complaints and one significant court ruling, the president could use some good PR when it comes to NSA spying programs.

]]>

Obama: 'I Was Not Informed Website Wasn't Working'

Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:25:34 -0500

The president offered an administrative fix to the Affordable Care Act at a White House news conference on Thursday, allowing Americans to renew their current health care plans through 2014, in effect extending the grandfather clause. "We fumbled the rollout on this health care law," the president said.

"I think it's fair to say that the rollout has been rough so far," Obama said. "The rollout has been fraught with a whole range of problems that I'm deeply concerned about." The president also said that "despite all of the problems that we've seen with the website, more than 500,000 Americans could know the security of health care by January 1." The number was his original goal for November.

"I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans," he said, "particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked they could keep it. And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear."

The president also deflected criticms over the functioning of HealthCare.gov, saying that he wasn't "informed directly that the website would not be working, as the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed I wouldn't be going out saying, 'boy, this is going to be great.' You know, I'm accused of a lot of things but I don't think I'm stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn't going to work."

The new plan, however, comes under two conditions, senior White House officials say. First, insurers must notify consumers which protections these current plans do not include. Additionally, insurers have to notify consumers they they will have new options in the marketplace that offer better coverage and protections than these plans.

The Department of Health and Human Services will use its enforcement discretion for this fix, a discretion which can be used during big changes to the health care system as a means to ensure implementation runs smoothly.

The policy is designed to allow the subset of Americans who don't meet the subsidy threshold under Obamacare -- people for whom the cancellation of their current policy is perceived as a burden -- to renew their plan.

Senior White House officials say this move allows for a better and smoother transition for this group of individuals to move from the existing market to the new market. In essence, they said, the administration is being responsive to the concerns of Americans.

The cancellations, however, aren't exactly an unforeseen consequence, as the law required insurance companies to create a baseline standard for plans. Now, however, public outcry has transformed them into something akin to unintended results. Officials say the president asked them to "fix this problem," the problem being cancellations, which were, for many insurance providers, inevitable. The president also made sure to note on Thursday that "the old individual market was not working well."

The fix may have some immediate trouble though: at a press conference right before Obama's statement, House Speaker John Boehner said he is "highly skeptical they can do this administratively." The president obvously thinks otherwise. "Regardless of what Congress does, ultimately I'm the president of the United States," he said Thursday. And Americans "expect me to do something about it."

Obama's statement today is shrouded in some ugly developments for the ACA. The malfunctioning website and Obama's pierced "if you like your plan, you can keep it" claim have helped to bring approval for the law down to 40 percent, with 55 percent disapproving in a new Gallup poll. That is the biggest gap in approval in the last year. Just 39 percent of self-identified independents approve of Obamacare.

The slide isn't just in approval for Obamacare. A recent Quinnipiac poll pegged Obama's approval at 39 percent, the lowest they've found since he became president.

Congressional Democrats, worried about increasing frustrations from their constituents whose coverage could be dropped, have considered changes to the ACA. A vote is scheduled for Friday in the House on a GOP bill that would let Americans keep their existing health plans through 2014 without penalties. It may wind up with some significant Democratic support. The Obama administration has previously spoken out against the legislation.

Senior White House officials say the president's proposal is different from the Republican proposal since it does not offer these older and non-compliant plans to Americans who did not have these plans previously. The Republican proposal, which officials say would undermine Obamacare, would allow anyone to sign up for these outdated plans.

Obama's fix jibes with recent remarks from Democrats that the administration ought to directly address the cancellations. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she plans to endorse an Obamacare fix from Democrat George Miller that would force insurance companies to keep existing health plans until the end of the open-enrollment period in March. But Pelsoi said at an Atlantic forum that she "would prefer an administrative fix because it could be done much more quickly without any accompanying agendas." She also called the House GOP plan "dangerous."

Several Senate Democrats, including Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La, Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., have spoken in favor of similar proposals.

Frustrations hit a new high on Wednesday, as the administration released less than stellar numbers from the health care roll out (though the topline numbers alone don't tell the whole story). In total, just 106,185 people enrolled in the health insurance through HealthCare.gov last month. This is far short the 500,000 the administration hoped to enrol by the end of October.

Former President Bill Clinton on Tuesday called on Obama to make good on his campaign promise that people would not lose their health care. "I personally believe," Clinton told OZY, "even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got."

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said that Obama would agree with Clinton's statement, adding that the president was looking into range of options to remedy the problem.

]]>

What to Know About the Drug-Resistant Superbugs That Killed 23,000 Last Year

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:49:32 -0400

We created the nightmare bacteria.

It wasn't on purpose. We could not have invented antibiotics without spurring bacterial evolution. As long as there were some bugs out there immune to the drugs, the population would adapt. Just a few years after antibiotics came into mass use in the 1940s, scientists began to observe resistance. Then, as microbiologist Kenneth Todar writes, "Over the years, and continuing into the present, almost every known bacterial pathogen has developed resistance to one or more antibiotics in clinical use." And now, some bugs are resistant to just about everything.

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, known as CRE or the "nightmare bacteria," was not known before 2001. Now, 4.6 percent of hospitals in the United States reported at least one infection in 2012. That number was 1.2 percent in 2001.

CRE outbreaks are the stuff of zombie movies, because no drug exists to fight them. In 2011, at a National Institutes of Health hospital no less, an outbreak of a CRE variant killed six people. CRE germs kill about half the people they infect, but here's the scarier part: "CRE have the potential to move from their current niche among health care–exposed patients into the community," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports.

Drug-resistant pathogens such as CRE are mainly found in the hospital setting, but they are also found in the environment. A Columbia University study found drug-resistant germs to be "widespread" in the Hudson River in New York, with the researchers suspecting the source was untreated sewage. The more commonly knownMRSA, confined to infections in hospitals in the first two decades after it was discovered, can now be contracted from everyday surfaces such as gym mats.

Last week, CDC released the first comprehensive review of the number of drug-resistant infections and deaths in the country. It's the first of its kind, compiling data from dozens of different strains of bacteria in one report. It finds that at least 2 million Americans become infected with drug-resistant bacteria every year, resulting in 23,000 deaths. The report stresses that these numbers are conservative, as they only take into account infections in acute-care hospitals, not long-term centers.

Recently, I spoke with Jean Patel, one of the authors of the report and a deputy director of CDC's Antimicrobial Resistance Division. She spoke about the need to increase awareness of antibiotic resistance and ways to combat its spread. Her responses have been lightly edited. My questions have been rephrased to sound slightly smarter.

Are we approaching a future where antibiotics will be obsolete?

Antibiotics are always going to have a role, but what we have to decide is to stop relying on them as the only role. So now we have to think, and have a greater focus on prevention of the transmission of resistant pathogens and using antibiotics as wisely as possible.

There are some infections like strep throat where antibiotics are going to be needed. But there are other infections, like upper respiratory tract infections, the common cold, where antibiotics are not necessary. And your doctor can help guide you through that choice. I think it is important on both sides—the doctor and the patient—to decide that antibiotics aren't always necessary.

Any threat of—or just a hypothetical threat—of a drug-resistant pandemic?

I think the scary endpoint that we are looking at are bacteria that are becoming resistant to all agents that could be used for treating them. Right now we have some of those pathogens, but they may be limited to certain populations. An example is CRE. Right now, those are bacteria that are becoming resistant to nearly every drug. But right now they are only causing infections in the health care setting. We anticipate that changing. We saw that happen with the ESPL producing Enterobacteriaceae, but it hasn't happened yet. But we think we have some time before it does happen. But we need to beef up our focus on prevention.

What does prevention look like? And what role does pharmaceutical innovation play?

I think it needs both. On one end, we need health care providers to make better decisions about using antibiotics. And I think to do that we need more information. We need to get more information in the hands of those health care providers so they can make the best decisions possible.

And we're working on expanding the scope of our ability to track antibiotic resistance and also antibiotic use in health care settings. So a physician would look at the antibiotic use and in their health care setting they'd be able to benchmark what's happening in their setting, and compare to other health care settings.

The report calls for an end of antibiotics use in livestock. How might that happen?

Antibiotics need to be used in the process of food-producing animals. But we are asking that this be used to manage infections and not be used to promote growth of the animals. And this is consistent with what the Food and Drung Administration has proposed. So the FDA has draft guidance that maps out a plan for phasing out antibiotic use for growth promotion in animals, and instead using these antibiotics to manage infections in animals. And we support that.

What's the take-home lesson?

The most important thing for the patients is a focus on antibiotic use. Having that conversation with your physician about whether antibiotics are really needed for the illness that they have.

Do we have numbers on antibiotics misuse?

In the health care system, we estimate that 50 percent of antibiotic use is unnecessary or not appropriate.

Can we ever stop the creation of new drug-resistant germs?

We can slow it down. Nature will take its course wherever antibiotics are used. Resistance will emerge, but we can slow that.

]]>

The U.S. Has a Huge Backlog of Untested DNA Evidence

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 16:38:28 -0400

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito called it "the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades." But for now, the Court's decision in the Maryland v. King case—regarding whether police can swab your cheeks for DNA during booking—may be functionally irrelevant. The nation doesn't have a genetic-processing apparatus in place to deal with the current overload of DNA samples. There's a massive backlog of biological evidence in crime labs, and efforts to combat that backlog in recent years have failed.

In the case, the majority reasoned your DNA is like a fingerprint—used to maintain identity—rather than a piece of personal information, which would require a search warrant. In a 5-4 decision, the Court maintained in Maryland v. King that it is OK for police to take a swab of a person's cheek cells after that person is booked for a crime, and that it is also OK if that DNA swab implicates the person in custody in a cold case.

In the future, this ruling will be very significant. On the technological horizon are machines that can analyze a sample in 90 minutes. Police will be able to connect the dots between perpetrator and crime with a fluid ease (which frightens some civil-liberties advocates).

But that's the future. Here's the reality.

"The demand for DNA testing continues to exceed the capacity of laboratories to process these samples," a July report from the Government Accountability Office states. This is despite the $100 million a year the federal government provides each year with the specific purpose of reducing such backlogs.

GAO reports that this is due to the increased use of DNA evidence in criminal cases and the fact that now 29 states routinely take DNA swabs of those caught up in the criminal justice system. Also included in the backlog are DNA tests for things like bloodstains at a crime scene and rape kits—pieces of evidence that could be used to convict criminals or exonerate the innocent. In 2011, there was a 91,000-case backlog at the end of the year. With increased adoption of routine cheek swabs, this is likely to get worse.

The Justice Department knows the backlog has been growing, as seen in the chart below from a 2010 report from the National Institute of Justice.

While we keep throwing money at the problem, the accountability doesn't find clear evidence that it has been at all effective. Sixty-four percent of all money spent on DNA forensics goes to combat the backlog.

It's not the case that police departments are flooding the testing centers with every piece of evidence that comes their way. According to the DOJ report, "14 percent of unsolved homicide cases (an estimated 3,975 cases) and 18 percent of unsolved rape cases (an estimated 27,595 cases) contained forensic evidence that was not submitted by law enforcement agencies to a crime laboratory for analysis." But there are doubts that the system could handle these cases if they were submitted. The report continues: "Submitting untested evidence in law enforcement custody for analysis could have a serious impact on DNA backlogs in crime laboratories if the evidence were suddenly submitted to a crime laboratory all at once."

So, the system is at a saturation point. GAO calls for a review of how effective the federal dollars are in reducing the backlog, and for a reassessment of performance data because it is currently unclear what effect the funds are having. The Supreme Court's decision had an eye on the future, when the advances in technology will expedite the processing of biological evidence. But, for now, it might only clog the system further.

]]>

How the Bradley Manning Verdict Avoided a Serious Chill on Whistleblowing

Brian Resnick and Matt Berman, National Journal — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:00:59 -0400

On Tuesday, Judge Col. Denise Lind convicted Army Pfc. Bradley Manning of many major charges, but Manning dodged the big one: "aiding the enemy." That charge would have come with a possible life sentence. The conviction still includes 5 charges under the Espionage Act, and Manning could face a long sentence of over 100 years. Manning had previously pled guilty to 10 of the lesser 22 charges against him, pleading not guilty to the most serious, aiding the enemy charge. The full extent of the conviction is still coming in from the court. Sentencing in the case will begin Wednesday morning.

But the biggest news may be the lack of an aiding the enemy conviction, which could have resulted in a dramatic legal precedent.

Depending on your point of view, Manning is either a tragic hero or a traitor, or maybe something in between. The now 25-year-old's personal problems were numerous, coming from an unstable, abusive home, dealing with being a gay member of the military under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, also questioning his gender identity. The military assessed him as having an anxiety disorder. Three years ago, he was arrested after sending what is regarded as the largest leak of classified information in U.S. history to Wikileaks, including a video showing U.S. military personnel shooting down two Reuters employees and 250,000 diplomatic cables.

How Does One Aid the Enemy?

Charges of aiding the enemy are rare. So much so that, in charging Manning, prosecutors pointed toward the case of a Civil War soldier charged and convicted, in 1863, of a similar crime. And what Private Henry Vanderwater did to the Union was, in a way, similar to the circumstances of Manning's arrest. He gave roster information to an Alexandria newspaper that was published. Vanderwater was sentenced to three months of hard labor and was discharged dishonorably.

On the books, the law is curtly written and indicates it's a crime fit for death.

Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.

The death penalty, however, is not being considered in Manning's case.

Cases of aiding the enemy have cropped up since the Civil War. During the Korean War, American prisoners of war were tried and convicted of making anti-American speeches while interned by the Chinese. One of whom was William Olson, who, although claiming psychological coercion on the part of the chinese, was brought to trial for comments he made while prisoner. "Among other things, the accused in his talk asserted that the Korean war was a millionaire's war and that the prisoners had innocent blood on their hands," Court documents stated. Olson also wrote articles that "were distinctly "anti-American and pro-Communist" in tenor, and consistently derogatory toward the cause of the United Nations in Korea." The judge ruled that Olson should have had the gumption to hold his tongue, notwithstanding the circumstances. "No exemption is provided for prisoners of war, or for anyone else, for that matter."

More recently, in 2007, a former U.S. commander was acquitted of the charge after being tried for allegedly lending his cellphone to Iraqi prisoners to make phone calls. In 2004, a National Guardsman was sentenced to life in prison for offering information to Al Qaida.

What Does it Mean for the Future of Leaks, For Edward Snowden?

In a March article in The New Republic, Harvard Law professor Yochai Benkler discussed the potentially far-reaching impact of an aiding the enemy conviction in the Manning case. As Benkler wrote, during the trial, Judge Col. Lind asked prosecutors if they would have pressed the aiding the enemy charge if Manning had leaked to the New York Times instead of WikiLeaks. The answer: "Yes Ma'am."

Benkler, a witness for the defense, wrote that such an answer "makes the Manning prosecution a clear and present danger to journalism in the national security arena." Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, said just about the same thing to CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday. Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the Pentagon Papers, issued similar worry. "That you can face life in prison or death simply from informing an enemy or potential enemy in the process of informing fellow citizens for their benefit is potentially a lethal blow to the First Amendment or freedom of speech and the press," he told the Christian Science Monitor.

It's clear to Benkler how the Manning case can put a chill on whistleblowing. Here's how he views the prosecution's thinking:

Manning knew that the materials would be made public, and he knew that Al Qaeda or its affiliates could read the publications in which the materials would be published. Therefore, the prosecution argues, by giving the materials to WikiLeaks, Manning was "indirectly" communicating with the enemy. Under this theory, there is no need to show that the defendant wanted or intended to aid the enemy. The prosecution must show only that he communicated the potentially harmful information, knowing that the enemy could read the publications to which he leaked the materials. This would be true whether Al Qaeda searched the WikiLeaks database or the New York Times'.

The thing is, since that article was written, somebody actually did leak classified national security documents to major newspapers. That would, of course, be Edward Snowden, who leaked the details of big NSA programs toThe Guardian and The Washington Post, among others. While Snowden is now closely associated with WikiLeaks, he didn't go through them when he first pushed to release his information. As he said at the time, this was in part done to make sure the leak-process didn't cause any harm through a mass data dump.

But based on Benkler's argument, and the "Yes Ma'am" response sets a precedent that leaking national security information to the press could result in a conviction punishable by death. The difference between just a pure data dump and a process overseen by journalists and at least one editor is made largely moot by the prosecution's' response to Col. Lind's question.

But Snowden has so far escaped that possible fate. Snowden was not charged with aiding the enemy, but rather with charges under the Espionage Act. Manning being acquitted on the charge of aiding the enemy may mean that the precedent described by Benkler won't actually happen afterall. As such, the ruling today against the prosecution on that one count may seriously reduce the threat to national security whistleblowers, and the media publications who chose to publish their leaks.

]]>

Don’t Be Alarmed By the Drone Blimps Hovering Over D.C.

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:41:05 -0400

If America is attacked, we might be saved by blimps. No, not state-of-the-art jet fighters that can fly well beyond the speed of sound. But blimps: lumbering, relatively jovial blimps—the manatees of aviation.

Within a year, a pair of souped-up $2.7 billion blimps (price includes R&D) will be floated 10,000 feet above the District of Columbia and act as a 340-mile-wide eye in the sky, detecting incoming missiles and the like.

The design and testing phase for JLENS—the (deep breath) Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System, produced by Raytheon, a major weapons manufactuer—is over, relays Program Director Doug Burgess to Popular Mechanics. Now, it is time for implementation. Or, as he puts it, "[We're] getting away from the Ph.D. engineer types running the system to the 20- or 25-year-old soldier running the system."

The idea to employ blimps to protect a city is actually not new. During World War II, London deployed a similar system to protect against Nazi air strikes. The barrage balloons, as they were called, acted as fence posts for a spool of wire that would make it difficult for planes to maneuver in the city. Basically, they were barbed wire fences suspended a few thousand feet in the air. They were also filled with hydrogen, which upon impact with a plane would explode.

The balloons that will fly over D.C. will perform a similar function, and look remarkably similar—but swap the wire cabling for state-of-the-art radar and computer processors. And these won't be keeping out Nazi propeller planes; they'll detect more-modern threats, such as cruise missiles. According to Raytheon, the units will protect a city at 500-700 percent less than the cost to operate the reconnaissance planes necessary to maintain the same amount of coverage. They will provide a comforting amount of "minutes," rather than the current "seconds" of time for U.S. forces to decide what to do with the threat of an antiship cruise missile.

The blimps, or aerostats as they are technically called, are 77 yards long, and have a range of 340 miles. They fly at 10,000 feet for 30 days at time. According to an unclassified report by the Defense Department, they've performed well in testing. "The JLENS radars successfully tracked fighter aircraft, towed targets, and cruise-missile targets, meeting accuracy requirements within margin," the report states. A test on the Great Salt Lake, reports Popular Mechanics, revealed that the JLENS can detect a swarm of boats from 100 miles away. The aircraft could potentially carry weapons, and have fire-control radar, which means they can send information that a ballistic system can interpret to aim a shot.

]]>

How PayPal Almost Erased the National Debt and Ruined the Global Economy

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:13:24 -0400

A PR executive from Pennsylvania became the world's first quadrillionaire. The executive, Chris Reynolds, learned he was the richest man alive when he opened his June PayPal statement and found that he had been credited more than $92 quadrillion. We imagine it felt a lot like finding a $20 bill in the pocket of an old winter coat. Four quadrillion times.

Unfortunately for Reynolds, though, PayPal realized that it had made a mistake and quickly changed his balance back to zero. But Reynolds isn't the only one who lost out: so did America.

That's because Chris Reynolds, when asked by CNN what he would have done with his newfound wealth, said that he "would probably have paid down the national debt." The gross debt of the United States is now over $16 trillion. That's a pretty big number. But for Reynolds, it would've amounted to little more than pocket change. Think of it this way: Bill Gates is worth $67 billion. You could make 1,373,234 people as wealthy as Bill Gates with $92 quadrillion.

What would Reynolds have done with his remaining fortune? Buy the Philadelphia Phillies, he told the New York Daily News. Also, invest.

Although, of course, PayPal would've had something of a problem coming up with the money: According to the Federal Reserve, there is only $1.2 trillion in circulation at the moment. By the Federal Reserve's M2 measure—the broadest money aggregate the Fed tracks, which includes notes and coins in circulation, traveler's checks and nonbank notes, demand deposits, other checkable deposits, savings deposits, and time deposits—there was $10,598,100,000,000 out there in June 2013. That is still, obviously, way less than even $1 quadrillion.

So PayPal, and the whole global economy, dodged one hell of a bullet in being able to simply erase the accounting error. And the American debt can continue to grow another day.

]]>

84 Senators Still Stand for the Tyranny of Paper

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:56:08 -0400

Even the House of Representatives does it. Say what you will about the dysfunction in that chamber, but at least all 435 members are required to file their campaign finance reports online. The Senate? Not so much.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, just 16 of the 100 senators filed their reports electronically for the second quarter of this year. That's up one senator (Jack Reed, D-R.I.) from the first quarter filings. Of the 16 e-filers, 12 are Democrats, two are independents, and two are Republicans. For the complete list, check out CPI.

But so what if the remaining senators prefer ink-and-paper files? Last week, the Sunlight Foundation published an open letter to the remaining holdouts to explain the stakes. It's just grossly ineffective, and can delay financial disclosures to a time potentially after November elections. (Emphasis mine.)

Unfortunately, exempting Senators and Senate Candidates from mandatory electronic filing has resulted in delayed disclosure of critical campaign finance information. Senators file reports with the Secretary of the Senate, who delivers the paper copies to the FEC. That agency must then manually input the data from thousands of pages of paper into databases before the information can be made public in a searchable, usable manner.

Who would want that job? Anyway, USA Today reported in March that the paper filing costs around $500,000—and several weeks worth of wasted time. From the senators' offices, the reports are passed to the Office of Public Records, which then scans the pages, and submits to the FEC. The FEC then contracts out the reports to be made electronic. What's ironic, USA Today pointed out, is that the FEC gives out free software to compile reports. If the Senate offices used that software themselves, it would cut out the middleman.

In February, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., introduced a bill to require all senators to file electronically. It hasn't moved very far since.

]]>

Lawmakers Introduce a Bill to Establish a National Park on the Moon

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:59:31 -0400

No human has landed there in 40 years, the U.S. has no current plans to return, and there's no rest stop for the kids between it and the Earth, but Democratic House members have put forth a proposal to establish a national park on the moon.

The move, proposed by Reps. Donna Edwards of Maryland and Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, preempts commercial ventures or other countries that could, in theory, establish tourist traps along the remains of Apollo missions.

The bill explains,

As commercial enterprises and foreign nations acquire the ability to land on the Moon, it is necessary to protect the Apollo lunar landing sites for posterity; and

establishing the Historical Park under this Act will expand and enhance the protection and preservation of the Apollo lunar landing sites and provide for greater recognition and public under-standing of this singular achievement in American history.

The legislation proposed that within a year of its passage, the National Park Service must establish a moon unit. Eighteen months after enactment, the agency has to draft a plan for the park. Which begs the question: What's the use of a national park if no one can get there ... yet? The Golden Spike Co., a commerical enterprise, has preliminary plans to send tourists to the moon. However, it estimates the trip could cost $1.5 billion—and that's just for two people.

Read the draft bill here.

]]>

Why College Students Make Better Decisions Than Intelligence Agents

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:50:04 -0400

Who would you trust with the lives of hundreds of people: federal intelligence agents or a bunch of college students?

At Cornell University, psychologist Valerie Reyna wanted to test whether intelligence agents were susceptible to a type of decision-making bias people accrue as they get older. It's called fuzzy thinking. As our life experience grows more robust, we tend to make decisions off of gists, rather than analytical lines of thought.

It's the paradox of real-world experience: "FTT [Fuzzy-trace theory] makes the counterintuitive prediction that reliance on gist-based thinking increases with development. That is, with increasing experience and expertise, people are less likely to engage in literal, verbatim-based analysis and more likely to use simple semantic gist in memory, judgment, and decision-making."

In simple terms, the older we get, the more likely we are to go with our gut. And, ironically, the more experience we have, the more we're prone to "to effects of meaning and context, and, hence, to gist-based illusions or biases."

But going with the gut isn't always the best way to make decisions, and we would hope that those who make the most consequential decisions—members of our intelligence community being some of them—would not be biased by their life experience and treat every decision with a hard-lined analytical thought. Right?

To test the theory, Reyna presented the intelligence agents, the college students, and a group of non-intelligence adults with a series of dilemmas to solve, involving the saving of lives. But she did something tricky—some of the questions were actually identical, but just framed in different ways.

The dilemma: There is a disease threatening 600 lives, and you have to act.

Here's an example of a question framed in the terms of saving lives.

Do you: Save 200 people for sure, or choose the option with 1/3 probability that 600 will be saved and a 2/3 probability that none will be saved?

And this is the same dilemma framed in terms of people dying.

Do you pick the option where 400 will surely die, or instead a 2/3 probability that all 600 will die and a 1/3 probability that nobody dies?

If you strip the semantics away, these two questions are identical. And a good field agent should make the same choice both times, we hope?

Nope. The college students made the less risky, less biased decisions. The study found that the intelligence officials "exhibited larger decision biases than college students, treating equivalent outcome differently based on superficial wording. In particular, they were more willing to take risks with human lives when the outcomes were framed as losses rather than as gains." So, they were more likely to take the risky route on that second question posted above. But more than that, they were more confident when they made those risky choices. "Indeed, agents 'doubled down' on their choices by expressing higher confidence in them relative to either students or other adults." The plain adults in the study landed in the middle of the college students and spies in terms of rational decision-making.

To be sure, these results don't mean that intelligence officers are bad at decision-making. It just means that they are human, and are susceptible to the same changes in thought patterns that we all experience as we get older.

]]>

Is 16 Minutes the Best We Can Do for Tornado Warnings?

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Wed, 29 May 2013 17:11:58 -0400

For those caught in the path of the EF 4 tornado in Oklahoma last week, 16 minutes were all they had to prepare themselves for the 200 mph winds that would flip cars, twist steel, and all but completely destroy a 1.3 mile-wide swath of the town of Moore.

Sixty or so years ago, they would have been lucky to have any warning at all. A form of the National Weather Service has been issuing tornado warnings only since 1938. Previously, the word "tornado" had been banned by the Army Signal Corps, which used to monitor the weather. To the corps, tornadoes were much too unpredictable to track, and the word incited more panic than meaningful response.

The House Environment Subcommittee is drafting a bill to spur forecasting research and technology procurement in the National Weather Service, in part, to extend lead times for tornado warnings. The National Weather Service had previously received $23.7 million in funds for forecasting in the Sandy Relief bill. The current bill would seek spur forecasting research investments (there's no specific dollar figure yet), and to replace satellite systems that will degrade over the next few years.

Previously, the Government Accountability Office had warned of a potential satellite data gaps in 2016 or 2017 because of old satellites not being replaced. Also propelling the bill is the fact that European forecasters are outpacing the Americans (European weather models more accurately predicted the path of Hurricane Sandy than the American forecaster). Barry Lee Myers, CEO of Accuweather put it in stark terms at a recent congressional hearing on the bill: "From a national-security standpoint, relying on other countries for better weather models places America in a weak and subservient position."

In a lot of ways, and especially compared with the tracking of large, slow-moving storms such as hurricanes, we haven't progressed very far in terms of issuing tornado warnings. The 16 minutes of warning in Moore, Okla., is close to the average of 13 minutes. Meanwhile the rate of false alarms for tornado warnings is near 75 percent, according to NOAA. There's not much to do in the path of a tornado besides shelter in place.

"Because we can see hurricanes, because they are large, and because they move relatively slowly over land and sea areas, we can evacuate people," Myers testified. "With regard to tornadoes, we do the opposite, we expect people to ride out the storm in their bathtubs. That's unacceptable."

For the near term, or at least the next decade, those 15 or so minutes might be the best we can do. But NOAA's Lans Rothfuz explains that the next decade or so might see a complete overhaul in the way tornadoes are forecast. Right now, the only way to issue a warning for a tornado is to detect one forming. NOAA calls this "warn on detection." The ideal is a system based on warning on a forecast that is based on a complete computer simulation of a storm system.

"If you're relying on just detecting, some thunderstorms last for about an hour and then they are gone," says Rothfuz, who works in the National Storm Prediction Center. "And so, if you're relying on detection the best you can hope for is maybe 15—30 minutes at best—detections, lead times."

There are three obstacles to making this transition, Rothfuz says:

One: We need better science—more accurate and complex weather forecasting models that can recreate a storm on a computer. To simulate a storm is to predict its path with greater reliability.

Two: We need better, denser weather data. "In order to get the data that these models need, we have to take it down to finer and finer resolutions," he says. Currently, weather balloons monitor conditions every 100 miles (to use the resolution metaphor, this makes for a pixelated map). Increasing data points means implementing more advanced radars, such as as the Phased Array Radar system, which collects data one-sixth faster than more common systems. Or using new technologies, such as GPS profiling, which analyzes regular GPS signals as the bend through the atmosphere. Or crowd-sourcing, collecting data from passenger cars equipped with temperature and rain sensors.

Three: We need the sheer computer horsepower to run dense data through complex models.

These changes are in the works, but they may take a while to come to fruition. "We're still talking about 10 years out for that type of technology," Rothfuz says.

]]>

Is There Such Thing as Too Much Evidence?

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 07:00:00 -0400

It's possible that every inch of Copley Square was captured on camera in the moments after the Boston Marathon bombing. But it wasn't due to some Big Brother network of municipal cameras. It was the camera phones. In the hours and moments after the attacks, perhaps the largest crowd-sourced investigation ever began, with the FBI receiving a flood of images and tips.

"Every reason that gave that site an attractive place for a terrorist’s bomb also made it easier for law enforcement to figure out who did it," says Howard K. Stern, who was the U.S. attorney for the Massachusetts district from 1993 to 2001.

A massive crowd means a massive pool of witnesses. But this also puts forward new challenges when the issue comes to court. For instance, is a Twitpic a reliable source of evidence?

Recently, I spoke with Stern on the phone about how the U.S. Attorney's Office might proceed with a terrorism case, and what role social media and crowd-sourced tips can play in a conviction.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

From all the evidence, all the photos, all of the witnesses on the scene, it might seem like this is an easy case for the U.S. to prosecute. But does this flood of information complicate matters at all?

Sometimes the media or the average citizen will put together a couple of random facts and reach some conclusion, and that might make even some common sense. But still, there’s some evidentiary hurdles that the prosecutor has to show.

So let’s say someone posted on the Internet a photo of this guy with the backpack. The defense lawyer is going to ask: When was the photo taken? Who took it? How do we know that it is accurate? How do we know it wasn’t Photoshopped?

That’s an example of where, just because something looks one way, you still have to prove it in evidence. I do think that’s one of the reasons why some people have asked me, "Why didn’t the government release all the video footage they had of the bombing?" They only released the photos of the two guys. I think they wanted to keep the witnesses or the potential witnesses as uninfluenced as possible by what they might see in the media.

That’s a big challenge. We’ve all been saturated with news, but you want the witnesses' unvarnished memory of what happened that day, not based upon or influenced by some blog or some media story.

I’m sure one of the arguments the defense lawyers will make as they did in Oklahoma City is that the trial should be moved. That it shouldn’t be in Boston, it should be someplace else.

News outlets have covered this story from every possible angle, interviewing friends and relatives of the suspects and many who were witnesses to the blast. For instance, The New York Times tracked down and recorded runners who were just finishing the race as the blast occurred—all witnesses to the crime. Does this help or hurt the investigation?

It’s both a blessing and a curse if you are a prosecutor, because obviously, you’ve got hoards of enterprising reporters out there trying to dredge up [information]. On the other side, prosecutors generally don’t like a whole lot of statements that witnesses have made other than statements they make to the government agencies. Because I don’t care how good of a memory you have, no two statements are exactly the same. They can’t be.

If The New York Times [for instance] interviews someone and they say, “Well, I bumped into someone right before the blast, and he gave me a strange look.” And then they are interviewed by the government. Or put it the other way around.... The lawyer on cross-examination can say, “Isn’t it possible you were bumped into by somebody else? You gave conflicting accounts, didn’t you, when you bumped into the guy—what do you mean?” So the defense lawyer puts some seeds of doubt into the minds of a jury. It’s a blessing and a curse. It’s great that there are people out there, and it’s a free country, they’re free to talk to reporters, but it can complicate the case.

Does the flood of information make the job of the U.S. attorney harder or easier?

That’s a great question, let me think about that for a second.

I don’t know. In some respects it’s easier, there’s information that can be gleaned from the computer that you otherwise wouldn’t get. So, for example, if the press accounts are accurate about the brother who died had posted some things on a YouTube account, that may give a window into certain things that you might not have if he had read a book, took a book out of the library.

On the other hand, yeah, there’s such a thing as too much information. I’m sure the FBI is going nuts with all the leads and the photos that are being sent into them and people putting things on Facebook.

At the end of the day, a lot of the important photographs will be introduced. A lot of them come from either people that have now self- identified themselves and they will testify that they took this picture, some of them will come from pole cameras and things like that, which will be authenticated by the owner of the store. At the end of the day, this evidence will come in. But what the prosecutor has to think about is not just what the evidence is, but how do we admit it into evidence? Get it to be legitimate evidence that the jury can hear, as opposed to what the newspaper chooses to print. Those are totally different things.

Michael Sullivan, another former U.S. attorney from the Massachusetts district (and current Senate candidate), has called for Tsarnaev’s citizenship to be revoked. Could this happen? And what would happen if it did?

It would be very rare for something like that to happen before someone was convicted, number one. And number two, if he was convicted and received the kind of sentence that is likely to result in a conviction of terrorism, the government is not going to revoke his citizenship and deport him. They are going to make sure his sentence is carried out in the United States.

On what grounds could the government, in theory, revoke his citizenship?

I’m not an immigration expert. But there are situations. Because you have to disclose certain facts when you apply for citizenship and if you lie on that application, or if you fail to disclose some information, there are situations where you can have your citizenship revoked.

It strikes me, the defendant is going to care more about the penalty he’s facing rather than if he’s a U.S. citizen or not.

How does the terrorism charge change the way this case is prosecuted?

It changes it in the sense that there will be much more involvement from the the Department of Justice in Washington. Not only the terrorism section, but the deputy attorney general and the attorney general will be much more heavily involved in key decisions, strategy decisions. It also in a case like this—and all I know is what I read in the newspapers—it could well be that as the case gets under way, and as they learn more facts, there will be information that is gathered from intelligence agencies like the CIA. In one sense it’s good to be sharing information. But sometimes it presents challenges in how that gets handled in court. There’s a way to handle classified information. That can create complications.

]]>

The Boston Marathon Bombers Were Probably Caught on Camera

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:43:13 -0400

The perpetrators of the Boston Marathon blast were caught on camera.

OK, we don’t know that for sure, yet. But in a world where cameras are found in everyone's pockets, it seems impossible for their movements and actions not to have been recorded.

For one, there were thousands of people outside in Boston on Monday afternoon taking video and pictures. The Boston Police Department has already asked citizens to send in their footage, and it will be included in the investigations. But even without the mobile phones, chances are the plotters were caught on camera. Like most modern cities, Boston has an extensive and sophisticated closed-circuit television (CCTV) system.

According to a 2007 report on infrastructure security, the city of Boston has at least 147 wireless cameras placed throughout the city and in surrounding areas monitoring critical infrastructure and feeding that information back to the police. “The secondary purpose of any and all cameras will be to assist local jurisdictions in providing for the public safety by monitoring critical infrastructure,” the report states.

If the person or persons used public transportation, there’s a near certainty they were recorded. As of 2007, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority had 402 cameras throughout its system and was in the process of adding 186 more. Factor in the cameras mounted on private businesses, and there’s probably almost no inch of public space that isn’t monitored.

In all, this gives police thousands upon thousands of hours of footage to comb through. It won’t be easy, but it can be done.

How do we know? After the 2005 bombings in London, a city with one of the most extensive CCTV systems in the world , the city pieced together the proceeding of the terrorists as they made their way through the city to their target.

The city’s official narrative of the incident makes clear the painstaking work involved. Here what the cameras captured on July 7, the day of the bombing.

03:58 A light blue Nissan Micra is caught on CCTV in Hyde Park Road, Leeds, prior to joining the M1 outside Leeds.

04:54 The Micra stops at Woodall Services on the M1 to fill up with petrol… He [Tanweer, one of the co-conspirators] buys snacks, quibbles with the cashier over his change, looks directly at the CCTV camera and leaves.

6:49 The Micra arrives at Luton and parks next to the Brava. The 4 men get out of their respective cars, look in the boots of both, and appear to move items between them. They each put on rucksacks which CCTV shows are large and full.

7:15 Lindsay, Hussain, Tanweer and Khan [the plotters] enter Luton station and go through the ticket barriers together. It is not known where they bought their tickets or what sort of tickets they possessed, but they must have had some to get on to the platform.

7:21 The 4 are caught on CCTV together heading to the platform for the King’s Cross Thameslink train.

8:23 The train arrives at King’s Cross, slightly late due to a delay further up the line. The 4 are captured on CCTV at 08.26am on the concourse close to the Thameslink platform and heading in the direction of the London Underground system. At around 08.30am, 4 men fitting their descriptions are seen hugging. They appear happy, even euphoric.

08.50: CCTV images show the platform at Liverpool Street with the eastbound Circle Line train alongside seconds before it is blown up. Shehzad Tanweer is not visible, but he must have been in the second carriage from the front.

Six days after the attack, police start linking these events together. “By 13 July, the police had strong evidence that Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay were the bombers and that they had died in the attacks.” But it was no small feat: Police collected 80,000 CCTV tapes , amounting to hundreds of thousands of hours of footage. The London police brought on some 400 extra officers to help with the grunt of it. "The scale is enormous," the narrative concluded.

As Alexis Madrigal writes at The Atlantic , although we have the technology to capture and record every inch of a city in real time, the process very much depends on a human eye to analyze. "Right now, there is no video software that can do this type of analysis," he writes, "not even in a first-pass way."

Even so, given the history here, it seems likely that given enough time, the perpetrators of the bombing will be found on camera. Whether the police can connect the thread among all the disparate sources of information is another matter.

]]>

George W. Bush White House Website Frozen in Time

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:38:59 -0400

Step back in time to a era where the Affordable Care Act was a laughable dream, when No Child Left Behind was touted by the White House, when Barack Obama was not president of the United States.

The Bush White House's homepage will be stuck on January 20, 2009, for all eternity (or as long as the server that houses it exists). As described by the site's top banner, it is "historical material, 'frozen in time.' "

Study it as you would an archaeological site. For one, you'll see how much more sophisticated web design has become over the past four years.

But also take it as the history of the Bush years as seen by the Bush administration. For instance, you can read the White House's take on the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. You can review the bullet points of the president's "Strategic Framework Agreement and the Security Agreement with Iraq." Historians note: Endless pages of press releases and policy statements are here for studying. Also of note is the "White House Kids" page dedicated to Barney , the Bush family dog who recently died, immortalized in HTML.

The web is a dynamic place. Pages get updated on the order of minutes. But hidden in the thicket are these sites frozen in time. Want to go back even further? The National Archives has digitally preserved all five redesigns of the Clinton-era White House homepage, from a horribly pixelated single frame to the popular three-column design of the late 90s .

The frozen Web isn't limited to the White House pages either. Check out these dueling campaign sites from the 1996 presidential election.

Clinton-Gore

Dole Kemp

]]>

Aaron Swartz and how a martyr makes a law

Brian Resnick, National Journal — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:12:39 -0500

Congress enacted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in 1984, before there was a World Wide Web. And yet, it took Internet wunderkind Aaron Swartz’s apparent suicide for efforts to reform it to get traction. Sometimes to make a law, it takes a martyr.

Swartz died in the midst of a controversial trial. In 2010, he downloaded millions of academic papers from the JSTOR database. For him, this was likely a political act. He believed all journal information should be free. Federal prosecutors in Boston thought otherwise.

Even though JSTOR didn't pursue legal action against Swartz, the text of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) allowed for criminal charges. Swartz's allies argued that the criminal proceedings didn't fit the crime, saying federal prosecutors were trying to make an example of him. The word "persecution" — not "prosecution" — often appears in discussions of what happened. He was facing up to 35 years in prison. However, it was more likely that he would serve less than a year in a minimum-security setting. His allies argue that this is what led Swartz to take his own life.

Now, in death, his accomplishments, coupled with his connections in Washington, are galvanizing to establish a law—“Aaron’s Law”— that would exonerate him.

It's hard to talk about Swartz without painting him as a mythical figure. He taught himself to read at the age of three. He invented the RSS protocol during his teenage years. He was a big thinker, and penned manifestos on information freedom. He read economics textbooks for fun. And he cofounded Reddit. He died at 26 years old, leaving many to wonder what potential was lost with him.

There's an emotional weight, a narrative that gets tied to this piece of legislation, which became clear Monday night at a memorial for Swartz on Capitol Hill.

It was a crowd of contrasts in the after-hours Cannon caucus room. Liberal Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D- Mass., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., sat not too far from Republican Rep. Darrell Issa of California. There were also more colorful figures, including a man whose back-length dreadlocks adorned with bits of colored string and beads clacked around as he approached his seat. And yes, there were a lot of twentysomethings with beards.

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., whom Swartz interned for, likened him to Alan Turing and Socrates, great thinkers who met too-soon deaths due to external pressures. “What we engage in is human sacrifice," he said of these figures. Wyden, in a more head-scratching speech, likened Swartz to a hero in Henry Climbs a Mountain, a children's book, who climbed an imaginary mountain without wearing any shoes. Regardless of the comparison made, it was clear: To them, Aaron was a growing legend unjustly cut down in his prime. Though not everyone spoke in such lofty terms. Berin Szoka, president of the libertarian-leaning group Tech Freedom, was heckled at when he said Swartz was wrong in taking the JSTOR documents. In his view, copyrights should be respected; instead, it's an overly broad law and a harsh justice system that are in need of reform.

But for many advocates, Swartz is a martyr for Internet openness. While those who were close to him shy away from that portrayal, they do intend on using his memory as motivation for change.

"I think of a martyr as someone who made a decision to stand up for something that they knew could cost them their life," Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, Aaron's romantic partner, says. "Aaron didn't go download those articles, knowing that it could cost him his life. I don't think he even seriously considered the idea that he could be arrested for it."

To her, Aaron was more human than his accolades might imply. He was a stubborn but reliable person who "asked for forgiveness, not for permission." Stinebrickner-Kauffman and Aaron's father have maintained that it was the pressure of the prosecution that brought Aaron to his death, not depression, as others have reported. Let's assume they've come to this conclusion based on personal reflections. However, the story does add fuel to the idea that Aaron was a martyr.

Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who represents Silicon Valley, is working on a draft of "Aaron's Law." The legislation would have essentially redeemed Aaron. In downloading the millions of articles, he breached JSTOR’s terms of service. “Aaron’s Law” would make it so that breach of contract was not a federal crime. The case would have been dropped when JSTOR dropped it.

In a fitting way, Lofgren has been posting versions of it to Reddit, asking the Internet community for improvements. "When I heard" about the suicide, Lofgren says, "I was so outraged about his death, and I really thought to myself and I e-mailed my staff, tell me what needs to be changed in the law that you could charge this young man with 13 felonies for 35 years."

While Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, focused more on the justice implications than computer fraud, he too, spoke of using Swartz’s memory to make changes. "The issues that Aaron has left behind and the causes that he believed in are ones that I believe will live on in this Congress, " he said. With a bipartisan effort underway “many of those issues are going to be doubled downed on because of his sacrifice."

It doesn't need to be explained in great detail how tragedy can be a catalyst for reform; just look at the momentum on gun control built from the Sandy Hook shooting. Stinebrickner-Kauffman realizes this, and hopes some good can come of the tragedy.

"Nothing is ever going to make up for his death," Stinebrickner-Kauffman says. "But Aaron would have wanted us to do as much in his name as we can. This CFAA reform is something that we have a real chance of accomplishing."

]]>