The failure to sell Air India could further drain taxpayers’ money as the government tries to keep it airborne.On Wednesday (Sep. 26), union minister of state for civil aviation Jayant Sinha said discussions for a bailout package were in an advanced stage. “We are going through the government approval process,” Sinha said without outlining the contours of the deal nor specifying the quantum of money the government plans to infuse.Only in July this year, the government had sought parliament’s approval to pump in Rs980 crore ($135 million) into Air India. At the time, a distress signal was sent to the finance ministry, saying the firm required Rs500 crore urgently, failing which it would default on its loan payments.The Maharajah’s divestment plans were torpedoed in June by its huge loan book that made it unattractive to potential suitors.The company has a total debt of around Rs52,000 crore, of which Rs22,000 crore are loans pertaining to buying of aircraft and the rest comprises working capital loans and other liabilities.“Air India is a national carrier. Unlike other companies, it cannot take an aircraft on lease. Government-owned entities cannot lease. So its loans will always be there. The advantage that Air India has is it can amortise (or defer payments to a later date) those loans over a period of time,” said Mark Martin, founder and CEO of aviation consulting firm Martin Consulting.The debt notwithstanding, Air India is an asset-rich airline like no other. After divestment plans failed, the government had then said it would sell non-core assets like land and buildings.The government also said it is considering ways of separately selling the national carrier’s subsidiaries, handling engineering, transport and allied services. The idea behind selling off Air India in bits and pieces is to minimise the burden of debt on prospective buyers.“The debt incurred to buy aircraft has to be taken over by any company that buys Air India. If you are getting the assets, you cannot say no to not bearing the corresponding loan,” said Asish Nainan, research analyst with CARE Ratings.Prospective bidders who were keen on Air India included the now beleaguered full-service airline Jet Airways and InterGlobe Aviation, the company that runs the budget carrier IndiGo. Both subsequently quit bidding.Since then, interest in the aviation sector has only waned further given the macroeconomic situation.The Indian aviation sector, in general, is in the doldrums as it is trying to overcome the blows from rising oil prices and a weakening rupee. On Wednesday (Sept. 26), the government imposed a 5% customs duty on aviation turbine fuel which is expected to tighten the screws on airlines’ profitability. Most airlines have reported losses or have seen a huge dip in profits in recent quarters.Air India’s projected net loss for 2017-18 was estimated at over Rs3,500 crore, former aviation minister Ashok Gajapathi Raju had told parliament in January.In such a precarious situation, finding a suitor is a tough task. Until then, the Maharajah’s maintenance will remain a significant strain on the government’s coffers.

Moscow appears to have deployed an advanced new stealth fighter to its airbase in Syria, reports in Russian news media and online videos of the aircraft indicated on Thursday, in what analysts say could be a risky attempt to gain publicity and operational experience for the jet in one of the world’s most tangled conflicts.Their appearance comes at a fraught moment in the seven-year war, as the US and Russia occasionally scramble jets to intercept each other over Syria and pro-regime warplanes pound the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta despite protests from the UN. More than 330 people have been killed there since the bombing began on Sunday, according to reports.The deployment of two Su-57 fighter aircraft, which were filmed landing at Russia’s Khmeimim airbase along the Mediterranean coast, would represent the latest high-tech military system Russia has exhibited in Syria, a conflict that has already been used to demonstrate the prowess of Russian cruise missiles and combat helicopters.Both the Kremlin and the Russian ministry of defence declined to comment on whether the fifth-generation Russian fighter jets, which are still in combat testing phases, had been deployed. Russian news agencies, including the respected RBC business daily, published reports on Thursday saying sources in the ministry of defence had confirmed the presence of the advanced fighter jets in Syria.The military had previously announced it would begin testing the fighters in combat. They have been touted as a future rival to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which the US uses in patrols over Syria.Yuri Borisov, the deputy defence minister, said earlier in February: “We are buying Su-57 jets for test combat use. First stage state trials are over.”US-led forces wounded and killed dozens of Russian mercenaries and pro-Assad militiamen earlier this month, in a battle near the city of Deir ez-Zor in which US drones and warplanes directly targeted Russians fighting on the government side for the first time in the war.Russia has regularly used the conflict as a testing ground for its latest military technology and has even credited it for an uptick in arms sales. The Su-57, the first operational Russian jet to use stealth technology, has been plagued by cost and time overruns, and analysts said there could be a business rationale behind the deployment.“There is some operational merit in doing this, but there’s also a publicity element,” said Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He noted that a successful demonstration of the plane in Syria could assuage concerns of potential buyers such as the Indian government.It is still unclear whether the aircraft could play any role in day-to-day operations. “We haven’t seen it fire anything. We haven’t seen it drop anything,” Barrie said.Ruslan Pukhov, a defence analyst and the director of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said it could be risky to deploy the new jets to Syria.“If I were the minister of defence, I probably wouldn’t do it,” he said. “If you lose one of these planes, it could make for big problems. And what happens if the technology falls into the wrong hands?” Topics Russia Syria Middle East and North Africa Weapons technology Europe news

A close associate of Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn arranged a covert investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state, and through intermediaries turned to a person with knowledge of the “dark web” for help.Flynn, a retired three-star general who led chants of “lock her up” at last year’s Republican national convention, is a central figure in the FBI’s investigation into whether the Kremlin worked with the Trump campaign to sway the US election.Flynn is personally and ideologically linked to Barbara Ledeen, a longtime conservative activist who works for the Republican senator Chuck Grassley on the Senate judiciary committee – which is now investigating alleged links between the Trump campaign and Russia.Ledeen’s husband, Michael Ledeen, is also a confidant of Flynn, and co-authored a book with him last year.Flynn was forced to resign in February after just 24 days on the job as Trump’s chief intelligence official in the White House, when it emerged that he had lied to Vice-President Mike Pence about conversations he had with the then Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak.According to interview notes released by the FBI last year, Ledeen decided in 2015 to launch her own investigation into Clinton’s use of the server. At the time, she was a staffer on the Senate judiciary committee.According to the FBI files, Ledeen wanted to determine whether the emails had been hacked by a “foreign power”, because the incident angered her as a citizen and because she wanted to know whether such a hack would put her children, who served in the military, in danger.Clinton’s use of a private server was steeped in controversy throughout her unsuccessful presidential bid, but Ledeen’s concerns proved to be unfounded. A federal investigation found no evidence that the emails on Clinton’s private server were ever compromised.Ledeen’s name was redacted on the FBI documents describing the investigation, which were released last year in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. But a person who reviewed the unredacted documents confirmed to the Guardian that Barbara Ledeen was the subject. Her involvement was also confirmed by the Senate judiciary committee in response to the Guardian’s questions.According to the FBI notes, Ledeen wanted to pursue her own investigation in 2015 into whether or not Clinton’s emails had been compromised but could not finance the work.She sought out the help of an unnamed defense contractor and also turned to Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House, for help. According to the FBI notes, Gingrich “wanted to speak to others about the project” and asked Judicial Watch, the conservative activist group, for financial assistance.Judicial Watch allegedly turned to another, unnamed, contractor who was familiar with the “deep web and dark web”, according to the FBI files. The parties were concerned about what they would do if they came across any emails that contained classified information. According to the FBI investigation, the project was later halted.The incident and web of relationships is important for two reasons.First, because Ledeen is the second person with ties to Flynn who allegedly sought to investigate Clinton’s use of a private server in an unofficial capacity.In June, a former British intelligence official named Matt Tait said that he had been approached by a longtime Republican operative called Peter Smith, who had a history of seeking damaging material about the Clinton family and was known for his close ties to Gingrich. Smith was convinced that Clinton’s private server had been hacked by a foreign power, probably Russians, Tait said. Smith, who died at the age of 81 10 days after giving his own account to the Wall Street Journal, told the newspaper he had operated independently of the Trump campaign.He allegedly told Tait that he had been approached by a person on the “dark web” who claimed to have a copy of emails from Clinton’s server and wanted help validating their authenticity.According to Tait’s account, Smith claimed to be working with Flynn, who at the time was serving as a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.Ledeen’s involvement is also important because she works on the Senate judiciary committee, which is conducting an investigation into the Trump campaign. Her family’s relationship with Flynn raises questions about whether Ledeen could be wielding influence over the investigation.Grassley’s spokesman said that Ledeen’s 2015 inquiry had not been authorised by the judiciary committee and that the committee had only learned of it after it had been completed.“She was instructed not to do any further follow-up once the committee learned of her involvement,” the spokesman said.Congressional investigators do not have the power of the FBI and federal prosecutors to bring criminal indictments, but they can compel witnesses to testify publicly and under oath, and can potentially play an important role in setting the groundwork for impeachment proceedings against the president.Grassley has several important decisions to weigh in how his investigation will proceed, including whether to call the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr, to testify publicly about a 2016 meeting he attended with Russians. A Grassley spokesman told the Guardian that Barbara Ledeen was a part-time staffer on the judiciary committee judicial nominations unit. He said Ledeen was “in no way” connected to the investigations team and “would not have access to any of its materials”.“Senator Grassley has no relationship with Barbara’s husband and wouldn’t recognise him if he saw him,” the spokesman added.Ledeen and her husband have been influential – and controversial – players in conservative circles in Washington for decades.Michael Ledeen, Barbara’s husband, is a historian and former Reagan administration official who helped to develop the secret programme to sell US arms to Iran in the late 1980s, in what is known as the Iran-Contra affair.Neither Barbara nor Michael Ledeen responded to requests for comment. Michael Ledeen’s daughter, Simone Ledeen, formerly worked with Flynn in Afghanistan.An attorney for Flynn did not respond to a request for comment. Topics Michael Flynn Hillary Clinton Russia US politics Europe US elections 2016 news

The supreme court has ruled that restricting civil partnerships to same-sex couples is discriminatory, putting the government under pressure to allow heterosexual couples to enter into such unions.Justices at the UK’s highest court unanimously found in favour of Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, declaring that their human rights had been breached.In an initial response, an Equalities Office spokesperson issued a non-committal statement saying it would said consider the judgment with “great care”. The prime minister’s official spokesman later said more time was needed for “the government equality office to consider all aspects of civil partnerships for heterosexual and same-sex couples. This is currently under way and we will consider its conclusions in due course.”But Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary and equalities minister, is understood to be sympathetic to opening up civil partnerships to everyone.Dawn Butler, Labour’s shadow minister for women and equalities, called for the law to be changed. “The government should have already legislated to ensure all couples have equality of choice,” she said. “Labour is calling on the government to take action and change the law to ensure all people have access to civil partnerships and are able to choose what is right for them.” Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP who supports the couple’s campaign, is due to meet a Home Office minister on Thursday to discuss the issue. He has also submitted a private member’s bill, which has government support, that commits ministers to carrying out an investigation into different civil partnerships.Steinfeld and Keidan, of west London, believe the institution of marriage is patriarchal and sexist. They have fought a prolonged legal campaign to open up civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples.At present, heterosexual couples may only marry, while same-sex couples can either marry or take up a civil partnership. Steinfeld and Keidan had lost earlier legal challenges at both the high court and the court of appeal.In their decision, the five supreme court justices formally declared that the ban preventing opposite-sex couples from obtaining civil partnerships was incompatible with their human rights and amounted to discrimination.The government should have eliminated the inequality of treatment between same-sex and opposite-sex partners when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act came into force in 2014, the judges said. “This could have been done by abolishing civil partnerships or by instantaneously extending them to different-sex couples … Taking time to evaluate whether to abolish or extend could never amount to a legitimate aim for the continuance of the discrimination.”In the three and a half years since they launched their legal claim, Steinfeld and Keidan have had two children. The couple’s commitment to equality and rejection of marriage because of its patriarchal associations is such that rather than give them a double-barrelled surname they have the fused family name of Keidstein.The only jurisdiction in the British Isles that permits opposite-sex civil partnerships is the Isle of Man. Some couples have travelled there for ceremonies, but the unions are not recognised in the UK.Other countries such as South Africa, New Zealand and the Netherlands allow couples to choose either civil partnership or marriage. In the Netherlands last year there were 64,400 marriages and 17,900 civil partnerships, suggesting there is demand for both arrangements.Abolishing civil partnerships for same-sex couples to end the discrimination could mean dissolving legal ties that unite 63,000 gay couples – a course of action that would trigger political furore and legal uncertainty.Even the Marriage Foundation supports extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, believing they are “infinitely preferable to unthinking and risky cohabitation”.There are 3.3 million unmarried cohabiting couples. They have no legal rights if a partner dies. If they all entered civil partnerships, it could have a significant impact on the government’s pension costs and tax income.There was applause in court from supporters of Steinfield and Keidan after the judgment was read out.Keidan said: “The government is in a position to complete the circle of equality by making sure civil partnerships are now extended to everyone, to make sure the inequality is remedied.”Steinfield said: “After four years and four equality ministers, we get there in the end. I’m frustrated that the government made us go through this at the cost of all this money.”Steinfeld and Keidan’s case was funded through the website Crowdjustice.In a joint statement, they said: “We have fought this battle not only on our own behalf but for 3.3 million unmarried couples in England and Wales. Many want legal recognition and financial protection, but cannot have it because they’re not married and because the choice of a civil partnership is not open to them. The law needs to catch up with the reality of family life in Britain in 2018.”Louise Whitfield, the couple’s solicitor, from the law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, said she was delighted at the unanimous supreme court victory.She said it was rare for rulings to have a personal impact on her life, but she would be going home to ask her husband for a divorce so that they could enter into a civil partnership instead. “I’m a feminist,” she said. “That’s why I took this case on.”An Equalities Office spokesperson said: “The government is very aware of its legal obligations, and we will obviously be considering this judgment of the supreme court with great care.“We recognise the sensitive and personal issues involved in this case and acknowledge, as the supreme court does, the genuine convictions of the couple involved. We will study the court’s judgment carefully and respond in due course.” Topics Civil partnerships UK supreme court Marriage news

Three years after rolling out the Swachh Bharat (Clean India) campaign, which among other things aims to eradicate open defecation by 2019, India is far from solving its filth problem.But the sordid state of affairs even offers a huge business opportunity—a $62 billion market by 2021—for global and homegrown companies in what is referred to as the sanitation economy by the Toilet Board Coalition (TBC). The three-year-old TBC, a global consortium of companies, social investors, sanitation experts and non-profits, aims to catalyse market-based solutions to fulfil the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal of achieving adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and ending open defecation by 2030.The most obvious opportunity lies in the “toilet economy,” but sanitation is more than just building and operating restrooms. It includes diverse players, from toilet fittings and repairs to human waste management to smart tech and data-collection companies.Here are the three sub-sectors of the sanitation economy as identified by the TBC: The Sanitation Economy Description Type of work Toilet economy Product and service innovation that provides toilets suited to all environments and incomes Household and public toilet fixtures, maintenance, repair; hygiene products Circular sanitation economy Toilet resources (human waste) feed into a system that replaces traditional waste management Collection, transportation, processing of human waste, and turning it into products like organic fertilisers, protein oils, and more Smart sanitation economy Digitised systems that ensure operating efficiencies and maintenance, besidesconsumer use and health information insights Consumer and health data collection, analysis, and distribution; sensors and data transmission “This is the biggest opportunity in a century to transform sanitation systems into a smart, sustainable, and revenue-generating economy,” Cheryl Hicks, executive director of the TBC, said in a statement.For instance, each year, over 3.8 trillion litres of human waste is generated, which companies can use to produce treated water, renewable energy, organic fertilisers, protein products, and more. Similarly, smart technologies can help shape business and health decisions, besides policy-making.Moreover, various other industries could also participate in the emerging sanitation economy.Take fragrance and flavour company Firmenich, for instance. The Swiss firm is tackling the issue of malodour—a key reason for toilets going unused in the developing world. “The science of smell is our business,” said Satish Rao, chairman and managing director of Firmenich India, in a statement. “When we realised that smell played such a critical role in enabling more responsible hygiene habits, we decided to be part of the solution.” Last year, Microsoft founder Bill Gates backed the company’s efforts to provide stink-free toilets across India and Africa.After all, basic sanitation remains out of grasp for over 2.3 billion people globally, which results in an estimated $260 billion of economic loss annually.But things can turn around. “For every $1 invested in water and sanitation,” the TBC said, “$4.30 is generated in economic returns through increased productivity.”

BEIJING/PARIS (Reuters) - China said on Monday it was investigating former Interpol chief Meng Hongwei for bribery and other violations, days after French authorities said the Chinese official had been reported missing by his wife after traveling to his home country. Under President Xi Jinping, China has been engaged in a sweeping crackdown on official corruption. On Sunday, Interpol, the France-based global police coordination body, said that Meng had resigned as its president. “The investigation against Meng Hongwei taking bribes and suspected violations of law is very timely, absolutely correct and rather wise,” China’s Ministry of Public Security said in a statement on its website. “The investigation of Meng Hongwei fully shows there is no privilege and no exception in front of the law, and anyone who violates the law must be severely punished,” it added. Officials should never be allowed to “negotiate terms or haggle” over positions within the party, the ministry said, referring to China’s ruling Communist Party. French media on Sunday broadcast video of Meng’s wife Grace speaking to a small group of journalists at a hotel in Lyon, her back to a TV camera in order to hide her appearance and her voice trembling. “This is a matter for the international community. It concerns the people of my motherland,” she said. She showed journalists a text message on her mobile phone with an image of a knife, sent by her husband as a way of showing her that he felt he was in danger, French media reported. Meng, 64, became president of the global police cooperation agency in late 2016 amid a broader effort by China to secure leadership posts in international organizations. His appointment prompted concern at the time from rights groups that Beijing might try to leverage his position to pursue dissidents abroad. “Meng’s sudden disappearance ... has clearly undermined China’s own efforts and has lent credence to those who said previously that China was not ready to take on such important international leadership roles,” said Paul Haenle, Director at the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center in Beijing. France’s Interior Ministry said on Friday that Meng’s family had not heard from him since Sept. 25, and French authorities said his wife was under police protection in Lyon, where Interpol is headquartered, after receiving threats. Presidents of Interpol are seconded from their national administrations and remain in their home post while representing the international policing body. FILE PHOTO: INTERPOL President Meng Hongwei poses during a visit to the headquarters of International Police Organisation in Lyon, France, May 8, 2018. Jeff Pachoud/Pool via Reuters/File PhotoA source at the agency declined to say whether it was usual for an Interpol president to bring his family to France, or whether Interpol provided housing for Meng. Meng’s predecessor, Frenchwoman Mireille Ballestrazzi, lived in Paris and traveled to Lyon for meetings when her presence was required. China’s foreign ministry said on Monday that China would continue to provide support for Interpol’s work. Reporting by Tony Munroe, Stella Qiu and Michael Martina in BEIJING and Richard Lough in PARIS; Editing by Simon Cameron-Mooren and Peter GraffOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

China has accused the missing ex-Interpol president Meng Hongwei of bribery, as the case continues to tarnish Beijing’s image as a rising power and responsible member of international organisations.In a terse statement on Sunday evening, the Chinese authorities admitted they were holding Meng and China’s ministry of public security said on Monday that the Interpol chief, who was reported missing in France at the weekend, was being investigated for accepting bribes.“The inspection and investigation of Meng Hongwei … is very timely, totally right, and very wise,” it said in a statement on its website.Claiming Meng, who is Chinese, “only had himself to blame”, the ministry added: “There is no exception in front of the law. Anyone will be strictly investigated and punished.”Interpol said on Monday it “regretted” China’s move. The agency’s acting president, Kim Jong Yang, said it had not been told about the investigation of its chief and still did not know enough about the situation.“I find it regrettable that the top leader of the organization had to go out this way and that we weren’t specifically notified of what was happening in advance,” Kim said. “We still don’t have sufficient information about what’s happening, or whether it has anything to do with Chinese domestic politics.”Questions about Meng’s likely fate dominated a Chinese foreign ministry briefing on Monday. The spokesman, Lu Kang, denied Beijing’s handling of the case would harm its image abroad.“This has shown the Chinese government’s firm resolve to crack down on corruption and crime,” Lu said, adding that it “fully demonstrates the party is firm in fighting corruption”. Lu declined to say whether Meng would be formally arrested or allowed to hire a lawyer or receive a visit from his wife. French police have been investigating Meng’s disappearance during a visit to China, which was first reported on Friday by his wife, Grace.In an emotional appeal on Sunday, she told journalists she had not heard from her husband since 25 September when he sent her a WhatsApp message that said: “Wait for my call.” Four minutes later, the message was followed by an emoji of a knife, she said.Then late on Sunday, China’s new anti-corruption body, the national supervision commission, said he was being detained and investigated for suspected “violations of the law”.Interpol released a statement soon afterwards saying Meng had resigned “with immediate effect”. Interpol’s president – a largely ceremonial role – is seconded from his or her national administration and remains in post while representing the agency.Meng, president of the global law enforcement organisation since 2016, usually lives in Lyon, where Interpol is based, with his family. The agency would not say on Monday whether it was customary for an Interpol president to bring their family to France, or whether Interpol provided accommodation for them.Meng’s predecessor, French police officer Mireille Ballestrazzi, lived in Paris and travelled to Lyon only when necessary for meetings. Meng’s wife and children have been placed under protective custody, according to the French interior ministry.Meng’s case has highlighted China’s opaque system of often arbitrary detentions. In the past few months, the Chinese actor Fan Bingbing vanished from public view before reappearing with a statement pledging loyalty to the ruling Communist party and apologising for tax evasion. Top officials have also disappeared, re-emerging shamed and under investigation.“Making the president of Interpol suddenly disappear is embarrassing, but China no longer cares about ‘losing face’,” said Zhang Lifan, a historian and independent commentator in Beijing. “I think the authorities knew how big the discussion would be after this incident, but they just don’t care.”Meng’s disappearance and downfall has raised speculation of a renewed political struggle within the Communist party. The Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, has overseen a broad corruption crackdown that many see as a political purge.Some observers have pointed to Meng’s connection with now-fallen security tsar Zhou Yongkang. Meng, previously head of China’s bureau of oceanography as well as its coastguard, was promoted to vice-minister of for public security under Zhou.Yet Meng’s appointment as Interpol head came after Zhou had been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for bribery and other crimes. Zhang said that showed he was still trusted.As a trade war with the US drags on, there is reported infighting within China’s political elite and it is unclear who Meng may have fallen foul of.“I don’t think the reason behind Meng’s investigation is corruption,” said Zhang. “It’s likely related to a power struggle.”Meng may have foreseen his own downfall. In April, he lost his seat on the decision-making body, the Communist party committee. For his wife to give public statements is unusual as relatives of Chinese officials usually remain silent.The incident may hurt Beijing’s years-long campaign to put more Chinese nationals in top international posts. Meng’s appointment, the first time a Chinese official has been head of Interpol, was questioned by critics who worried that Beijing would use the organisation to pursue political dissidents and officials who had fled China.But as president of Interpol, a largely symbolic role, Meng would not have had much influence over the “red notice” system.“Meng, like all other Chinese citizens, is required to be loyal to Chinese Communist party first, and must comply with the party’s political demands, including approaches to security that contradict international norms,” said Samantha Hoffman of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.“In Meng’s case, this should have been disqualifying. In other cases, this should at the very least raise serious questions about any senior Chinese Communist party official taking a leadership position at any international institution.” Topics China Asia Pacific France Europe news

Apple CEO Tim Cook, interviewed for a BuzzFeed News article published today (Oct. 19), categorically denies that the company was the victim of any spying from Chinese authorities.Earlier this month, Bloomberg ran a cover story (paywall) alleging that Apple, Amazon, and around 30 other major technology and banking companies had bought servers built in China that contained minuscule spying chips, installed by manufacturers at the behest of the Chinese military.The allegations have been denied (paywall) by the manufacturer in question, Super Micro Computer, along with Apple and Amazon. Numerous intelligence agencies, and security researchers and experts, have also expressed concern over the veracity of the original story, which Bloomberg stands by. But Cook decided to double down on his company’s affirmation that it never received compromised hardware, and was not part of any intelligence investigations into spying related to Super Micro chips.In a rare move for Apple, Cook told BuzzFeed that he was calling for Bloomberg to retract its story. Apple is one of the most analyzed companies in the world, generating countless stories on its products and businesses every day, many with mistakes or inaccuracies in them. But as BuzzFeed points out, Apple hasn’t ever publicly asked for a complete retraction to a story before.Cook told BuzzFeed he had taken the helm from the start when directing Apple’s response to Bloomberg’s story:I personally talked to the Bloomberg reporters along with Bruce Sewel who was then our general counsel. We were very clear with them that this did not happen, and answered all their questions. Each time they brought this up to us, the story changed and each time we investigated we found nothing.Bloomberg has yet to back down from its initial report, but Cook said in no uncertain terms that the company hasn’t found anything to back up the claims:We turned the company upside down. Email searches, datacenter records, financial records, shipment records. We really forensically whipped through the company to dig very deep and each time we came back to the same conclusion: This did not happen. There’s no truth to this.It doesn’t seem as if it would be in Apple’s best interest to double down on its denials if it were truly hiding something, but then, Bloomberg is one of the most respected news-gathering outlets in the world. The truth may eventually come out, but it seems at this point it might take legal action for that to happen.

FILE PHOTO: Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in prior to testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/FilesWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller said there is “substantial evidence” that President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey due to his “unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.” Writing by Bill Trott, Editing by Franklin PaulOur Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Five months ago, Trump quickly cemented his legacy as the country’s worst-ever president by inexplicably starting the process to withdraw from the Paris climate accords. With even war-torn Syria now signing the agreement, the leadership of every world country has announced its intent to tackle the existential threat posed by human-caused climate change, except the United States. While this decision may seem puzzling to the rest of the world, the explanation is simple - a study published two years ago found that the Republican Party is the only major political party in the world that rejects the need to tackle climate change, and we know that voters follow elite cues. In 2016, American voters made the terrible mistake of putting that party in charge of the entire federal government, including electing this man president:The clearest result came in Virginia’s gubernatorial election, in which Republican candidate Ed Gillespie ran a Trump-like culture war campaign. He also took the standard Trump administration line on climate change, acknowledging only that humans play some undetermined role while supporting America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accords and opposing all policies to address the problem.Gillespie’s campaign was praised by Trump and Steve Bannon, until he lost the race by 9%. Last week’s election results showed that Trump has strongly mobilized Democrats to vote, even in off-year elections. In Virginia state House of Delegates elections, Democratic candidates similarly beat their Republican opponents by more than 9% in total votes. However, due to gerrymandering and geographical disadvantages (Democrats tend to cluster in cities), unless recounts change the results of close races, Democrats will only hold 49% of the seats in the Virginia House.That structural disadvantage holds across the country. Estimates are that Democrats need to beat Republicans by 7–8% in overall congressional votes in order to win a bare majority of the seats. With a current lead of 8–10% in the generic congressional ballot, they have a chance to take the House in 2018, depending on what happens over the next year.We saw that same structural advantage hand Trump the presidency in 2016. While he lost the popular vote by over 2% (nearly 3 million votes), Trump won the Electoral College, as was the case in 2000 with Bush v. Gore (Gore won the popular vote by a half million votes). America has a bizarrely unbalanced election system in which people who live in sparsely populated areas (predominantly rural Republicans) are disproportionately represented in the government. It will take a landslide election for Democrats to overcome that structural disadvantage, but last week’s results demonstrate that Trump and the Republican Party have become so unpopular, it very well might happen in the 2018 and 2020 elections. That would give Democrats the opportunity to undo Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The Supreme Court is also currently considering a critical gerrymandering case.Regarding the presidency, betting markets currently give Trump approximately a 35–40% chance of winning a second term (which seems overly bullish), and Democrats a 55% chance of retaking the White House in 2020. If that happens, the next president can quickly begin reversing the damage the Trump administration has done to American climate policies and its standing in the world. If you show up at a climate conference to talk about coal, you’re likely to be ignored. I think the We Are Still In delegation will get more attention than the executive branch. We’ve gone from the indispensable leader to being the only country not engaged in climate change. Many people in Congress are troubled not only from a climate standpoint but a geopolitical standpoint. China is happy to take that leadership from us. Indeed, China is stepping into the global leadership role that the United States has shrunk from under Trump’s “America First” platform. Chinese carbon pollution is approaching a peak 15–20 years ahead of schedule, and its leaders relish the opportunity to take America’s place as a global leader.Americans embrace the notion that their country is the greatest in the world. But what does it say that the United States is the nation that is responsible for the largest fraction of overall carbon pollution and global warming over the past 200 years, and is the only country in the world that refuses to take steps to address the existential threat we created? That lack of responsibility and willingness to protect the well-being of future generation is not the behavior of a great nation.However, that is almost exclusively a Republican Party position, and the party and its president are currently supported by fewer than 40% of Americans. Most of its leaders seem unwilling to reverse the party’s slide toward anti-climate culture wars-based isolationism, but with accelerating climate change and a growing population of non-whites, these are positions that will cost them elections. As we saw last week, the ‘Trump base’ is relatively small, and structural advantages won’t be enough to withstand landslide elections.America’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement won’t take effect until the day after the 2020 elections. The next president can quickly reverse that withdrawal, making America the last country to sign on, but resuming its global leadership role. While the Trump administration has exceeded everyone’s fears in its anti-environment, anti-climate actions, the damage is temporary. While the American majority fights to wrest control of its government away from the isolationist climate-denying minority, the rest of the world (literally) is moving forward to tackle this problem. Topics Climate change Climate Consensus - the 97% Climate science denial Bonn climate change conference Global climate talks Trump administration Donald Trump Republicans blogposts

Newly published private travel diaries have revealed Albert Einstein's racist and xenophobic views.Written between October 1922 and March 1923, the diaries track his experiences in Asia and the Middle East.In them, he makes sweeping and negative generalisations, for example calling the Chinese "industrious, filthy, obtuse people".Einstein would later in life advocate for civil rights in the US, calling racism "a disease of white people". Read more about Albert Einstein Albert Einstein: A life spent re-imagining physics This is the first time the diaries have been published as a standalone volume in English.Published by Princeton University Press, The Travel Diaries of Albert Einstein: The Far East, Palestine, and Spain, 1922-1923 was edited by Ze'ev Rosenkranz, assistant director of the California Institute of Technology's Einstein Papers Project.Einstein travelled from Spain to the Middle East and via Sri Lanka, then called Ceylon, on to China and Japan.The physicist describes arriving in Port Said in Egypt and facing "Levantines of every shade... as if spewed from hell" who come aboard their ship to sell their goods.He also describes his time in Colombo in Ceylon, writing of the people: "They live in great filth and considerable stench down on the ground, do little, and need little."But the famous physicist reserves his most cutting comments for Chinese people. According to a piece in the Guardian about the diaries, he describes Chinese children as "spiritless and obtuse", and calls it "a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races".In other entries he calls China "a peculiar herd-like nation," and "more like automatons than people", before claiming there is "little difference" between Chinese men and women, and questioning how the men are "incapable of defending themselves" from female "fatal attraction". Einstein happiness note sold for $1.6m The blackboard Albert Einstein left in Oxford in the 1930s Einstein's waves detected in star smash Noted for both his scientific brilliance and his humanitarianism, Albert Einstein emigrated to the US in 1933 after the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.The Jewish scientist described racism as "a disease of white people" in a 1946 speech at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania.Analysis by Chris Buckler, BBC News, WashingtonEinstein's theory of relativity changed how people thought about space and time but these diaries demonstrate how his own personal views about race seem to have altered over the years. The writings may have been intended as private thoughts but their publication will upset some in America, where campaigners still celebrate Albert Einstein as one of the voices that helped shine a light on segregation.When he moved to the US in 1933 he was taken aback by the separate schools and cinemas for blacks and whites and Einstein subsequently joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He is said to have told people that he saw similarities in the way Jews were being hounded in Germany and how African-Americans were being treated in his new homeland. He chose Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, a historically black college, to give one of his most damning speeches just a year after the end of World War Two. His diaries are full of gut reactions and private insights. In the context of the 21st Century they may tarnish the reputation of a man who is revered almost as much as a humanitarian as a scientist. But the words were written before he saw what racism could lead to in America and Germany - a country he had effectively fled. The best way to get news on the go Download the BBC News App.

Enlarge this image People carry signs protesting the issue of sexual harassment at a #MeToo rally outside Trump International Hotel and Tower in New York. Stephanie Keith/Getty Images hide caption toggle caption Stephanie Keith/Getty Images People carry signs protesting the issue of sexual harassment at a #MeToo rally outside Trump International Hotel and Tower in New York. Stephanie Keith/Getty Images Fallout from sexual harassment, former FBI Director James Comey's firing and the ensuing Russia probe by special counsel Robert Mueller are all in strong positions to be the top political stories of 2017.Will there be an upset Thursday? Voting begins at 8:30 a.m. ET and will close at noon ET, when voting will begin on the final eight. (VOTE HERE!)In Round 2 voting of the NPR Top Political Story of the Year Bracket, voters on Twitter advanced top seeds easily and delivered an upset — 6-seed Travel Ban over No. 3 Gutting Obamacare, 53-47.In another close contest, 3-seed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's appointment narrowly beat out No. 6 North Korea missile tests and Trump calling Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man," 51-49.Also, perhaps surprisingly, two 5-seeds beat No. 4s — Arizona Sen. John McCain's Thumbs-Down health care vote trounced No. 4 Trump vs. the NFL and black athletes, 59-41; and Doug Jones' Alabama Win narrowly defeated the End of Net-Neutrality, 51-49.Here's the bracket: (VOTE HERE!) Enlarge this image The NPR Top Political Story of the Year Bracket after Round 2 voting. Domenico Montanaro/NPR hide caption toggle caption Domenico Montanaro/NPR The NPR Top Political Story of the Year Bracket after Round 2 voting. Domenico Montanaro/NPR It's a big day Thursday, as voting continues on Twitter. Readers will have a chance to vote on two round. By the end of the day, we will know the final four teams. The winner will be announced Friday afternoon.Key matchups:1. Trump inauguration vs. the Women's March: Trump inauguration has performed as the weakest 1 seed so far. It defeated the controversy of Trump vs. Gold Star Mom 68-32. The other 1 seeds finished with at least 87 percent in both rounds.2. The fallout over sexual harassment and the Mueller Probe have emerged as the two to beat. Neither has gotten less than 96 percent of votes in the first two rounds.3. The winner of Inauguration vs. March takes on the winner of No. 3 Natural Disasters and Undermining of Democratic Institutions, which breezed in Round 2.4. Mueller appears poised to move on again, taking on McCain's Thumbs-Down. The winner of that match takes on whoever emerges out of what could be a close contest in Travel Ban vs. Charlottesville.5. Sexual Harassment Fallout appears to be in a strong position going up against Doug Jones in a contest that pits the story with the widest reach of the year against the top electoral political story of the year.6. The winner there takes on the winner of a tough-to-decide matchup between a Year of Gun Violence and "Alternative Facts."7. In the lower right bracket, Comey's firing takes on the Paris Climate Deal Withdrawal, a story that has shown surprising strength crushing two solid stories so far.8. The Comey-Paris winner takes on whoever emerges out of Gorsuch vs. the Tax Overhaul. Some good contests Thursday. You can vote here.NOTES: After the first round, there were two perfect brackets from Persistent Voter (@VMurphy1787) and Parker Ashford (@parkerashford). Kudos! Amazing accomplishment out of 285 brackets submitted. But there are no more perfect brackets after Round 2. Both missed some matchups. Still, Persistent has only missed two the entire tournament. Congrats!And both readers have been good sports about it, wishing each other luck — rare comity on Twitter:

The man who brought the Olympics to Rio is being questioned by Brazilian police as the investigation into allegations of massive corruption within the International Olympic Committee intensifies.The equivalent of £155,000 in cash is said to have been seized after being found in a closet during a raid on Carlos Nuzman’s home as part of an investigation into claims the bidding process for Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020 was rigged.Nuzman, who was head of the Rio 2016 bid committee and is a well known figure in Olympic circles, was summoned to face questions about how he secured the right to host South America’s first ever Olympics amid suspicions he was a key figure in a bribery scandal. The headquarters of the Brazilian Olympic Committee, of which Nuzman is president, were also searched as part of the operation entitled “Unfair Play”.Nuzman’s lawyer, Sergio Mazzillo, told reporters outside the house that his client would co-operate but was innocent of any wrongdoing. “I can confirm that [Nuzman] did not commit any irregularity,” Mazzillo said. “Unfortunately, this has created a media spectacle.”Brazilian prosecutors have been working with their French counterparts since February. It is understood they suspect Nuzman facilitated a $2m payment made by a wealthy Brazilian businessman into the account of Papa Massata Diack, just two days before Rio won the right to stage the Games.Massata Diack – who recently lost an appeal against a life ban from athletics over corruption allegations – is the son of the disgraced former IOC member Lamine Diack, who it is believed voted for Rio at an IOC session in Copenhagen in 2009 in exchange for the money.The Guardian revealed last year French prosecutors investigating corruption in world athletics had expanded their remit to include the bidding and voting processes for the Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.Brazilian prosecutors were already investigating payments of $10m said to have been made by the businessman Arthur César de Menezes Soares Filho – known as King Arthur – to Sergio Cabral, a former governor of Rio de Janeiro.The prosecutors suspect King Arthur and Cabral also arranged for a payment to reach Lamine Diack, former president of athletics’ world governing body, the IAAF, to guarantee his vote for Rio 2016, an event which would further the businessman’s own commercial interests.Prosecutors suspect Nuzman, a former Olympic volleyball player and himself an IOC member since 2000, provided the bridge between King Arthur and Cabral to Diack. They are also believed to have found documents in Nuzman’s house pertaining to offshore banking accounts in Switzerland.A statement from prosecutors in Rio said of Nuzman: “Without his presence and the negotiation he established, the ingenious and corrupt complex relationship could not have achieved the success it did.“ Nuzman was the agent responsible for bringing together interested parties, making contacts and oiling relationships to organise the mechanisms for transferring Cabral’s bribes directly to African members of the International Olympic Committee, which was effectively done by way of Arthur Soares.”Cabral, who was governor of Rio de Janeiro state for eight years until 2014, is currently jailed on accusations that he ran a criminal organisation and took over $100m in bribes, much of which was spent on high living and jewellery.The Federal Public Ministry asked Brazilian courts to block $320m in assets for Nuzman, King Arthur – who is based in the United States – and his business partner Eliane Pereira Cavalcante. They are also investigating whether Nuzman secured Russian citizenship in exchange for his vote for Sochi 2014.The IOC has frequently insisted it is fully reformed following measures taken after the Salt Lake City bribery scandal in 1999. However the Guardian revealed last year that Papa Massata Diack, who remains in Senegal with an Interpol arrest warrant in his name, had arranged for “parcels” to be delivered to six IOC members in 2008 at a time when Qatar was bidding for the 2016 Olympic Games, though it failed to make it beyond the shortlisting stage.The Brazilian prosecutors have called for cooperation from the US authorities in securing the arrest of King Arthur.“Vast documentation and robust evidence revealed that Cabral’s criminal organisation bought the vote of Lamine Diack for $2m,” they said in a statement. “In view of this Brazilian Federal Police, prosecutors and French financial prosecutors launched Operation Unfair Play, with the issue of arrest warrants for the businessman Arthur Soares, known as ‘King Arthur’ and his partner Eliane Pereira Cavalcante.“By way of wiretaps and emails exchanged between the partners, prosecutors discovered that the businessman intended to move to Uruguay. As well as these arrests, the justice system authorised that the president of the Brazilian Olympic Committee (COB) Carlos Arthur Nuzman be taken in for questioning by federal police. As there are suspicions that the president of the COB has Russian nationality, he is prohibited from leaving the country and must hand over all the passports he possesses.“In addition to the investigations carried out by Brazilian and French prosecutors, w e have the complete cycle of how the sale of the vote for the choice of the host city of the Olympic Games of 2016, whose winner was the city of Rio de Janeiro, happened.”Nuzman, who was due to attend a police hearing on Tuesday evening, has yet to respond to the claims.Additional reporting by Dom Phillips in Rio Topics Rio 2016 Olympic Games Brazil news

Donald Trump declared James Comey “a weak and untruthful slime ball” on Friday in response to a new book, in which the former director of the FBI caricatures him as a mafia don, and claimed: “It was my great honor to fire James Comey!”“James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR,” the president tweeted. “Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did – until he was, in fact, fired.”But history may not be rewritten quite so fast.As rage poured forth from the White House an elaborate rollout campaign for Comey’s memoir pressed on, with the release of a television clip on Friday in which Comey recounted having to brief the president on an intelligence report alleging that Trump had consorted with prostitutes in Moscow.The president’s reaction, according to Comey: “Do I look like a guy who needs hookers?”Scenes such as those fill A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership, a copy of which was obtained by the Guardian on Thursday. The book goes on sale on Tuesday, and Comey’s first television interview, with ABC News, is to be broadcast on Sunday, with a national author tour to follow.Judging by Trump’s obliging Twitter outburst on Friday morning – and his even angrier tweet that afternoon claiming: “No collusion, all made up by this den of thieves and lowlifes!” – the book seems likely to make good on Comey’s desire for a showdown with the president, a clash with few precedents and unknowably wide implications.Comey and Trump will not be the only participants. “Your kakistocracy is collapsing after its lamentable journey,” tweeted John Brennan, a former CIA director, in reply to Trump’s post about the ex-FBI chief. The word means government by the worst people.On the other side, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told her regular press briefing: “The American people see right through the blatant lies of a self-admitted leaker.”She added: “Comey will be forever known as a disgraced partisan hack. One of the president’s greatest achievements will go down as firing James Comey.”A Washington Post-ABC News poll timed to the release of Comey’s book found that Americans thought Comey “more believable” than Trump by a 48-32 margin.And fact-checkers pointed out that contrary to Trump’s claim about Comey’s reputation, Comey was broadly popular among the FBI rank-and-file, which reacted to the director’s firing in May 2017 with shock and disbelief.Yet the reappearance of Comey may rank only second as the most threatening development for Trump’s presidency this week, following the raid by FBI agents on Monday of an office, residence and hotel room tied to Michael Cohen, Trump’s longtime trusted lieutenant.A lawyer for Trump was in court in New York on Friday to ask a judge to let the president object to the disclosure of some of the records seized from Cohen.Behind the raids on Cohen lurked the power of the special counsel, Robert Mueller, whose pressure on the president has grown so strong that Trump is once again flirting openly with the idea of removing Mueller, or Mueller’s boss, the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, or both.Most analysts believe that such a step would only deepen Trump’s troubles – the firing of Comey is exhibit A – but such analysis may hold little sway if Trump shares any of the rashness and lack of self-control of the man described by Comey in his book.In the preview television clip aired on Friday, Comey was merciless in depicting the president’s insecurity and cravenness.Trump, according to Comey, was bothered that his wife, Melania Trump, might believe allegations in a dossier compiled by the former British spy Christopher Steele that he, Trump, had been in a Moscow hotel room with urinating prostitutes, Comey said.“He said, you know, ‘If there’s even a 1% chance my wife thinks that’s true, that’s terrible’,” said Comey. “‘And I remember thinking, ‘How could your wife think there’s a 1% chance you were with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow?’“I’m a flawed human being, but there is literally zero chance that my wife would think that was true. So, what kind of marriage to what kind of man does your wife think there’s only a 99% chance you didn’t do that?”Asked if he believed Trump’s denial, Comey said: “I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013.“It’s possible, but I don’t know.”Comey was also asked if he should have told Trump that the Steele dossier contained research partly funded by Democrats. “I don’t know the answer to that,” he replied. “It wasn’t necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information.”In places in the book, Comey seems to lay traps for the notoriously thin-skinned president, who is known for making specious claims about vote tallies and crowd sizes despite the facts and long after the fact.Trump “appeared shorter than he seemed on a debate stage with Hillary Clinton”, Comey writes of their first meeting.He adds of Trump: “His face appeared slightly orange, with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assume he placed small tanning goggles, and impressively coiffed, bright blond hair, which on close inspection looked to be all his. I remember wondering how long it must take him in the morning to get that done.”But the theme Comey favors most in the book is that of Trump as mobster. In this, the lawman knows whereof he speaks, having led prosecutions of major mob figures earlier in his career.“As I found myself thrust into the Trump orbit, I once again was having flashbacks to my earlier career as a prosecutor against the mob,” Comey writes. “The silent circle of assent. The boss in complete control. The loyalty oaths. The us-versus-them worldview. The lying about all things, large and small, in service to some code of loyalty that put the organization above morality and the truth.”Of Trump’s now famous demand over dinner at the White House in January 2017, “I need loyalty”, Comey writes: “To my mind, the demand was like Sammy the Bull’s Cosa Nostra induction ceremony – with Trump in the role of the family boss, asking me if I have what it takes to be a ‘made man’.”Additional reporting by Ben Jacobs in Washington Topics James Comey Donald Trump US politics Trump-Russia investigation FBI Russia news

The House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Loretta E. Lynch, the former attorney general, as part of an investigation into their handling of inquiries into Hillary Clinton’s email server and possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.The subpoenas, issued on Wednesday by Representative Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, the committee’s chairman and a Republican, require Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch to appear in closed-door sessions with members of Mr. Goodlatte’s committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Mr. Comey has been called to appear on Dec. 3, and Ms. Lynch a day later.On Twitter, Mr. Comey objected to the format that Republicans are demanding for the interview. “I’m still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions,” he said. “But I will resist a ‘closed door’ thing because I’ve seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion. Let’s have a hearing and invite everyone to see.”Several Republicans have said they believe that Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch were part of a deeply rooted bias within the F.B.I. and the Justice Department that allowed Ms. Clinton to escape prosecution for her use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. The Republicans have also alleged impropriety in the origins of the investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia.

Here is what the former FBI director James Comey said when he was asked back in September 2016 if he covered his laptop’s webcam with tape.“Heck yeah, heck yeah. Also, I get mocked for a lot of things, and I am much mocked for that, but I hope people lock their cars … lock your doors at night. I have an alarm system, if you have an alarm system you should use it, I use mine.”If he does, we all should.Who could be accessing your camera and microphone?Felix Krause described in 2017 that when a user grants an app access to their camera and microphone, the app could do the following: Access both the front and the back camera. Record you at any time the app is in the foreground. Take pictures and videos without telling you. Upload the pictures and videos without telling you. Upload the pictures/videos it takes immediately. Run real-time face recognition to detect facial features or expressions. Livestream the camera on to the internet. Detect if the user is on their phone alone, or watching together with a second person. Upload random frames of the video stream to your web service and run a proper face recognition software which can find existing photos of you on the internet and create a 3D model based on your face. For instance, here’s a Find my Phone application which a documentary maker installed on a phone, then let someone steal it. After the person stole it, the original owner spied on every moment of the thief’s life through the phone’s camera and microphone.The documentary tracks every move of this person, from brushing their teeth to going to work. To grabbing a bite to eat with their co-worker to intimate moments with a loved one. This is the power of apps that have access to your camera and microphone. Edward Snowden revealed an NSA program called Optic Nerves. The operation was a bulk surveillance program under which they captured webcam images every five minutes from Yahoo users’ video chats and then stored them for future use. It is estimated that between 3% and 11% of the images captured contained “undesirable nudity”. Government security agencies like the NSA can also have access to your devices through in-built backdoors. This means that these security agencies can tune in to your phone calls, read your messages, capture pictures of you, stream videos of you, read your emails, steal your files … at any moment they please. Hackers can also gain access to your device with extraordinary ease via apps, PDF files, multimedia messages and even emojis.An application called Metasploit on the ethical hacking platform Kali uses an Adobe Reader 9 (which over 60% of users still use) exploit to open a listener (rootkit) on the user’s computer. You alter the PDF with the program, send the user the malicious file, they open it, and hey presto – you have total control over their device remotely.Once a user opens this PDF file, the hacker can then: Install whatever software/app they like on the user’s device. Use a keylogger to grab all of their passwords. Steal all documents from the device. Take pictures and stream videos from their camera. Capture past or live audio from the microphone. Upload incriminating images/documents to their PC, and notify the police. And, if it’s not enough that your phone is tracking you – surveillance cameras in shops and streets are tracking you, too You might even be on this website, InSeCam, which allows ordinary people online to watch surveillance cameras free of charge. It even allows you to search cameras by location, city, time zone, device manufacturer, and specify whether you want to see a kitchen, bar, restaurant or bedroom. How would we feel if someone were standing outside our bedroom window, staring in through the curtains. The most common response would be to call the police. However, what do we do when everyone is being monitored? We shake our head, and try to forget it’s happening. Try to go on with our lives and ignore the constant nag that we’re being watched.If this article achieves anything, I hope it teaches you digital mindfulness. This is the act of being careful on the internet and taking precautionary measures to save yourself pain and potential ruin in the future, all because you didn’t install an antivirus or put a little bit of tape over your camera. A good first step to counteracting these issues is study what permissions an app asks for. Does an app like LinkedIn really require camera access? Does an app like Twitter really require microphone access? Before you download an app, check out the reviews and search for any negative information about it to prevent yourself future harm.Always make sure to cover your webcam with tape, and plug out your microphones when you’re done using them. You never know who’s watching, or what’s happening in the background on your device. It’s only paranoia until it’s too late. Dylan Curran is a data consultant and web developer who does extensive research into spreading technical awareness and improving digital etiquette Topics US news Opinion Internet Social media Hacking Digital media Smartphones comment

US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is in the hot seat. He is in the midst of his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, days of incessant grilling from senators on practically every major issue in American law and politics.Is he sweating? Surely.However, the federal judge also has a practical strategy for deflecting questions that the rest of us should really consider adopting.Often, the responses from Donald Trump’s nominee to a query are not an answer but a question to his interlocutor. It’s a smart tactical move that generally manages to not seem rude all while avoiding getting pinned down or providing an awkward response.Senator Patrick Leahy questioned Kavanaugh on Sept. 5 about a series of emails from 2002 that may reveal the nominee once used documents he knew were stolen from Democrats to prepare George W. Bush judicial nominees for confirmation hearings. That could provide evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself in his own 2004 and 2006 judicial confirmation hearings.The judge aimed to turn the tables on the senator.“Wouldn’t that surprise you that you got an email saying that they got that from somebody spying,” Leahy asked.“Well, is there such an email, senator?” Kavanaugh responded.Leahy didn’t know, it turns out, and had to ask committee chairman Chuck Grassley about the email’s existence. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh likely breathed a sigh of relief as he managed to turn a very awkward situation for himself into one that instead highlighted what Leahy didn’t know, along with Grassley’s reticence to share.Is it smart to deflect a question with another query? Don’t you know the benefits of this rhetorical tactic are numerous?It can keep a conversation going, put the onus back on the original interlocutor, provide a response while revealing little, and can even help you seem friendly, curious, and humble.You’re probably doing it already without even knowing it.As linguist Geoffreey Pullum explains in the Chronicle of Higher Education, answering a question with a question isn’t rude and is quite common—it’s often done indirectly, with a responsive statement inflected at the end to indicate a question. This rhetorical tactic highlights the assumptions and inferences inherent in a question—and puts the ball back in the questioner’s hands.“We do not always answer questions directly,” Pullum notes. “We do not always use declarative clauses to convey statements. We present each other with utterances of true (or sometimes false) statements, and with questions (sometimes rhetorical), as moves in a kind of subconscious inferencing game where the moves are aimed at capturing relevance.”It works for journalists, too. On Aug. 30, for example, host Dan Primack on the Axios podcast Pro Rata asked his guest Felix Salmon about Bernie Sanders’s plans to go after Amazon to pay for public benefits collected by the tech company’s employees.Why target Amazon, the host wondered. Salmon deftly turned the questioning on Primack, saying “for reasons you would know better than me, Amazon has become everyone’s favorite whipping boy.” He suggested, “Maybe you can tell me why that’s the case.” And so Primack did, sounding happy to provide his view.This move was masterful, as it accomplished a few things in one fell swoop: It managed to make Salmon sound less like an interviewee than someone having a conversation, a smart, curious, and humble participant. Plus he didn’t have to answer the question and could listen to Primack instead.In an essay in the August issue of The Philosopher’s Magazine—in which many questions are posed but no question marks are used—University of Edinburgh philosophy fellow Lani Watson argues that questions deserve more credit and consideration than they’ve gotten from linguists and philosophers.One of the most popular sentiments in Western philosophy is the 5th century assertion, made by Socrates before being condemned to death, that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” Socrates was willing to die to defend a life of philosophical inquiry. He developed an approach involving asking continual questions until a contradiction in logic was exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial assumption, now known as the Socratic Method. Yet, strangely, Socrates himself didn’t examine or seek to uncover the nature of questions, Watson notes.She argues that all of us are much more inclined to query than we recognize, and that questions can serve many functions we don’t even notice:We use questions for many different reasons: to find things out, to communicate, to show that we care, to express ourselves, to expose others, to debate, to inspire, to engage in small talk, sometimes just to be heard. Questions help us to achieve all these ends, and many others besides. In this sense, a question is like a tool that can be used for multiple purposes.It should come as no surprise that journalists and lawyers are good at answering questions with more of the same. Asking the right questions and getting answers is their business, after all. But unlike reporters, lawyers actually go through three years of training in law school, many of which use the Socratic Method.Students face relentless questioning meant to develop legal reasoning. Basically, by answering questions with questions professors develop students’ ability to query and to spot the problem in almost any logical proposition the opposition will present.“[T]he Socratic Method places in high relief the absence of easy answers to legal problems,” explains the University of Chicago Law School. Aspiring attorneys also study a number of query variations—issue framing, cross-examination, open-ended questioning, and more.So it’s no wonder then that Kavanaugh has a handle on questions for both response and deflection, to provide insight and avoid divulging information. “[Questions] are a subtle but indispensable tool, seamlessly weaving together our conversations, advancing our inquiries, and directing our attention to this or that,” Watson writes.Learning to use them effectively, like Kavanaugh, could be your key to deftly managing even the most awkward of social or professional situations.

Emergency call operators will soon have an easier time pinpointing the whereabouts of Android phone users.Google has struck a deal with T-Mobile US Inc. to pipe location data from cellphones with Android operating systems in the U.S. to emergency call centers, said Fiona Lee, who works on global partnerships for Android emergency location services.The...

说起今年九月的苹果发布会，很多人可能立马就想到了新推出的三款手机，尤其是亮点十足的 iPhone X。其实，为致敬 iPhone 问世十周年，苹果公司也更新了 Apple Watch 系列产品，推出了新品 Apple Watch Series 3。与前代产品相比，Apple Watch S3 最大的亮点在于支持移动蜂窝网络和 GPS 定位，并且可以在不与 iPhone 连接时独立接打电话和收发短信。此次功能的改进赢得了许多用户的青睐，佩戴上 Apple Watch 后只需要轻触表盘就能与他人联系，这在生活中十分方便，一定程度上减少了对手机的依赖。不过，除了为人们的生活带来便利，Apple Watch S3 似乎还能在危机时刻救人一命。根据每日邮报的报道，加州一位名叫 John Zilles 的冲浪爱好者在被困在海上之后，通过 Apple Watch S3 成功联系到了救生员，最终被安全带回了岸边。事情的经过是这样的：Zilles 原本在进行风筝冲浪，不小心便漂流到了离岸一千多米的海域，而且该海域时常有鲨鱼出没。出于安全考虑，他想马上逃离那片海域，可糟糕的是当天海风太弱，风筝无法起飞，这意味着他很难凭一己之力回到岸上。然而幸运的是，Zilles 发现了自己佩戴在手上的新款 Apple Watch，于是他就拨打电话向救生员求救，并联系了儿子说明了一下当时的情况。在联系上救生员之后，救援船只用了 15 分钟就根据手表的定位到达了 Zilles 的位置，最终救生员成功将 Zilles 救上了岸。值得一提的是，Zilles 后来还将自己被救的经历通过邮件的方式告诉了苹果首席执行官库克，库克也对此作了回复：「很高兴看到你安全到家。」如此看来，Apple Watch S3 真的可以在关键时刻救人。科技的魅力或许就在于为我们提供便利性服务，当身处险境时我们也能泰然处之。头图来源: Pexels

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds.