Miss Dismal Says Unapproved Information Is Dangerous, Read Her Comic Book To Learn More

It was a bright cold day in February and the clocks were striking thirteen when Homeland Security's latest Summary of the Terrorism Threat to the United States popped up on my telescreen.

(Forget I said that. I should cut out the 1984 references for fear that DHS will suspect me of thoughtcrime.)

So the latest threat to America's homeland comes from MDM, or Mis-Dis-and-Mal Information, and it will take trained info-cops from Homeland Security to police the marketplace of ideas for anything that might mislead, harm, or manipulate you and me.

I say, first of all, Mis-Dis-Mal needs an acronym you can pronounce, something like "Miss Dismal." Second, it needs a good judicial review because, hard as it may be to believe, there are some people who would not want federal agents and their contractors policing our public and private media for signs of MDM.

What would Thomas Jefferson say about this initiative? Or about Homeland Security itself, I wonder? But before I get on a watchlist for wondering about that, I'll stay on the safe side and let the trained info-cops of DHS explain:

Misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation make up what CISA [Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency] defines as “information activities”. When this type of content is released by foreign actors, it can be referred to as foreign influence. Definitions for each are below.

• Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.

• Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

• Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.

What should our corps of trained professional info-cops do about the threat posed by Miss Dismal? Naturally, it should deploy comic books – yes, comic books – to counter the influence spread by any malign 'threat actor.'

Foreign and domestic threat actors use MDM campaigns to cause chaos, confusion, and division. These malign actors are seeking to interfere with and undermine our democratic institutions and national cohesiveness. The resources provided at the bottom of this page provide examples and more information about MDM activities.

First in the series, Real Fake demonstrates how threat actors capitalize on political and social issues (especially around election cycles) to stealthily plant doubt in the minds of targeted audiences and steer their opinion.

Readers follow protagonists Rachel and Andre as they discover that a command center in Russia is using a network of troll farms to spread false narratives about elections to American voters. With the elections coming up, Rachel and Andre follow the trail of synthetic media and stop the cyber assailants from causing chaos, confusion, and division.

They're calling this comic book "Real Fake?” Really? I wonder who it was in DHS who greenlighted that term because it makes me recall the “fake but accurate” excuse that Dan Rather came up with after he was fired from CBS News for using forged documents to – come to think of it – influence an election.

Rathergate was big news once, but that was back in 2004, when most of today’s DHS employees were in grade school. See the CBS News' final word on it here: CBS Ousts Four For Bush Guard Story.

This is where things get funny, because Rathergate had a simply hilarious aspect in that Rather and his producers exposed George W. Bush’s purported misdeeds by producing four old Texas Air National Guard memos. The perfect smoking gun, right?

But, as some TV viewers noticed the very night the story was broadcast, those memos, which were dated in 1972 and ‘73, had been typed in Microsoft Word with default settings. They had proportionally spaced font, and even superscripts (as in Rathergate), things that did not become available to office workers until Steve Jobs invented the MacIntosh computer

Although Rather still keeps on defending himself all these many years later, game over, man. Those documents weren’t fake but accurate, they were just plain fake.

I don’t think DHS intended for Americans to associate their Mis-Dis-and-Mal-fighting comic books with that failed attempt to influence the 2004 election. Although, I would be totally open to a comic book series based on Rathergate.

Another Panel Reports on Anomalous Health Incidents (AHI)

The mysterious matter of anomolous health incidents - AKA Havana Syndrome - threatens to turn into an interagency pissing contest here in the National Capital Area, as shown by the public release of two competing reports by different groups of government-employed experts.

See the State Department's response to the AHI problem here. State and SecState Blinken clearly regard the syndrome as something real, serious, and possibly attributable to a foreign adversary.

Not so at the CIA, which issued a somewhat dismissive interim report whose interim conclusions a senior CIA official summarized for CBS News as "We assess that the majority of reports of [anomalous health incidents] can be reasonably explained by medical conditions or environmental and technical factors, including previously undiagnosed illnesses," meaning that they are not attributable to a foreign adversary.

Two days ago the latest report by a panel of experts was released in a redacted version, and it came down more of the State side of the matter while not contradicting the CIA side. The New York Times, which remains a good newspaper on occasion, covered this battle of the government experts here, Panel Says Some Havana Syndrome Cases May Stem From Radio Energy:

The panel, which included both government scientists and outside experts, did not try to determine who was responsible for the incidents, and officials said the conclusions did not contradict interim findings by the C.I.A. that unexplained incidents were not the result of a sustained global campaign by Russia or another adversary.

But there are tensions between the panel’s work and the C.I.A.’s conclusions. The panel’s findings could bolster the arguments of victims and lawmakers who believe a hostile foreign nation could have caused at least some of the injuries associated with Havana syndrome, perhaps by using a listening device.

You can read that panel's report in a redacted version here.

Here's a recap of the findings:

• The signs and symptoms of AHIs are genuine and compelling. 
• A subset of AHIs cannot be easily explained by known environmental or medical conditions and could be due to external stimuli. 
• Pulsed electromagnetic energy, particularly in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics, although information gaps exist. 
• Ultrasound also plausibly explains the core characteristics, but only in close-access scenarios and with information gaps. 
• Psychosocial factors alone cannot account for the core characteristics, although they may cause some other incidents or contribute to long-term symptoms. 
• Ionizing radiation, chemical and biological agents, infrasound, audible sound, ultrasound propagated over large distances, and bulk heating from electromagnetic energy are all implausible explanations for the core characteristics in the absence of other synergistic stimuli.

The panel concluded with this sympathetic statement:

The panel was moved by the experiences of individuals affected by AHIs. They deserve the best possible care, as well as appreciation for their sacrifices. Panelists were also greatly impressed with the many members of the IC and broader US Government with whom they engaged. The panel feels fortunate to have supported their work.

Much more to come on this matter, sadly. 

Harry Dunn Case Update: A Check Finally Gets Cashed

The suit against the American driver was settled in September when the Dunn family accepted the insurance company's offer. However, at that point the family's former law firm - Cohen, Milstein - filed a lien on any settlement money while they petitioned the court for 30 percent of that boodle in accordance with their contract to represent the family. As you may recall, Cohen Milstein had withdrawn from the case due to unresolvable differences with its clients before a second firm got the case to settlement.

That dispute still goes on, but last Friday the judge in the case issued an interim order requiring distribution of settlement funds not in dispute, meaning that some of the insurance money will finally flow to the Dunn family and, of course, some of that money will stick to their current set of American lawyers.

The amount of the settlement remains confidential, however, UK Twitter gossip says the amount that is not in dispute is seventy percent of the total. That would make perfect sense, since Cohen Milstein is claiming thirty percent, according to a rare unsealed motion filed with the court.

Will Cohen Milstein get that much? Depends on the judge. He might give them all of that, or some of that, or none of that.

So let's see ... thirty percent for them, and another thirty for the firm that replaced Cohen Milstein, leaves, uh, forty percent for the three Dunn family plaintiffs to share.

The family and its horrendous spokesman / advisor are keeping silent on the money as of now. After all, they're still raising donations from the public (to the tune of $213,000 so far) and might not want to do any victory laps yet.

But watch this space for whatever clues we might gather from the family's future spending. Was the settlement Land Rover kind of money, or second-hand subcompact kind of money?

Saturday, January 15, 2022

Harry Dunn Update: Family Takes One Step Back From Civil Settlement Money, Criminal Hearing Cancelled

It wouldn't be another week gone by if I didn't have a post about the Harry Dunn case, would it? Well, here's what we know as of today.

The U.S. Court in Alexandria issued a denial of the plaintiff's request for prejudgement interest, and heard dueling motions on other matters.

My take, which is based on unreliable and unsourced UK Twitter gossip, is that the Dunn family is likely to lose its battle to exclude their first set of American lawyers from the insurance settlement boodle. As the firm of Cohen Milstein had already stated in an unsealed motion, their work achieved an initial settlement offer and that offer is proof of the monetary value CM brought to the plaintiffs, notwithstanding that the plaintiffs rejected that offer. So they'd like thirty percent of that amount, please.

As for the criminal case against the American driver that the Crown Prosecution Service has been impotently threatening, it hit a snag when the would-be defendant declined to go along. The CPS announced on Friday that the court hearing they'd had scheduled for next week has been cancelled. 

The BBC's Home Affairs correspondent reported:

A hearing was scheduled for Westminster Magistrates' Court on 18 January, but the CPS said this had been "vacated".

A spokesman for the CPS said: "This is to enable ongoing discussions between the CPS and Anne Sacoolas's legal representatives to continue."

Last month, Mrs Sacoolas's lawyers denied she would attend a court appearance via video link and said no such agreement had been made.

The CPS announcement was immediately spun by the Dunn family spokesman as a "postponement" of the hearing, a term that was repeated across the UK news media. Of course if it actually were a postponement, then there would be a new date for a hearing, whereas the CPS said the hearing date had been "vacated." As in, there is now no date set for a hearing on that matter.

More to come. Much more.

 

SecState Blinken to FSJ: A World of Risk

On Moves to Modernize: An Interview with Secretary of State Antony Blinken https://t.co/PJcHHMpKTk

— TSB (@TweetingTSB) January 15, 2022

SecState Blinken was interviewed for this month's Foreign Service Journal, and he - meaning, really, his office and staff - showed he has been briefed on an initiative now underway to approach Congress for relief from some strictures on overseas security and risk acceptance that were imposed by legislation which was passed over twenty years ago.

FSJ: You said in the speech at FSI that you will seek authorities and policies that allow diplomats to manage risk more effectively and smartly. Can you tell us more about this new risk management platform and how it will be implemented?

Secretary Blinken: My first responsibility is to ensure the safety of our people and their families in the field. From the COVID-19 pandemic to anomalous health incidents, the risks facing U.S. diplomats overseas are as significant and complex as ever.

But we must find ways to address these threats and risks without losing the in-person diplomacy and public engagement that are at the core of our profession. That’s a message I’ve heard loud and clear from every part of our workforce, everywhere I’ve traveled, including at our highest-risk posts.

Over the last 20 years, we’ve moved many U.S. embassies, consulates and American Centers out of city centers and into more hardened facilities where they’re less accessible to the people they were created to reach. In some cases, there were good reasons for those moves. But there have also been some unintended consequences. It’s become immensely difficult to open new posts, even in low-threat environments; and it’s harder than it should be to adjust our presence to respond to crises and opportunities. Last year, China surpassed the United States in total number of diplomatic and consular posts. We make it harder to outcompete China when we are so hindered in how and where we can operate. We’ve got to fix that.

As our diplomats know, a world of zero risk is not a world in which we can deliver for the American people. We have to accept risk and manage it smartly. One way to do that is by working with Congress to update the legislation that governs our physical security requirements overseas and reforming the Accountability Review Board process. Here, too, there is bipartisan support to update our mindset and operations, focusing more on lessons learned and less on individual culpability when it comes to security incidents.

So I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to make some commonsense changes that will strengthen our diplomacy while continuing to keep our people safe.

Good on you, SecState Blinken. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you can persuade Congress to acknowledge the reality that this is, unavoidably, a world of risk.

Thursday, December 23, 2021

Harry Dunn Case $ettlement Amount: What's the Over / Under?

We know from public announcements that the two sides have reached agreement on a financial settlement of some kind, and we also know from publicly available court records that there was an initial offer that was rejected. 

We further know that when the Dunn family accepted the final offer they did not understand that their first set of American lawyers would be entitled to a slice of the settlement pie. 

But nothing has leaked out so far as to the actual amount of money on the table. 

The U.S. legal code might give us a hint about how much or how little money could be involved. 28 U.S. Code § 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs tells us that the minimal amount is likely to be $75,000, since that is the least amount that must be involved in order for a U.S. District Court to have jurisdiction in a civil action when dispute is between citizens of different states:

(a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between— (1)citizens of different States;

The settlement negotiated by the American driver's insurance company was most likely a good deal more than $75,000, I'm guessing, but it must have been at least that much. 

Then, 28 U.S. Code § 1332 has some irrelevant legal mumbo-jumbo, followed by this most interesting provision:

(b)Except when express provision therefor is otherwise made in a statute of the United States, where the plaintiff who files the case originally in the Federal courts is finally adjudged to be entitled to recover less than the sum or value of $75,000, computed without regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which the defendant may be adjudged to be entitled, and exclusive of interest and costs, the district court may deny costs to the plaintiff and, in addition, may impose costs on the plaintiff.

If I read that right, it means that the Dunn family could, under the right circumstances, end up with nothing and might even be assessed costs. That would go over great with the UK public and government, I'm sure.

Recall that UK financial settlements for fatal road traffic accidents rarely reach more than about $25,000, and that this case is being adjudicated under UK laws. What's more, one and possible two sets of lawyers will have to be paid before the Dunn family sees a penny. 

My best guess is the settlement amount was around $100,000. Even if it was twice that amount, once it gets cut up three ways the Dunn could be walking away with only $75,000. If so, it would be better than they'd have gotten from a UK court, albeit they would have gotten a UK settlement two years ago.

The next court action in the case will take place on January 12 (rescheduled from December 21 due to the holidays) and will address the lawyers' claims on the settlement money.

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Harry Dunn Update: Virtual Court Appearance? Not So Fast.

PA: US citizen Anne Sacoolas, 44, will face Westminster Magistrates’ Court on January 18 charged with causing 19-year-old Harry Dunn’s death by dangerous driving, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) December 13, 2021

That breathless tweet by PA Media two days ago was repeated, word for word, by every single UK news outlet I checked with the sole exception of the BBC, which waited until there had been a public comment by the American driver's lawyers that refuted the notion she will appear in court ("While we have always been willing to discuss a virtual hearing, there is no agreement at this time"). 

PA Media's post was self-refuting, anyway. First, CPS had not said anything about this in any public forum; if "the Crown Prosecution Service said" any such thing to PA Media, it must have been anonymously. Second, the driver had immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the UK, and could not appear in court to answer charges without a waiver of that immunity approved by the Secretary of State. Therefore, the CPS can't force the driver to return to the UK, and CPS itself has already said that UK law does not permit virtual court appearances by parties who are not physically in the UK and subject to a court's jurisdiction. 

So what is the CPS playing at? One possibility is that the American driver may be negotiating a plea deal that could involve a reduction in charges and a minimal penalty which could be served in the U.S. That would make sense, especially coming on the heels of the settlement of the civil case. If that's so, then the negotiations are going on still, since evidently no such appearance has been agreed to yet. 

One other tea leaf to read here has to do with the venue for that 'CPS said' court appearance. First, why would it be set for the Westminster Magistrates' Court, which is in London, rather than in the West Midlands where the fatal traffic accident occurred? 

Well, according to Wikipedia, extradition matters are handled by the Westminster Court, and that might explain it. For another thing, I think a Magistrate's court is not one where a trial in absentia could occur, although it is one where CPS might seek a reduction in charges and any other changes that are necessitated by that sticky wicket of unwaived diplomatic immunity. 

If the Dunn family's spokesman and all-around Svengali were at all prudent and well-intended, he would hold off on doing any media victory laps until we know what's going on. But he is neither of those things, so he continues to encourage the family's false hopes. Still, if he is half the con man I think he is, he should be able to conjure up an image of "justice" that is scaled down to the paltry reality which is coming to them.

 

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)